UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

DaveC426913 said:
Unexplained phenomena is not a place for the guileless! You're here arguing (emotionally I might add) about unexplained phenomena, and yet you freely - and without and ounce of shame - that you take TV shows at face-value - in fact are quite adamant about it.

And now, here, you're compounding the problem. This time, you read that some guy said "rubber and tinfoil and paper" and you are prepared to dismiss the whole account without even considering the rather certain likelihood that the layperson was simply describing what he saw superficially. (What - it can't be alien unless it's levitating and glowing green?? Aliens can't have aluminum?) **

That's just not how rational analysis is done.

You're actually hurting your own cause by demonstrating just how bad typical UFO buffs are at rational analysis.


** Oh my God. The UFO buffs here are so bad at arguing their case that they need us skeptics to step in and act as Devil's Advocate to argue their case for them!! :eek:
Click to expand...
Your continued harassment with empty pseudo-debunking arguments just signals your personal grudge with me. I can only speculate it stems from years of giving you a bloody nose when exposing your poor grasp of basic physics. And exposing your repeatedly going cap-in-hand to PhysicsForums for answers you couldn't personally provide to a poster here, but never acknowledging that debt when coming back with 'your' answers. Get over it. Move on.
 
Q-reeus said:
...your personal grudge with me.
Click to expand...
It's not a personal grudge, silly. This is a discussion. You post ideas, they get challenged.

If you don't want to be challenged, don't post stuff that's poorly thought through.

If you don't want your credibility questioned, don't tell us your source material is TV shows on UFOs.

If you don't want to get into a personal argument, stop making every single one of your posts a personal attack. That's hypocrisy.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It's not a personal grudge, silly. This is a discussion. You post ideas, they get challenged.

If you don't want to be challenged, don't post stuff that's poorly thought through.

If you don't want your credibility questioned, don't tell us your source material is TV shows on UFOs.

If you don't want to get into a personal argument, stop making every single one of your posts a personal attack. That's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Returning your own phony argumentation tactic: You ASSUME those TV show/YouTube vids are untrustworthy or downright misleading.

You also conveniently forgot that I and MR have referenced to plenty of written articles. I doubt you have studied more than a small fraction of either. Better in your mind to just adopt an antagonistic, derisory posture. Somehow it gives you and ilk a buzz of some kind. Sad. Time to cease this ping pong spat and get back to discussing the thread topic. One day to go for The Big Reveal.
 
Q-reeus said:
You ASSUME those TV show/YouTube vids are untrustworthy or downright misleading.
Click to expand...
They are. Sci-fi 'documentaries' have a well-established half-century history of failing to be objective. They are narratives (i.e. they're weaving cherry-picked facts into a story - the one they want to tell).

Categorically, the medium cannot be trusted as a source of objectivity. They are designed to be entertainment. And TV is the better of the two. YouTube should never be trusted.

It is the prudent stance to question the veracity of known, unreliable media.

At the very least, you must admit that a TV show or YouTube video is far from the raw facts - at least third- or fourth-hand, if not more - you simply don't know.

Why trust something that is piped into your living room when the facts could be found second-hand with at least a half-assed bit of work on your part? You're being lazy in your ersatz quest for truth. But it's good enough for you because it validates your belief.


So, let's get back to some trustworthy facts shall we? If y'all want to talk sci-fi channel alien-autopsies, maybe start a new thread. TV shows and Youtube video do not qualify as in defense of aliens.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Sci-fi documentaries have a well-established half-century history of failing to be objective. Categorically, the medium cannot be trusted as a source of objectivity.
Click to expand...
[THIS RESPONSE WAS PREPARED BEFORE YOU HEAVILY EDITED A SHORT WHILE AGO.] So you categorize any documentary on UFOs as Sci-Fi?! Well that really is just silly.
It is merely a prudent stance to question the veracity of a known unreliable medium.
Click to expand...
It's NOT prudent to make carte blanche blanket assertions.
You, on the other hand, assume they are trustworthy. This is naive.
Click to expand...
Wrong - my way of doing things is to judge on a case-by-case basis. THAT is being prudent.
As I said, the study of unexplained phenomena is not the place for the guileless. If you think it is, I've got some land to sell you in Florida.
Click to expand...
Poor choice of word you keep repeating - guileless. You have it all backwards, and no doubt meant naive. Primary meaning of guileless is obviously to be without guile i.e. lack of deceitfulness. Thanks for the compliment. Too bad I can't honestly return that to you.
 
Q-reeus said:
Wrong - my way of doing things is to judge on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...
Then look at the cases, not TV shows.

I would have expected better from you, but you are doubling down on defending them. That puts your bar for gullibility as low as, if not lower than, MR's.

And that's fine - for you, but some of us skeptics are a little more motivated to seek truth than watching the Syfy channel.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Then look at the cases, not TV shows.

I would have expected better from you, but you are doubling down on defending them. That puts your bar for gullibility as low as, if not lower than, MR's.

And that's fine - for you, but some of us skeptics are a little more motivated to seek truth than watching the Syfy channel.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I cannot stop your serial posting of spiteful nonsense. As mentioned earlier, it evidently gives you some kind of buzz. Addictions like that can be cured. But you have to acknowledge the condition first.
 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15295...-congress-national-security-risk-latest-news/
That report is still pre-public release event, but is so deja vu. Remember the infamous 'missile gap' Pentagon hype of the early 1960s? Now the justification for ever more spending on by far the largest military budget in world history relies in part on 'potential leap-frog advances' in adversaries (read China/Russia) aerospace technologies. Gosh - only mega-funding can correct this game-changing possibility!!!! Except, 3rd-option proponents like myself can readily point to e.g. the July 1952 Washington flap incidents as evidence 'game-changing' 'technology' was reliably recorded well before such 'game-changing' 'technology' could have feasibly existed - terrestrial friend or foe. Such inconvenient intrusions are easily brushed aside and outright ignored by real-politic MIC hustlers and payed-for politicians however.
 
The officially released 9-page unclassified Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-6ozhNRgOy-KTey3sPjfH6WXCHpSWtc/view

Also linked to within:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-ufo-report-released-many-uap-cases-remain-unexplained/

As expected very little meat on the bone. A key point being an admission that out of 144 investigated reports collected between 2004 and (early part of) 2021, just one - a large deflating balloon, was positively ID'd as obviously mundane. With 18 having flight characteristics of a 'highly unusual nature' probably a guarded way of saying exhibiting extreme accelerations and/or hypersonic speeds without accompanying sonic booms. Nothing new just a commitment to expanding the dragnet and ongoing investigations i.e stamp-collecting exercises. Just like for the last 70+ years. Yawn.
 
Magical Realist said:
Yeah...somewhat anticlimactic as expected. They are as stumped as we are about what these things are.
Click to expand...
Late addition to report just released: APPENDIX C.
Ufo A.jpg


And don't forget the ''ufonauts''....

''and that ufonauts manifest consistently as if they are from another world.''
'magical realist said:
But we do know that ghosts manifest consistently as if they are the spirits of deceased persons,and that ufonauts manifest consistently as if they are from another world.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
foghorn said:
Late addition to report just released: APPENDIX C.
View attachment 4317


And don't forget the ''ufonauts''....

''and that ufonauts manifest consistently as if they are from another world.''
Click to expand...

Like I've said before troll, I stand by all those statements. Speculation always has its place, but in the end nobody really knows what ufos are until they decide to reveal themselves.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Like I've said before troll, I stand by all those statements. Speculation always has its place, but in the end nobody really knows what ufos are until they decide to reveal themselves.
Click to expand...
And I will add IF they ever decide to do so. Which on past experience seems highly unlikely. Teasing seems to be their main aim, with occasional close encounters rarely pleasant for the humans involved .
 
Magical Realist said:
I stand by all those statements. Speculation always has its place, but in the end nobody really knows what ufos are until they decide to reveal themselves.
Click to expand...

So, ''nobody really knows what ufos are'', but Magical Realist knows ufos have the ability to ''decide'' whether to reveal themselves or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top