If the Gestapo had been interrogating people on an Internet forum, they wouldn't have been very scary.
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
You mean something like the cut and paste thread ''Quotes to remember'' or the ''The Post Whatever Thread'' where your not really expecting a reply.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
MR is making a case, and makes assertions he can't support. When questioned, he gets nasty. That's not at all the same.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
That's my point. He doesn't want anyone to question his cut and pastes. You just have to take what he says.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I supported all my assertions with a video of the object and photos of jet planes for comparison. And I didn't get nasty until attacked again by James R for no reason. That's always how it goes down here.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You double-down on declaring "it is not" a plane. That is an interpretation of a video - a bad one.
It was for excellent reason.
1] You make irrational, unsupportable claims on a science forum that requires rational analysis.
2] What you call support and rational analysis, isn't.
3] When these things are pointed out, you are unable to correct them.
4] You attack people and insult them as you see fit. Think of it as Quid Pro Quo.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I supported my claim with both video and photos. And James R is always the first to insult and flame. So my response is justified.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Let's get this straight.
- We're analyzing a 3rd-party video. It is not support for a claim about the video, since it is the video itself.
- You "supported" it with a video of .. what? You supported your assertion by providing your own video that corroborates the video in-question? We must have missed that.
- You've declared, several times, that what is in the video "is not a plane". (Unless you were there, you're seeing the same video we are.)
- You "supported" it with photos of ... things that don't look like what's in the video.
Let's just look that at last one for a second because it highlights an very misguided idea of what constitutes support.
I submit of a pic of something I claim to be a UFO.
I declare that I see no wings, therefore "it is not" an insect.
You say "It's hard to tell if it has wings or not, it is common to take pics of bugs where their wings are not visible. Here's an example:"
I respond with "wings on bugs are quite visible. See here":
And here's the kicker:
"Therefore," I declare, "since my (carefully chosen pic) shows wings, this is What Bugs Look Like."
Since the original pic "does not have wings", therefore "it is not" a bug.
That's valid logic by your account. (It isn't.)
And since you are OK flaming back, you don't get to double-dip by complaining. You are accepting the terms. Don't be a hypocrite.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I'm not making a claim about the video. I'm making a claim about the object seen and filmed. And the video supports my claim that it is a wingless unidentified object.
The counterpunch is justified, The initial unprovoked punch isn't. This is basic common sense.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Wouldst that you would apply half as much common sense to the actual topic as you do to the side-bickering. To-wit:
No problem. So is this.
And that's fine for where you set the bar.
It's just that very few people who actually want to get to the bottom of UFOs would accept that the above picture "is" a UFO because it "doesn't have" wings.
So if you don't mind, we'd like to get on with that business, your "ground-level bar" aside.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Argumentum ad populum. Fewer people still who want to know about ufos would posit wings where there is no evidence for them.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Indeed.
Everything is a UFO - if you're brave enough.
You're acknowledging - by the criteria you have previously set - that this is a UFO:
It is
therefore it is a UFO.
Oh - it's also tic-tac-shaped - so that's supporting evidence.
So, what we'll do - to distinguish different levels of stringency in qualifying criteria - is call the above a Magical Realist-Class UFO.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I need evidence that it is flying and a clearer focus of it before calling it a ufo.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It assuredly flies. Or do you want to challenge that?
The video's poor-quality was sufficient for you to label what it can't be, and that it "does not have wings". Why do you change your standard?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I'll need evidence that it is flying in that photo. Also need clearer focus to rule out other things.
The video was good enough quality to see wings if it had any. It does not. Therefore it is not a jet plane.
Baloney. The vast majority of pics and vids you provide are well out of focus and you still call them ufo's.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Everything looks out of focus when magnified. It looks normal in the video.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is not magnified. It is a screen shot from the full-sized video. This is the actual detail contained in the video - and no more.
You looked at the images and thought (wrongly) that there was enough detail to conclude that it does not have wings and that it can't be a plane.
Now you're acknowledging there isn't. Like we've been telling you all along. First politely - then insistently - as you doubled down on your error.
Presumably you'll be issuing an apology.