UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Michael 345]

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/31896/video-artifact

You don't get sarcasm do you?

 

[DaveC426913]

Not even squinting my eyes makes that elliptical wingless object look like a jet plane.

It's OK if that's sufficient for you. You're entitled to set your own bar as low as you want.

It's just that it's not sufficient for anyone who is interested in separating mundane things from any of the more interesting accounts.

 

[(Q)]

The length/width ratio of this object is well within the range of jets, especially accounting for the blurriness of the image.
And there is indication of something that could plausibly be wings.

Its probably a jet.

Anything better?

The really looks like a jet, you can barely see the wings and tail, but they are there.

 

[DaveC426913]

White or silver disc-shaped or tic tac-shaped object ...

Sure. Doesn't look like a plane, but looks like a tic-tac.



You're trolling.

 

[James R]

Let's see if Magical Realist is willing to admit that this one is more or less conclusively identified. My bet is that he'll ignore he debunking and move on to the next shiny pebble.

At least you've graduated past "the next shiny bauble." You might actually be evolving.

I was right!

You can't bring yourself to admit that yet another one of your alien spacecraft has been convincingly debunked.

Don't you see? The fact that you're unable to bring yourself to look at UFOs honestly is why you have zero credibility here.

Wings on planes are quite visible from the ground directly below the plane.

No. That lie won't work. You've been educated on this many times now. All this does is to make you look stupid.

That's what I can see on the video. I believe my eyes over you.

Of course you do. You won't admit that anything is not a UFO. You're psychologically blocked. The only remaining point of interest is: why? What trauma in your life led you to this point?

It's still an elliptical shaped wingless object and looks nothing like a jet.

You've been shown. But you can only deny. Why?

 

[Magical Realist]

The fact that you're unable to bring yourself to look at UFOs honestly is why you have zero credibility here.

All this does is to make you look stupid.

You're psychologically blocked.

What trauma in your life led you to this point?

And here we go with the pissy flames and ad homs again. Some people just never learn.

 

[DaveC426913]

And here we go with the pissy flames and ad homs again. Some people just never learn.

You could have forestalled any critical response by simply addressing the issue when asked several times. You did not. And you still are not. We know you too well. Don't complain if you are treated appropriately.

 

[Magical Realist]

You could have forestalled any critical response by simply addressing the issue. You did not. And you still are not.

Yeah..I'm like everybody else here. I respond whenever and however the hell I feel like it. And if you think that makes me deserve insults and flaming you haven't read sci forum rules lately,

 

[James R]

And here we go with the pissy flames and ad homs again.

No.

Look at what you ignored there (again), for example. The thing about another one of your UFO examples having been debunked. You're unable even to face that, so you pretend it didn't happen. Over and over again.

I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt when I tell you that your repeated refusal to face facts makes you look stupid. I'm just telling you a home truth. It can hurt to hear those, I understand.

The psychological block thing is a fair and evidence-based assessment based on your record of posts to this forum, not least in the current thread. I invite readers who are in doubt to read the thread and judge for themselves.

As for trauma, I can only ask. You are not obliged to answer, of course.

 

[Magical Realist]

Look at what you ignored there (again), for example. The thing about another one of your UFO examples having been debunked. You're unable even to face that, so you pretend it didn't happen. Over and over again.

Liar. I addressed the so-called debunk of a jet plane several times. Instead of wasting my time repeating them to you, I'll just repost the post links here.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-187#post-3621453

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-188#post-3621467

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-188#post-3621504

You are not obliged to answer, of course.

At this point you might as well get used to that.

 

[James R]

Liar. I addressed the so-called debunk of a jet plane several times.

As you're no doubt fully aware, I wasn't even talking about your latest jet plane video. I was referring to the comprehensively debunked case you posted three or four cases before the jet plane one. Since you spam so many of these things one after another, I'm not surprised you can't tell one from the next.

But let's talk about the jet plane one, if you like.

That has a case number at MUFON. You apparently need to be a member there to access the case status and details. Are you a member? What other information is there on that case, apart from the video?

You still seem to think that videos like this constitute convincing evidence for your little green men, despite having been told over and over again why they do not. So, have you got anything else other than the video for this one? Or is it just one more out-of-focus video of dubious provenance?

Let's look at what you say about it, next.

The object is wingless and without any visible means of propulsion. It's not a weather balloon, a bird, a cloud, or an airplane.

How did you establish that it is wingless?
And what investigations did you undertake to rule out weather balloons, birds, clouds and airplanes as possible explanations?

It looks like a plane to me, or some other aircraft. Could be a helicopter, perhaps. It's very fuzzy.

And while we're on the topic of how things look, are you aware that propulsion systems are not always visible in fuzzy video footage? I'm guessing that if you saw a video of a propeller-driven plane you'd say it had no visible means of propulsion, on the basis that you couldn't actually make out the propeller rotating. Don't you see how stupid you look when you claim that if you can't see the means of propulsion therefore it is alien technology?

. The fuselage of the jet is slender and long, like a tube which it in fact is. The object in the mufon video presents more like a disc or elliptic. The distortion around the object isn't wings either. It's an artifact of the video itself.

How did you establish that the distortion around the object isn't wings? What investigations did you undertake?
Are you an expert on video artifacts?

Tell me: is it possible for video artifacts to obscure wings that are actually there, or is it only possible for artifacts to produce the impression of wings when there actually aren't any?

Not even squinting my eyes makes that elliptical wingless object look like a jet plane.

Nothing would make it look like a plane to you, though, would it? It's confirmation bias, pure and simple. You're desperate to see little green men, so that's what you see. You don't want to see wings, so there can't be any wings, no matter what.

The fact remains that if it were a jet plane, it would look like a jet plane, just as most all jet planes do.

It does look like a jet plane.

The wings or rudder would be plainly visible, and it would be a long tube shape, not an elliptical disc.

Why would the wings or rudder always be plainly visible in an out-of-focus video filmed from a large distance away?

And it is a long tube shape.

There is also no sound of a flying jet on the video.

Do flying jets always make sounds in videos filmed from the ground? Yes or no? Try to be honest. I dare you.

And there were three of them seen by the eyewitnesses. Hence it is not a jet plane.

Everybody knows there can never be three planes in the sky.

 

[Magical Realist]

I was referring to the comprehensively debunked case you posted three or four cases before the jet plane one. Since you spam so many of these things one after another, I'm not surprised you can't tell one from the next.

No. It's just that you constantly bitch and whine about so many things I post that they all just kind of blur together after awhile. I'm still not even sure you know which case you were talking about there. 3 or 4 cases before the jet plane case? lol!

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

I note that you have completely failed to address most of my post and you have not answered any of the questions I put to you.

Why not? Don't you want to discuss the jet plane case? If not, why did you post it?

 

[James R]

Here are the questions from my previous post, conveniently extracted for your contemplation, MR:

• Are you a member at MUFON?
• What other information is at MUFON on that case, apart from the video?
• Have you got anything else other than the video?
• Is it just one more out-of-focus video of dubious provenance?
• How did you establish that it is wingless?
• What investigations did you undertake to rule out weather balloons, birds, clouds and airplanes as possible explanations?
• Are you aware that propulsion systems are not always visible in fuzzy video footage?
• Don't you see how stupid you look when you claim that if you can't see the means of propulsion therefore it is alien technology?
• How did you establish that the distortion around the object isn't wings? What investigations did you undertake?
• Are you an expert on video artifacts?
• Is it possible for video artifacts to obscure wings that are actually there, or is it only possible for artifacts to produce the impression of wings when there actually aren't any?
• Nothing would make it look like a plane to you, though, would it?
• Why would the wings or rudder always be plainly visible in an out-of-focus video filmed from a large distance away?
• Do flying jets always make sounds in videos filmed from the ground? Yes or no? Try to be honest. I dare you.
• Is it possible for more than one place to be in the sky at a time?

I'll keep a running tally of how many of these questions you manage to answer.

Current tally: zero out of 15.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:

I note that you have completely failed to address most of my post and you have not answered any of the questions I put to you.

Why not? Don't you want to discuss the jet plane case? If not, why did you post it?

You weren't here for that discussion. It's all over now. Crawl back down under your rock now..

 

[James R]

Zero out of 15. Keep trying! You can do it.

 

[James R]

Let me help you, MR. You can just confirm if my answers correctly represent what your answers to my questions would be. Here's what I assume you would answer. Let me know how I go.

• Are you a member at MUFON?

Yes [this is a guess.]

• What other information is at MUFON on that case, apart from the video?

[unknown. Guessing not a lot.]

• Have you got anything else other than the video?

No. Just saw the video on youtube and wanted to try spamming it to sciforums with the others.

• Is it just one more out-of-focus video of dubious provenance?

Yes. But look at all the thousands of other out-of-focus videos I have! What does that tell you?

• How did you establish that it is wingless?

Didn't do anything to establish that. Just believe it because it has to be aliens.

• What investigations did you undertake to rule out weather balloons, birds, clouds and airplanes as possible explanations?

None. Don't ever investigate any of these spammed UFO videos. Have no interest in doing that. Just a compulsive need to spam about the aliens.

• Are you aware that propulsion systems are not always visible in fuzzy video footage?

Of course, but very willing to assert, contrary to common sense, that propulsion systems are always visible, in denial of reality. Anything to make it aliens.

• Don't you see how stupid you look when you claim that if you can't see the means of propulsion therefore it is alien technology?

Yes, but will claim that never said it was aliens. Could be extradimensional time travelling ghost bigfoots.

• How did you establish that the distortion around the object isn't wings? What investigations did you undertake?

Didn't investigate anything. Never investigate anything. Just Believe.

• Are you an expert on video artifacts?

No, of course not. But willing to toss around the word "artifacts" if that means its aliens.

• Is it possible for video artifacts to obscure wings that are actually there, or is it only possible for artifacts to produce the impression of wings when there actually aren't any?

Won't admit any such possibility. Will assert that all videos show exactly what is there. Never mind that they are fuzzy and there are "artifacts". Forget artifacts! Who mentioned them? Me, what are you talking about? I've already forgotten about that. Here, I have another video of a different UFO.

• Nothing would make it look like a plane to you, though, would it?

Wouldn't accept it was a plane if it fell on me and the flight crew came out and serenaded me. No intention of admitting any such thing in my UFO thread, ever. What matters is the spam.

• Why would the wings or rudder always be plainly visible in an out-of-focus video filmed from a large distance away?

All videos are perfect, even the fuzzy ones. All eyewitnesses are perfect, even the crazy ones and the ones who are in it for the fame and the cash.

• Do flying jets always make sounds in videos filmed from the ground? Yes or no? Try to be honest. I dare you.

Look out, over there! What's that?! Oh, never mind. It was nothing. Here, look at this other UFO video!

• Is it possible for more than one plane to be in the sky at a time?

You must be mad. Next you'll be telling me that airports exist! Can't you see the three UFOs on the video? Three planes don't look like that! There's only one elliptical blob there, which means it's three alien craft! It's aliens, I tell you! Compelling!

 

[Magical Realist]

You certainly enjoy listening to yourself talk don't you? I have no intention of answering your Gestapo style interrogations. It's always the case with you that the more I answer your questions the more questions you'll ask, as if no answers will ever satisfy you. It's this erroneous assumption of yours that the more questions you can ask about a video the more questionable it becomes. Clearly that is wrong, as the video is the same as it ever was--a white or silver disc without wings flying across the sky. Nothing has changed about it. It is still not a jet plane for the reasons already stated. For any who have forgotten what the object looks like after this distracting litany of tangential irrelevancies, here it is again in all of it's strange and mysterious glory:

https://www.mufon.com/

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Could be extradimensional time travelling ghost bigfoots.

I stopped there. I started laughing.

:EDIT:

Not that I'm bit fascinated by, Magical Realist.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no intention of answering your Gestapo style interrogations.

Witness how hostile MR is about the concept of critical analysis, clarification and discussion about UFO reports.

Perhaps, if he doesn't want to answer questions about his assertions he'll consider retracting them.

It's always the case with you that the more I answer your questions the more questions you'll ask, as if no answers will ever satisfy you.

Imagine if MT asserted that 2+2=5, and others disagreed. Now imagine if he made the above complaint.
"How did you arrive at 5 by adding 2+2?"
"The more I answer your questions the more questions you'll ask."
"I have no intention of answering your Gestapo style interrogations."

It seems the only thing that will satisfy MR is if everyone accepted his assertions without question.

as the video is the same as it ever was--a white or silver disc without wings flying across the sky. Nothing has changed about it. It is still not a jet plane for the reasons already stated.

Notice how MR states what the video "is". Not his interpretation, not opinion - but "is" - in the face of alternatives that he doesn't even address.

MR, this has got to be the worst UFO analysis in the history of UFO analysis.

If you don't want to hear that, don't behave that way. That's on you.