UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

And a hypocrite.

Magical Realist said:
They are simply dismissed as if they never happened, and the pilot is dismissed as delusional or in the very least incompetent. It's the same thing they did with Commander Fravor and the 40 ft long tic tac. The pilot is "seeing things"---a balloon or a bird. Nothing extraordinary to see here. Move along folks.
Click to expand...

You bandy the word "liar" around because it means nothing to you.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Since you brought it up, the only member I've actually seen use the phrase "nothing to see, move along" is MR
Click to expand...

You forgot me! I used it too!

To make it memorable, I posted it (post # 5614) along with a picture of Inspector Drebin from Police Squad telling onlookers, "Move along, nothing to see here!" while all hell breaks loose behind him.

iu
 
Magical Realist said:
Really? Then quote where I actually used that phrase or admit your're lying.
Click to expand...
I remember a time when you posted this, but it wasn't out of the blue. It was likely a sarcastic response to being told repeatedly that the tic tac flying object could have been a weather balloon. lol!!
 
Omg I was right, I was just guessing from memory. ''Balloon...'' is mentioned above, then MR's response.

I might play the lottery tonight. :cool:
 
Yazata said:
It's useful to inquire into what the slogan means, into what it is assuming, and into what rhetorical purposes those who use it are hoping to achieve.
Click to expand...
Beyond the obvious, I disagree. It's dragging the thread, even now, into philosophy, when this thread is about UFOs! ;) The last thing it needs is to be dragged into anything remotely interesting like matters of epistemology!
The word 'extraordinary' is being used on both sides: 'extraordinary claims' and 'extraordinary evidence'. So the first order of business would seem to be to clarify how the word 'extraordinary' is being used.

And the two sides are linked by the word 'require'. Which naturally raises the question: Required in order to achieve what?
Click to expand...
To the first: relatively, on a personal level. I.e. if the claim ranks 1 then the evidence should rank 1; if the claim ranks 10 then the evidence likewise. Obviously what one person considers a 1 another might consider at a different level, depending on their experiences, knowledge etc.
To the second: to be convinced. That much should be fairly uncontentious, I'd have thought.
Maybe my misgivings are related to how this idea seems to slippy-slide between a descriptive account of one's own state of credulity: 'I haven't seen anything that convinces me yet'...

and an attempt to restate that description of a personal mental state as if it was a prescriptive epistemological principle: 'and nobody else should be convinced either (because I'm not) ' .
Click to expand...
Meh. It's certainly the first and undoubtedly an element of the second, but I'm not sure anyone is considering prescriptive. It's on a par with Occam's razor. It doesnt' lead to the truth but it's a damn fine means of focussing one's thinking.
If it's something subjective and isn't an objective matter, then how can it serve as a general epistemological principle?
Click to expand...
Because it generally works. It's as objective as rationality itself.
The only UFO cases that I've expressed any opinions about in this thread are the 'tic tacs'. And the only (very tentative) conclusions that I've drawn from them is that something extraordinary seems to have been happening and I don't know what it was. Where 'extraordinary' is defined as 'extra ordinary' as in something not ordinarily experienced. In this case not ordinarily experienced not only by me (who has only read fragmentary accounts about these events) but by those actually there, highly experienced radar operators and naval aviators. I'm also influenced by the 'UAP Preliminary Assessment' that has been made public, which seems to pretty much agree with my own view in italics up above.
Click to expand...
Which is to conclude "we don't know". I.e. they're making no claim. No problem with that.
I'm not sure how the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' maxim even applies in this instance. What we seem to be starting with here is an initial description of 'extraordinary evidence'. It isn't some extraordinary claim in need of evidence, it's a description of the evidence itelf. The rhetorical response from the "skeptics" seems to be to argue that a claim of 'extraordinary evidence' is indeed an 'extraordinary claim' which in turn requires extraordinary evidence. Which would threaten to turn the maxim: 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' into an infinite regress, and perhaps into an argument that 'extraordinary claims' must never be accepted as true.
Click to expand...
If you're not making a claim then it doesn't apply. If you're assessing the claim: "it's aliens!" then how extraordinary do you consider that claim to be? Is the evidence as extraordinary as the claim? Ultimately: are you convinced of the claim by the evidence?

But bear in mind that the adage is not intended as anything other than a guide to how to think about evidence in relation to the claim being made. It is similar to Occam's razor. The philosophy of it may be interesting in and of itself, but in context here it seems, to me at least, serious overanalysis when the only important thing is whether the intent is communicated. And I think it is. No more thus need be said about it. ;)

But I look forward, as ever, to your joyful disagreement. ;)
 
Magical Realist said:
Nice try. I was sarcastically quoting skeptics saying it. Again, you lie.
Click to expand...
You used that phrase. You called me a liar when I said so. So I quoted you. Tell SciFo its quote feature is a liar.

Reported for lying, then doubling down with more, and then tripling down when shown in black and white with your own words you were wrong. This is beneath even you. Shame.
 
Magical Realist said:
...quote where I actually used that phrase...
Click to expand...

Magical Realist said:
Nothing extraordinary to see here. Move along folks.
Click to expand...

Magical Realist said:
...nothing to see here move along...
Click to expand...

Magical Realist said:
...Nothing to see here folks! Move along...
Click to expand...


Magical Realist said:
... your're lying.
Click to expand...

Magical Realist said:
...you're lying.
Click to expand...

Magical Realist said:
...Again, you lie.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It is appropriate behaviour not to tell lies. If, however, you do tell lies and are caught out, you should at least have the decency to apologise for your poor behaviour.
Reported for lying, then doubling down with more, and then tripling down when shown in black and white with your own words you were wrong.
Click to expand...

LOL! You have a history of overreporting my posts for contrived infractions. I'd be careful if I were you. You could be construed as becoming a drain on the moderators' time and energy.
 
Let’s change the subject… ;)

So, are there any other similar sightings like the tic tac object that we know of?
 
wegs said:
Let’s change the subject… ;)

So, are there any other similar sightings like the tic tac object that we know of?
Click to expand...

You mean besides the dozens of cases posted in this thread already? Yes..but when I bring up new cases I am usually flamed for changing the subject.
 
Magical Realist said:
You mean besides the dozens of cases posted in this thread already? Yes..but when I bring up new cases I am usually flamed for changing the subject.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I wouldn't say dozens; many of those weren't in the same league as the tic tac video (my opinion) - in terms of coming away not knowing what they could be. Those could be explained away once we started digging further into the possible explanations.

Would you believe that the tic tac object is that of a ''secret'' military aircraft? (US or foreign)
 
wegs said:
Hmm, I wouldn't say dozens; many of those weren't in the same league as the tic tac video (my opinion) - in terms of coming away not knowing what they could be. Those could be explained away once we started digging further into the possible explanations.

Would you believe that the tic tac object is that of a ''secret'' military aircraft? (US or foreign)
Click to expand...

No..It's doubtful that the military has any technology advanced enough to perform the extraordinary maneuvers witnessed of the tic tac. It would definitely surprise me if it did at least..
 
^ Not sure it can be claimed that it "dissapeared into ocean" but rather, as the reporter said, they lost track when it went behind a hill. Also, the analysis someone did of comparison to an LED kite is reasonable. I mean, it doesn't move much like the specific LED kites he did the direct comparison with, but it seems sufficient to suggest something similar might be the cause. Possibly nighttime paragliding? Sure, something was in the sky that was unusual (in the "you don't see that every day" kind of unusual) and maybe we'll never know for sure, but looks to be in the LED family for me.

Plus, it's quit scary what kites can be made to look like with LEDs....
Just another thing that supposed evidence for alien visitation will have to contend with. ;)
 
Why would there be an non-skeptics? Or rather, what is the mindset that would make one a non-skeptic (in general).

I understand that if you saw a space ship, went inside, took it for a spin, then you wouldn't be skeptical as to the existence of that space ship but since that isn't the case how to come to have no skepticism in your life about anything? Is there really such a person?

How could anyone not be skeptical about aliens from space? :)

I don't personally see anything remarkable about the tic tac video either.
 
We’ve (somewhat) moved past space aliens now, Seattle. A few pages back, we were discussing that these UAP’s could have mundane, yet unusual explanations. Mundane being “of this world,” yet still something we’ve never witnessed or experienced, like an advanced form of technology or secret military aircraft of some type. Not saying we’ve concluded that’s what the tic tac object was but just giving an example of something mundane, yet …extraordinary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top