UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist said:
Excellent points and analysis of skeptics' complaints. Totally demolishes Armored Skeptic's jet flare debunk of that Navy FLIR ufo video. Tks for posting.
Click to expand...
My pleasure. I assume Armored Skeptic has simply regurgitated Mick West's original 'debunking' exercise re Gimbal = jet exhaust IR flare, and rotation was 'camera limitations' etc.
But let's face it, the trolls here projecting that obnoxious behavior onto others aren't about to have an epiphany. Easier and more sadistic fun to keep ridiculing. Especially when 'follow the leader', who does all of that and more, rewards such behavior. But as Yazata has remarked, be careful with wording. Any slip is pounced upon and made the focus.
 
Magical Realist said:
In all those quotations not one mention was made of them being aliens. All that is put forward is the existence of these mysterious objects, wherever they may come from or whomever may be in control of them. But as usual it's always easier for a skeptic to attack the alien hypothesis, a classic case of constructing and debunking a strawman as a distraction from the incredibly solid evidence for ufos.
Click to expand...

Your post, this thread, #16.
 
Magical Realist said:
James R leads the pack in this tactic, always ridiculing and mocking the alien theory
Click to expand...
No one has ridiculed or mocked the alien theory.

Magical Realist said:
It's the one thing James has become a master at-- repeatedly refuting a theory that was never put forth in the first place.
Click to expand...
So ... it's ... not an alien theory.

Which is it?



Finally, can you stop channeling Trump nonsense and just stick to the discussion? Nothing you've said in that post is on-topic. And it's directly hypocritical to your post 3647.
 

Had to go all the way back to 2017 for those. I've learned since then that nobody knows who is behind ufos, other than that they aren't us. In fact I said as much a few posts after those you quoted.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-2#post-3480256

Last edited: Oct 12, 2017

Candidates for superintelligent non-human beings are very limited. Ironically the most scientific of them all is advanced extraterrestrials. Most scientists accept the possibility of their existence. Other possible beings can be posited, but then we get into non-human terrestrials, time travelers, interdimensionals, or even some sort of demonic entities or tricksters of a supernatural bent. I'm personally satisfied with not knowing the true identity of the ufonauts. The mystery of who or what they are and what they want remains a core issue in this phenomenon. But this does not detract in any way from the fact that they exist, are intelligent, and have capabilities far exceeding that of humans.
 
Magical Realist said:
Alien primarily refers to:
Click to expand...
Yes. Primarily.
Which makes it a non-exhaustive definition.
It can refer any group that is not "us".


Magical Realist said:
Other possible beings can be posited, but then we get into non-human terrestrials, time travelers, interdimensionals, or even some sort of demonic entities or tricksters of a supernatural bent.
Click to expand...
All of which must run the exact same gauntlet as aliens: - all require a fully-realized civilization with technology, motive etc. to be invented out of whole cloth - for no other purpose - and with no other independently-corroborative evidence - than explaining this phenomenon.

Which - as I said before - is what makes it highly suspect.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. Primarily.
Which makes it a non-exhaustive definition.



All of which must run the exact same gauntlet as aliens: - all require a fully-realized civilization with technology, motive etc. to be invented out of while cloth for no other purpose - and with no other independently-corroborative evidence - than explaining this phenomenon.

Which - as I said before - is what makes it highly suspect.
Click to expand...

But not aliens or extraterrestrial, which is what you were specifically bitching about. Are you done with this distracting away from ufo evidence?
 
Magical Realist said:
Are you done with this distracting away from ufo evidence?
Click to expand...
I'm explaining this evidence.

Hallucinations, hoaxes, conspiracies, misidentifications, are all factual phenomena with a preponderance of independently-corroborated evidence for their existence. All your examples are suspect because the suppositions are hugely far-reaching in their scope, while at the same time having nothing to back them up.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I'm explaining this evidence.

Hallucinations, hoaxes, conspiracies, misidentifications, are all factual phenomena with a preponderance of independently-corroborated evidence for their existence. All your examples are suspect because the suppositions are hugely far-reaching in their scope, while at the same time having nothing to back them up.
Click to expand...

Spare me the pretentious bullshit. There is nothing keeping a ufo sighting from being hugely far-reaching in its scope, particularly when they are backed up by multiple eyewitnesses, photo evidence, radar video, and/or trace evidence.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
There is nothing keeping a ufo sighting from being hugely far-reaching in its scope.
Click to expand...
I don't think you processed what I wrote.

The scope I refer to is that of the explanations you offer. All your explanations are predicated on their being an entire civilization of whatever kind of critter you posit - sufficiently capable in tech and resources as well as motivated - to build advanced craft and come visit us. That entire thing must be made out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of explaining this. There are many explanations that do not require the conjuring of an entire civilization for which there is no independently-corroborative evidence.

While 'hallucination and hoax and misidentification' to explain all these sightings is implausible, it is still way more plausible than the suggestions you offer - because it has the one thing your suggestions do not - a basis in fact that is independent of UFO sightings.


Magical Realist said:
Spare me the pretentious bullshit.
Click to expand...
It is revealing that you won't even maintain some civility when you get what you asked for in terms of concentrating on the topic at-hand with relevant discourse (even if you disagree with it). You said that's what you wanted, but perhaps you've realized that is not an arena you're comfortable in.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
I don't think you processed what I wrote.

The scope I refer to is that of the explanations you offer. All your explanations are predicated on their being an entire civilization of whatever kind of critter you posit - sufficiently capable in tech and resources as well as motivated - to build advanced craft and come visit us. That entire thing must be made out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of explaining this. There are many explanations that do not require the conjuring of an entire civilization for which there is no independently-corroborative evidence.

While 'hallucination and hoax and misidentification' to explain all these sightings is implausible, it is still way more plausible than the suggestions you offer - because it has the one thing your suggestions do not - a basis in fact that is independent of UFO sightings.



It is revealing that you won't even maintain some civility when you get what you asked for in terms of concentrating on the topic at-hand with relevant discourse (even if you disagree with it). You said that's what you wanted, but perhaps you've realized that is not an arena you're comfortable in.
Click to expand...

That would all be fine and dandy if we knew everything about everything. But we don't. We have no idea what exists out there beyond our knowledge and perception. And ufos may in all likelihood be linked to this inherent transcendence of reality.
 
Magical Realist said:
That would all be fine and dandy if we knew everything about everything. But we don't. We have no idea what exists out there beyond our knowledge and perception. And ufos may in all likelihood be linked to this inherent transcendence of reality.
Click to expand...
And yet there is no need to invent new things out of whole cloth - such as entire imaginary civilizations - just to explain something when we already have explanations based in a preponderance of fact.

It's a bit like inventing God the Creator of the Universe to explain all the weird animals we see on Earth. We have a perfectly good explanation based on fact. No need to invent an entire entity that created the universe.
 
Last edited:
And yet there is no need to invent new things out of whole cloth - such as entire imaginary civilizations - just to explain something when we already have explanations based in a preponderance of fact.
Click to expand...

Noone is inventing anything when they go strictly by the evidence. And when the evidence leads to ufos being what they are, that's where we have to go. There is no luxury of choosing one explanation out other less probable ones. We go by the evidence, as always with science.
 
Magical Realist said:
We have no idea what exists out there beyond our knowledge and perception
Click to expand...

Except YOU, and your ilk, pick a highly technological advanced life forms, when we only SUSPECT other life might be out there, let alone advanced

Play the numbers game. LIfe on a grain of sand on a Australian Beach has more chance of developing a transport means to visit a grain of sand in the Sahara

:)
 
Magical Realist said:
Noone is inventing anything when they go strictly by the evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes. Go strictly by the evidence.

No evidence of an entire civilization with the technology to make such craft, the motivation to come visit us or the ability to come from wherever this entire civilization might be hiding.

So don't make any of that implicit in any explanation. So: no non-human technology, no wingless craft, no physics-defying aerial ability.

It is fact that humans misidentify, misremember, misperceive, embellish, lie and conspire. These are facts.
 
Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for posting cut-and-pasted material from other sites with no analysis, commentary or questioning of his own. This is spam, and he has been warned about it before. Thus, he has been warned as a repeat offender.

Due to accumulated warning points, Magical Realist will not be here for the next month.
 
Almost a pity. I actually had him in civil debative discourse for a few posts.

And I really wanted to know what he thinks all this evidence is (his words) leads to.

Magical Realist said:
...when they go strictly by the evidence. And when the evidence leads to ufos being what they are, that's where we have to go.
Click to expand...

He clearly does have an hypothesis of his own. He's being super coy with it.

He criticizes others for offering explanations while he thinks they should remain unknown. Like the Reps, he doesn't seem to want a plausible, sincere exploration of the potential truth of this phenomenon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top