UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I simply ask that you stick to terms that you're familiar with, so as to not obstruct constructive debate. That's a valid point-of-order.
Ha ha ha ha. You're funny at times, without meaning to be.
The real problem is that you have no good answers to my questions. So all we get is this playground name-calling stuff from you as you try to compensate.
You missed the point, again. Let me explain. It is ironic and hypocritical that you complain about my "MO" being stale and predictable by responding with something stale and predictable yourself.
I guess one possible reading of your latest comment is that you recognise that your own MO is stale and predictable, and you're proud of that. But that seems much less likely than the alternative explanation: that you just didn't spot my subtle allusion to the irony and hypocrisy in your post. I must remember in future to spell things out for you explicitly.
The pointless interlude started with your post #5051. My post #5050, to which you had no real reply, was completely on point for this discussion thread.
Why not just admit your likely true aim with such disingenuous BS - provoke an indignant response heated enough to nominally justify a long hoped for life ban.
No sleep lost in fearful anticipation of that outcome, believe it or not.
Years of having your inflated god-complex ego pricked combined with my disdain for reverential bowing and scraping have made it all very personal and bitter. You don't even try to disguise it now.
The festering pimple needs to be lanced sometime somehow I guess. Que sera sera.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah. OK this makes sense now. For quite some time Q has had no interest in the discussion itself, using it instead as a platform to toss insults.
Now it makes sense why. He wants to martyr himself on the cross of banning.
Q: you can choose to simply not return. It's functionality the same as banning - except it won't stroke your ego.
Anyway, this is boring. Post some fresh on-topic stuff or step back.
Another awesome powers mind reader just knows I'm really out to be a martyr - but for what cause exactly? I don't know, but by gum DaveC sure seems to. Yet more Brownie points accrued for the eager to please right-hand-man at James R's side!Ah. OK this makes sense now. For quite some time Q has had no interest in the discussion itself, using it instead as a platform to toss insults.
Now it makes sense why. He wants to martyr himself on the cross of banning.
Q: you can choose to simply not return. It's functionality the same as banning - except it won't stroke your ego.
Anyway, this is boring. Post some fresh on-topic stuff or step back.
I don't want to see you banned, Q-reeus. You're way too much fun.
I mean, here you are, a grown man. You know some science, it seems. And yet at the same time you believe all kinds of bizarre shit. You think the world is haunted by ghosts, of all things. It's fairies at the bottom of the garden stuff. It's all just a fantasy. Too much TV, maybe?
On the other hand, you have the classic conspiracy theory mindset, so that might be part of what's preventing you from joining the adult population. Anybody or anything perceived as an "authority" is to be distrusted; the default assumption is that "They" are lying to you most, if not all, of the time.
At the bottom of it all is fear. You're afraid of things you can't control and of things you don't understand. You're far from alone, especially in the current US climate. There are media outlets dedicated to stoking your fears. You get sucked in and suddenly, here you are, living a paranoid existence, always looking over your shoulder in case the bogeyman's coming for you.
What's sad is that, in the process, you're willing to be suckered over and over again, because you've surrendered your willingness to think critically about your world. You're dug in so deep that the fantasies and paranoia are now your internalised truths.
In fear, you've retreated into a fantasy world of your own, albeit one shared and coddled by a largish fringe industry constantly feeding you misinformation.
I'm trying to help you, Q-reeus. You don't have to turn into Magical Realist or Fat Freddy, wasting precious years of your life on bullshit.
And if the 'therapist' keeps making inaccurate assertions e.g. that I believe in ghosts i.e. manifested souls of the departed - as per excerpt from #5068:
"You think the world is haunted by ghosts, of all things."
, when on numerous occasions here my disbelief or more cautiously, severe doubt in such, has been clearly stated, said therapist should own up to serial misrepresentation, and immediately seek a new vocation.
Other distortions/lies there e.g. 'crazed conspiracy theorist' populist trope cleverly plays to the prevailing Marxist sentiment this site. As i have silenced someone else on that recently - be grateful intelligence agencies pay good money to analysts who are required to engage in conspiracy theorizing full time. An inconvenient fact for some who won't stop chanting 'conspiracy theorist!' coz it guarantees a sympathetic chorus.
Anyway must hunt for some fresh actual UFO material. Just to get some unbalanced loony balance back into this thread.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The 5 extraordinary observables of ufos/uaps..Former Pentagon investigator Hector Elizondo lists and describes the 5 extraordinary traits ufos have been witnessed exhibiting.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Thank you MR for digging this up. This is an excellent example of why one should not trust sci-fi docs they see on the History Channel or SyFy channel or wherever one encounters them. Q-reeus will learn a lot from this.
This post is not about debunking UFOS; it is about the crappiness of TV shows - and especially Youtube shows - designed to suck in the credulous - and their damaging effect on the UFO phenomenon and thus their validity as reference material in a thread about UFOs.
The 3-ish minute video lists Five Observables that are associated - ostenisbly by the Pentagon - with UFOs. It has a voice-over narrator and it features speaker Hector Elizondo - whose words are heavily edited to take them out of context - and put in new visual contexts to imply things not actually said explicitly. I place no fault or ill-will upon either Elizondo or the Pentagon - this manipulation is laid entirely at the foot of the producers of the show - be it the TV production or the YouTube production.
0:30: Observable 1: Positive lift or Anti-gravity:
The first thing they do is try to redefine what these words mean.
Voice-over: "Positive lift or Anti-gravity - the ability to fly without apparent means of propulsion or lift".
Well which is it? A balloon flies by means of positive lift, but that's not exactly magic, and it has nothing to do with anti-gravity.
0:35: Elizondo: "... if you want defy the effects of ... gravity, the way to do it is either a propeller ... jet engine ... or a chemical explosion."
The implication of "the way to do it is..." and" "either/or/or" is that these three mechanisms cover the gamut of options, manipulating credulous audience members into thinking the only thing left must be "antigravity".
It isn't.
The producers would have you believe that the Elizondo has forgotten about balloons and other types of airborne devices. Just because it is not obvious - especially from a great distance - how something is staying in the air does not mean "non-terrestrial craft".
This is not to suggest that UFOs are flying balloons - that's not the point here. The point here is that this video is utter crap at making any rational, honest or truthful claim. It is deliberately and brazenly manipulating the facts - and the speaker - to make its narrative.
1:05: Observable 2: Instantaneous Acceleration
1:10 Elizondo: "We're seeing objects that are doing 50, 100-200+ g-forces. Materials just aren't designed to withstand those forces."
Demonstrably false.
A cellphone, falling from a 4 foot height and hitting the ground might experience anywhere between 400 and 4000gs and survive. Look it up.
Q: Why make stuff up if they don't have to? A: Because they have to.
1:25: Observable 3: Hypersonic Velocity
1:40 Elizondo: "Here's an object that's doing well in advance of those speeds (5x speed of sound, 3,000 or 4,000 mph potentially 8, 9, 10,000mph)"
Visual: A bird zooming over water.
This is straight manipulation of context. The speaker's word have been juxtaposed with something he is not talking about, He actually says "HERE is an object..." yet the object being shown has elsewhere been analyzed to be doing no more than 50mph.
1:52: Observable 4: Low Observability
Note: Actually only addresses visibility to *radar*.
Splicing and concatenating speaker's words. The speakers words are shuffled so as to say something the speaker didn't say.
2:02 Elizondo: "And yet when you look at it with the naked eye ... [cut, masked with static FX] ... it's opaque, kind of blurry, not well-defined"
2:09 Elizondo: "Other times it looks like it jamming ... [really bad cut] .... some of the best radar systems we have in our inventory!"
This last one is especially obvious, and very amateur. The two cuts of audio are from totally different parts of Elizondo' speech with a totally different tone. Note the is also a discontinuity in the video here - which is necessary to further disguise the cut. Elizondo did not say those two things contiguously.
2:13: Observable 5. Trans -medium travel
2:30 Elizondo: "...and yet here is an object that can operate in atmo, in space and even under water"
"Here?" Where? The only object seen in that segment is and F-15 Eagle.
No elaboration given. No to mention that there is certainly no reports anywhere of any object doing all three.
2:56 Elizondo: "...and yet here we have things doing all five."
No we don't.
Nowhere in the annuls of UFO reports is a single object doing all five. It's manipulation by implication. It's like saying "We've seen mammals hanging from their feet in caves. We've seen mammals taking down antelope. We've seen mammals swimming in the ocean. And yet here we have things doing all three."
No we don't.
Don't fall for this. It's entertainment, not documentary. It belongs in this thread about as much as Loony Toons' Marvin the Martian.
And it hurts the case for UFOs. If the producers of these shows had the slightest shred of compelling evidence, why wouldn't they put that front-and-centre, instead of torturing the words and the video into submission to make such a dishonest piece of trash? A: Because it works on the credulous and the naive.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..apparently it's about ad homing a mere television program for presenting the 5 undeniable observables of ufos that Hector Elizondo/the Pentagon came up with because you can't debunk them. Hence the diversionary and exaggerated tone of righteous indignation aimed at television shows in general. "My my..what a devious and deceptive bunch of cons they are! It's just entertainment folks! Don't watch it! Nothing to see here!"
I say watch the video yourself and calmly make your own judgment. You don't need anybody to hysterically "interpret" it for you.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I totally agree. Y'all should watch it.
As the first to make the suggestion, MR, you get first dibs. What is your judgment of the video?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Also, my advice to Q-reeus has to extend to you. Avoid using words whose meaning you don't understand.
Though I confess, I'm kind of morbidly curious as to what you do think an ad hom is.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Like I said, I'll leave it up to others to make up their own minds. Unlike you, I have no interest nor agenda in telling people what they are seeing and hearing with their own eyes and ears.
Last edited:
Hey super sleuth - your misplaced crowing conveniently left out Elizondo's 0:56-1:03 '...and maneuver in ways that are completely contrary to anything that we would presume should be able to fly'. Guess what super sleuth - balloons don't fit that bit at all. Only powered craft do. Hence balloons not relevant. Bummer!
Super sleuth DaveC misleads again. The highly nonuniform stresses induced in a falling mobile will be a sensitive function of the surface hardness (e.g. tile vs carpet) and strike orientation of the phone. Common sense! More importantly:
At around a mere 16 g or so a modern fighter jet's wings will tear off. Here's news for you DaveC - 'g forces' meaning acceleration level, are only one factor determining to the stresses induced in a given object. It's the latter that counts. Size also matters. See e.g. https://www.dinox.org/sizelimit.html
Scale effect. Now don't forget to add this lesson to your database collection of factoids - and make sure to consult it in future so as to not embarrass yourself on it again.
It's true the GoFast incident was likely misidentification based on parallax error, but that is the sole example of such and e.g. tic tac encounters were high reliability recalibrated AEGIS radar recorded as moving at Mach 30+ speeds. NO SONIC BOOMS. See Kevin Day's testimony in various online recorded interviews. Definitely not ordinary physical objects.
Those with a materialist commitment cannot sensibly process that situation. Hence ridiculous cop-outs and silly deflection tactics.
Elizondo apparently blundered there - the publicly released footage referred to had been deliberately degraded, as testified to by crew/ex-crew re 2004 Nimitz and 2015 Eisenhower incidents.
Factuality of claim not contiguous speech or not is what's relevant. There is testimony from the FA18 pilots involved that radar lock was on specific occasions being jammed by the UFOs. Toying with mere humans.
Debatable. 2004 Nimitz group encountered tic tacs were radar detected by Princeton at 80000 ft altitude - too high for any conventional jet aircraft - then various other altitudes including ~ 50 ft then apparently underwater. Sonar detection by submarine was first reported then withdrawn but why is unclear. Maybe confusion on the part of a whistleblower but maybe a case of actual US naval capabilities being a jealously guarded secret. Hence a likely and not unprecedented false official report.
Five then back to three? Anyway, if you bothered to check all the whistleblower accounts of 2004 Nimitz group incidents, yes Elizondo is correct - the tic tacs exhibited all five characteristics, though not all at the same time.
Still harping on about debatable application of a dictionary definition of a topic unrelated to UFOs. Methinks your cupboard is bare, and the barrel has been scraped clean. Sad.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Well, unless it's ghosts or UFOs, in which case, you beat them with a baseball bat of your zany perceptual hallucinations...
Last edited: