I never said they were evidence of ETs. I maintain that and remain so to this very day.
Talk about the obvious
Not hard to maintain they are evidence of UAPs, when they appear in most print as such
I never said they were evidence of ETs. I maintain that and remain so to this very day.
Talk about the obvious
Not hard to maintain they are evidence of UAPs, when they appear in most print as such
![]()
The question is: Can we live with the existence of UNIDENTIFIED aerial phenomena? Mysterious objects that currently reveal nothing as to their own nature or origin?
What??Any which becomes identified, can we make it unidentifiable sooner?
It’s my theory because MR isn’t the only one in this thread who has been “scolded” for his “flawed thinking” on this topic. Sarkus and Yazata have been targeted, too. So, that tells me, it’s the sub-forum where it’s posted that’s part of this - that there’s already a bias that members have when they decide to post in this section.
What??
Wanna take another crack at that question?
Did you mean 'we find a reported UFO turns out to be a weather balloon'?Sure
We find weather balloons turn out to be a reported UFO
The launches aren't a problem. Weather balloons are unpredictable. You can't proactively warn everyone.What about more frequent radio announcements of their launches?
Not a lot of cell towers at 20 miles altitude.A broadcast signal from the balloon itself with a mobile phone app able to pick up said signal?
Means it has been launched without authorisation and without equipment to broadcast its positionDid you mean 'we find a reported UFO turns out to be a weather balloon'?
Because a weather balloon turning out to be a UFO would be weird.
Disagree. Everyone CAN be informed of launchesThe launches aren't a problem. Weather balloons are unpredictable. You can't proactively warn everyone.
Line of sight transmitters can have enough power to reach ground from 33 kilometresNot a lot of cell towers at 20 miles altitude.
How do you know the eyewitnesses are totally credible?
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you're well enough to leave soon.Have been in Hospital over 2 months - fractured head of femur and pelvis - which has not been cause of extended stay
Which problem you had with me?But in a effort to diagnose problem of nervousness I was subjected to a brain scan. During chat with hospital psychologist I mentioned the problem had with you (no names)
Okay. What was incorrect? (Does it matter?)Also showed a reply given to another poster (different thread) and he spotted either one must be incorrect
Good for you, I guess.He picked mine as being the one found correct although science is still divided
Don't engage here because you find it upsetting? Or because it makes nervous? Or another reason?He advised don't engage but here I am as I have used another tactic to ignore you
Nobody started out with the idea that UFOs were woo, of course. What happened, historically, was that a community of believers in alien visitation grew up after the "UFO flap" became popular in the 1950s. A sub-culture developed which was full of woo and empty of most critical thinking on the subject. Here, in the 2020s, we have inherited a legacy of deliberately fakery and unsupported claims too numerous to catalogue.If somebody starts out with the initial assumption that some topic is nothing more than "woo", then it's easy to slide from that confident assurance to the conclusion that anyone who speaks in behalf of "woo" is practicing "egregiously bad logic and absence of critical thinking".
There are lots of reasons that might be the case, other than the accounts (and, especially, interpretations) being correct.Because their accounts match those of other eyewitness ...
As you are aware, there's no publically-available radar data in the Pentagon UFO cases. Why do you believe any such data "backs up" eyewitness statements? It appears you have no reasonable grounds for that belief.....and are also backed up by video and radar data.
You'll need to be specific. What are you referring to? What have I said I assume is not credible?On what basis do you assume that they are not credible?
But, when we look at how this sub-forum came to be, it seems to me at least, that UAP’s as a whole, are not taken seriously. “Fringe thinkers” are not to be taken seriously (skeptics may believe) so it’s not surprising that this section of the forum, is used by skeptics for poking fun at things that are happening around us, but currently, have no mundane explanation.Nobody started out with the idea that UFOs were woo, of course. What happened, historically, was that a community of believers in alien visitation grew up after the "UFO flap" became popular in the 1950s. A sub-culture developed which was full of woo and empty of most critical thinking on the subject. Here, in the 2020s, we have inherited a legacy of deliberately fakery and unsupported claims too numerous to catalogue.
The "tin foil hat" brigade earned its reputation for a reason. The reason was the woo they brought to the topic.
It would be silly to ignore the UFO believer crowd and pretend that the topic of UFOs is not heavily influenced by people pushing woo - as well as being contaminated with a range of other pseudoscientific beliefs and conspiracy paranoia.
None of this means that a reasonable observer (like the skeptics here on sciforums, for instance) should assume that any new reported UFO case is "the woo". However, it would be silly to ignore things like the possibility of deliberate fakery, or mental instability, or just the plain and simple desire to belief in a fantasy, when examining a report.
Incidents of bad logic, a lack of critical thinking etc. can and should be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Of course, we must all be careful not to tell Big Lies about skeptics: like the one in which one assumes that skeptics are so biased that they will just assume, before examining any evidence, that every UFO must be faked, or misidentified, or "mundane". Because, as you know, the skeptics here don't do that.
James R said: As you are aware, there's no publically-available radar data in the Pentagon UFO cases. Why do you believe any such data "backs up" eyewitness statements? It appears you have no reasonable grounds for that belief.
Several FLIR videos and multiple totally credible eyewitness reports. What more do you need?
James R said: The "tin foil hat" brigade earned its reputation for a reason. The reason was the woo they brought to the topic.
So wegs, are you saying we have to take this kind of thinking seriously? :“Fringe thinkers” are not to be taken seriously (skeptics may believe) so it’s not surprising that this section of the forum, is used by skeptics for poking fun at things
I don't need any radar video to know what happened...
Poor innocent skeptics, forced by ufo enthusiasts to mock and ridicule them!![]()
You are aware practically all rational thinkers feel the same way, right? Its not really radical.As you know, I'm a fallibilist. As such, I consider flat-out True and False propositional truth-values to be intellectual ideals. In real life, we rarely if ever are fully justified in proclaiming a proposition True or False. What we have here in real life are plausibility-weights.
Interesting for sure.But my own view is that it is convincing indication that something very interesting is very likely happening).
You are aware practically all rational thinkers feel the same way, right? Its not really radical.
But where do you go from here?
We're trying to see if we can refine the boundaries of what is likely and what is not. My impression of what you are actively doing is trying to discourage any constructive work in that direction. You prefer the mystery status quo. Am I wrong?
No one is. A preponderance of evidence is what is usually expected to be met.By 1. not demanding that some fanciful standard of absolute certainty be met.
Luckily no one here is doing that.4. And it should go without saying, by seeking more and better information about whatever it is that's happening. That's not going to happen if the phenomenon is dismissed right out of the gate as "woo"