UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

MR, what would you consider yourself to be, an active or armchair ufologist ? That's if you think of yourself as a ufologist at all.
 
Magical Realist said:
On eyewitness? Many do. Just like news reports do. Many others rely on trace evidence as well. Bodily effects. Charred vegetation. Landing marks or residue. Photos. Radiation.
Click to expand...
In all the time you have being reading and looking at pictures of ufo's, which to you, is the best and perhaps favourable, sighting? And which is the best, to you again, the most favourable event of trace evidence of a ufo? And, what links that trace evidence to a flying object?
 
="sweetpea, post: 3481987, member: 284788"In all the time you have being reading and looking at pictures of ufo's, which to you, is the best and perhaps favourable, sighting? And which is the best, to you again, the most favourable event of trace evidence of a ufo? And, what links that trace evidence to a flying object?
Click to expand...

I have many compelling ufo cases. Start here:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=MajorCase

And here's a listing of compelling trace evidence ufo cases:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/PhysicalEvidence.htm

Here's some compelling ufo photos. There are too many good ones to just choose one.

 
Last edited:
The truth is that Magical Realist has no system for telling the difference between persuasive UFO cases and junk ones. All are at the same level, as far as he is concerned; all are "compelling". If there's a hint of one of the cases collapsing under it's own weight, MR just moves on to a different one.

I've asked him in the past to provide one, or a few, of the absolute best cases he can come up with out of his collection of thousands, for both ghosts and UFOs. When he has responded to such requests, and I have looked into a few of the cases he has presented, they have inevitably proved to have holes big enough to drive a truck through.
 
Magical Realist said:
Here's some compelling ufo photos. There are too many good ones to just choose one.
Click to expand...
A lot of the photos in that video practically debunk themselves.

Look at all the thrown-pie-plate ones, for example. Just too obvious. Then there are the obvious photoshop efforts. And then there are the ones from the 1950s, in which the UFOs all look just like the ones in the 1950s sci-fi movies - a product of their era.

Worth asking: has alien technology improved since 1950, so that today's UFOs look more sleek and streamlined than the 1950s UFOs? Why are today's alien spacecraft just like the alien spaceships we see in movies with modern CGI, whereas past spacecraft so often look like the kinds of plates-hanging-from-strings that we used to see in B movies?

Then we also have some bad photography of the sun, or reflections into the lens from some light source. Then there are the typical blurred or scratchy photos that are just so bad you can't tell what you're looking at.

There are the most compelling photos, are they? Ho hum.
 
I've asked him in the past to provide one, or a few, of the absolute best cases he can come up with out of his collection of thousands, for both ghosts and UFOs. When he has responded to such requests, and I have looked into a few of the cases he has presented, they have inevitably proved to have holes big enough to drive a truck through.
Click to expand...

James is lying as usual. I provided up to 17 compelling cases on youtube videos in a past thread which noone here was able to refute. I mentioned the Portage County case, and it took a long protracted 16 pages of debate for James to absurdly conclude it was a meteor, the moon, and weather balloon that the police officers all chased for over 30 miles on that night. I've mentioned the Coyne helicopter encounter. No response. The Zimbabwe landing of 2 saucers with 60 schoolchildren seeing small beings exiting them. No response. I've mentioned the conference where numerous military officers came forward to report their sightings of ufos over nuclear missile sites. Anecdotal is all he says. I've posted links to trace evidence cases. No response. I've mentioned the 2008 Chicago O' Hare Airport saucer witnessed by many hovering and then shooting up thru the clouds. No response. So you see how one gives up after awhile presenting compelling cases when James R either ignores them or dismisses them out of hand. And then tops it all off just now with an ad hom about me not being able to tell when a case is compelling. Typical close-minded skeptic with nothing rational to say when presented with the facts.
 
Last edited:
has alien technology improved since 1950, so that today's UFOs look more sleek and streamlined than the 1950s UFOs? Why are today's alien spacecraft just like the alien spaceships we see in movies with modern CGI, whereas past spacecraft so often look like the kinds of plates-hanging-from-strings that we used to see in B movies?
Click to expand...

Why don't you research that? Explore how many shapes of ufos have been photographed and witnessed over the decades and make some useful inferences instead of making fallacious arguments from incredulity.

UFO-Shapes.jpg
 
Then we also have some bad photography of the sun, or reflections into the lens from some light source. Then there are the typical blurred or scratchy photos that are just so bad you can't tell what you're looking at.
Click to expand...

Right. When they're the clear photos of a craft, you complain they're photoshopped. And when they're not clear photos of a craft, you complain they're just refracted light or something. Thus every photo of a ufo is automatically ruled out with no further investigation of it whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
James is lying as usual. I provided up to 17 compelling cases on youtube videos in a past thread which noone here was able to refute. I mentioned the Portage County case, and it took a long protracted 30 pages of debate for James to absurdly conclude it was a meteor, the moon, and weather balloon that the police officers all chased for over 30 miles on that night.
Click to expand...
Thankyou so much for mentioning the Portage County discussion once again. Here's a link to that thread for interested readers. It appears that Magical Realist has forgotten what went wrong for him there.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/portage-county-ravenna-ufo-chase-1966.158484/

And, by the way, they were mostly chasing the planet Venus, not the moon, a meteor or a weather balloon. Venus is very commonly mistaken for an alien spacecraft - far more often than you might think.

I've mentioned the Coyne helicopter encounter. No response. The Zimbabwe landing of 2 saucers with 60 schoolchildren seeing small beings exiting them. No response. I've mentioned the conference where numerous military officers came forward to report their sightings of ufos over nuclear missile sites. Anecdotal is all he says. I've posted links to trace evidence cases. No response. I've mentioned the 2008 Chicago O' Hare Airport saucer witnessed by many hovering and then shooting up thru the clouds. No response.
Click to expand...
Choose ONE of these - the best one out of them, according to you - and start a separate thread on it, presenting your most "compelling" evidence. I will examine it and respond.

I don't have endless time to chase you down every rabbit hole that captures your fleeting attention, but I'm willing to make an example of you one more time.

Magical Realist said:
Why don't you research that? Explore how many shapes of ufos have been photographed and witnessed over the decades and make some useful inferences instead of making fallacious arguments from incredulity.
Click to expand...
A lot of the ones in that picture are easily constructed by gluing a couple of plates or trays together, spray painting them silver, then throwing them through the air and taking a photo. I could whip one up in an afternoon.

Magical Realist said:
Right. When they're the clear photos of a craft, you complain they're photoshopped. And when they're not clear photos of a craft, you complain they're just refracted light or something. Thus every photo of a ufo is automatically ruled out with no further investigation of it whatsoever.
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that you just posted a video that includes among its "best ever UFO photos" quite a few really obvious-looking fakes.

But who knows? Maybe they're all 100% legitimate, like you say they are. I haven't checked. But then again, neither have you.
 
Choose ONE of these - the best one out of them, according to you - and start a separate thread on it, presenting your most "compelling" evidence. I will examine it and respond.
Click to expand...

No..there is no most compelling case that you will likely dismiss with dubious claims of fakery and ad hoc factoids about what the planet Venus looks like. But I will present again one of the many compelling cases which I have posted here already.

I don't have endless time to chase you down every rabbit hole that captures your fleeting attention, but I'm willing to make an example of you one more time.
Click to expand...

You probably shouldn't whine that I'm not presenting you with compelling cases then if you can't even grow the balls to look into them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top