You've been proven wrong in other threads. The "ghost" that you claimed couldn't possibly be a Japanese policeman comes to mind. You can't be so egregiously wrong in one thread and then disparage somebody else's credibility in another thread.
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Noone ever proved that was a Japanese policeman. Noone could ever explain why the little girl and her father didn't see him. Just speculations and guesses that's all.
Your attempts to explain away the facts were oroven wrong.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nice attempt at deflection. None of it detracts from the paradox of your specious choice of when you believe people and when you don't.
You do when it suits your narrative. You don't when it suits your narrative.
Predatory? You have always been so precious q-reeus, both here and elsewhere where you have been banned....Soooo precious!The Fata Morgana concept, among any other number of atmopsheric disturbances or anomalies have been shown to be the reason for many unexplained sightings, that the precious gullibles claim to be of Alien origin.
Along of course with..... https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17563-photo-pentagon-ufo-story-fake-expert-reveals
Unfortunately, Express.co.uk has revealed that not only is the photo of the infamous "white Tic-Tac UFO" most likely a distorted picture of a mylar party balloon, the photo wasn't even taken in 2004 near the Nimitz incident—it was photographed in 2005, in Manchester, England.
According to UFO investigator Steve Mera, who investigated the original sighting in England: "Truth of the matter is... it was taken in Eccles, Manchester and I investigated the case. Likelihood... it was a novelty balloon, a number 'one.' Someone manipulated the photo a little by increasing its brightness."
And of course logically speaking the question always remains,,,why do these so called alien origin craft keep on flittering in and flittering out again, never once leaving any real physical evidence, and never once making their visits official after travelling across untold distances for many light years...ho hum!!!
You mean where you are now unable to preach anymore of your alternative nonsense, despite the real scientific empirical evidence pointing to 15 or 16 collisions of these objects in the discovery of gravitational waves?Or where your usual put down of GR despite the continuing overwhelming observational and experimental evidence over more then 100 years that testify to it is rightly ridiculed? And then claiming conspiracies in the release and coverups in the data from orginizations like aLIGO, NASA and such? Let's not though mention your own opinions of collusions and conspiracies with regards to 9/11. Perhaps my interest in UFO's and putting your's and MR's nonsensical "out of this world conclusions" down is just really so easy that I can't help myself!
Really, you remind me so much of river, with your contradictory statements and conclusions, I'm beginning to think you are both one and the same identity!Let me spell it out again q-reeus, for both you and MR, at best this is just another UFO, with the emphasis on the U, at worst and as illustrated with the article I found, it is just another dishonest attempt to add mileage and some respectibility to the gullible brigade's continued unsupported claim that we are being visited by little green men, when we don't even have any evidence of any other life existing off this Earth as yet.
And even more interesting, none has ever proved that it is either a ghost, goblin, little green man or a fairy at the bottom of your garden, except of course in the hearts and minds of those simple gullibles that need to believe!
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I always side with the eyewitnesses over the skeptics. The people who were there over the people just making shit up in accord with their own agenda of "ufos don't exist". That's the height of objectivity.
Last edited:
I'm not surprised mods/admin take no action against your continued outrageous injections of unrelated topics here. You are a useful idiot come attack dog. Particularly disgraceful but clearly tacitly forum hierarchy approved has been the continued reference to my 'ID' driven agenda' and '9-11 conspiracy nutter rantings' in posts relating back to SFN in particular. Where not once did I so much as hint of anything whatsoever to do with either topic there. That was exclusively your nasty initiatives, where, like here, no hierarchy action was taken against you for flaunting rules/guidelines. Even here, I have devoted the tiniest fraction of my overall postings to 9-11 and less again to ID/abiogenesis. Where btw no 'proselytizing' was ever involved - only in your fevered imagination at best. But chronic liars/haters care nothing for such 'minor details'.
The Fata Morgana concept, among any other number of atmopsheric disturbances or anomalies have been shown to be the reason for many unexplained sightings, that the precious gullibles claim to be of Alien origin.
Along of course with..... https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17563-photo-pentagon-ufo-story-fake-expert-reveals
Unfortunately, Express.co.uk has revealed that not only is the photo of the infamous "white Tic-Tac UFO" most likely a distorted picture of a mylar party balloon, the photo wasn't even taken in 2004 near the Nimitz incident—it was photographed in 2005, in Manchester, England.
According to UFO investigator Steve Mera, who investigated the original sighting in England: "Truth of the matter is... it was taken in Eccles, Manchester and I investigated the case. Likelihood... it was a novelty balloon, a number 'one.' Someone manipulated the photo a little by increasing its brightness."
And of course logically speaking the question always remains,,,why do these so called alien origin craft keep on flittering in and flittering out again, never once leaving any real physical evidence, and never once making their visits official after travelling across untold distances for many light years...ho hum!!!
Or where your usual put down of GR despite the continuing overwhelming observational and experimental evidence over more then 100 years that testify to it is rightly ridiculed? And then claiming conspiracies in the release and coverups in the data from orginizations like aLIGO, NASA and such? Let's not though mention your own opinions of collusions and conspiracies with regards to 9/11. Perhaps my interest in UFO's and putting your's and MR's nonsensical "out of this world conclusions" down is just really so easy that I can't help myself!
Let me spell it out again q-reeus, for both you and MR, at best this is just another UFO, with the emphasis on the U, at worst and as illustrated with the article I found, it is just another dishonest attempt to add mileage and some respectibility to the gullible brigade's continued unsupported claim that we are being visited by little green men, when we don't even have any evidence of any other life existing off this Earth as yet.
And your usual tactic of continued repetition of tripe merely wastes everyone's time who bothers to wade through it. Do try and let go of your bitterness and move on - elsewhere.
I'm neither a hater, nor a liar nor bitter my hypocriticial friend, and that is reflected in the fact that it is you who is banned on more then one forum, and make your continued alleged conspiracy nonsense as explanations for such deserved banning.
Agreed, you were very careful to remain closeted so to speak, as long as possible, but in time your agenda was exposed. I am proud to be a party to that.
Take it easy, and remember all we are able to conclude is that they are UFO's. And you nor MR can ever really change that logical scientific verdict as of the present day. Perhaps in the future something maybe forthcoming...
Last edited:
Interesting also q-reeus, why you focused your reply on the admittedly personal remarks, prompted of course by your own personal remarks thus...
Now q-reeus, if you are able, if you have the real conclusive evidence other then hear say and the other aspects for which alternative explanations are given, then please address them. Show why anyone in their right mind should conclude they are of alien origin.
Aliens imo certainly exist...but we have no conclusive evidence as yet. And perhaps they even have visited us on Earth, but as yet, we do not have convincing evidence pointing to that either. As Carl said, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"show me some alien shit....or some body part...or alien craft debris...or needle since so many so called abductees were anally probed. You lot with your gullible conclusions will continue with such nonsense...did someone mention idiot/s earlier? can we again conclude hypocrisy?
did I mention hypocritical? yes I did! and precious of course as James rightly concluded elsewhere.
Now q-reeus, if you are able, if you have the real conclusive evidence other then hear say and the other aspects for which alternative explanations are given, then please address them. Show why anyone in their right mind should conclude they are of alien origin.
Aliens imo certainly exist...but we have no conclusive evidence as yet. And perhaps they even have visited us on Earth, but as yet, we do not have convincing evidence pointing to that either. As Carl said, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"show me some alien shit....or some body part...or alien craft debris...or needle since so many so called abductees were anally probed. You lot with your gullible conclusions will continue with such nonsense...did someone mention idiot/s earlier?
can we again conclude hypocrisy?Laughable to suggest any real equivalence. You always have been the one initiating the attack style off-topic injections - I merely occasionally defend.
Stop ranting, and learn to READ and not MISREPRESENT what I have clearly previously written on the on-topic issue! e.g.Now q-reeus, if you are able, if you have the real conclusive evidence other then hear say and the other aspects for which alternative explanations are given, then please address them. Show why anyone in their right mind should conclude they are of alien origin.
Aliens imo certainly exist...but we have no conclusive evidence as yet. And perhaps they even have visited us on Earth, but as yet, we do not have convincing evidence pointing to that either. As Carl said, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"show me some alien shit....or some body part...or alien craft debris...or needle since so many so called abductees were anally probed. You lot with your gullible conclusions will continue with such nonsense...did someone mention idiot/s earlier?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-111#post-3581191
Note link at end there to my position statement. Erecting straw-man arguments only embarrasses you not me.
Whatever my friend....I know your position as does MR obviously and now most others, despite you attempting to confuse by straggling the fence and your usual conspiracy nonsense to ward of scientific application.
But hey!I also know you need the last reply to justify your rather awkward and obviously questionable position. And of course if what I say is not valid, then you will certainly agree that at best all we have is a small percentage as UFO's with the emphasis on the U, correct? Which means it still could be any number of things including as yet unseen or unknown atmospheric anomalies and such, certainly not meaning aliens and little green men. Light has a habit of playing tricks on the eyes and brain!
Anyway the floor and the forum is yours. I'll stick to SFN with the obvious quality over quantity. Byeee
ps: That doesn't mean I won't be back to refute nonsensical claims when I see fit. I'll play it by ear. You have a good day.
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
What we're seeing here is what we see every time you post a breathless, credulous fan-boy enthusiasm piece about a UFO sighting or a ghost or whatever other woo has caught your attention lately on youtube. It starts off sounding pretty mysterious, then with just a little digging and investigation - something you never bother doing before posting - it all starts to unravel. Then you get angry because you're confronted by the messy reality that interrupts your cosy fantasy.
Oh, but then there's the "evidence speaks for itself" - another common saying of yours. But it never does. All evidence requires interpretation and analysis. A bloody footprint at a murder scene speaks for itself only as far as saying that somebody stepped in blood. It doesn't say it was an alien who stepped in the blood, or a time traveller. It doesn't even say it was the murderer. It's just one item in a big picture. It has to be put in the context of everything that is known about the circumstances. And, at the end of day, it might be that the police never work out who left that footprint.
In these UFO cases you trot out, the evidence is always of dubious origin and low quality. We never get the complete picture of the circumstances. Even the evidence we get can usually be interpreted in many ways. It never speaks for itself.
Is there an academy somewhere that trains up people to see UFOs and ghosts? How interesting.
It really is an insight into your mindset. Even a completely watertight dismissal of a woo claim you support has no impact at all on you.
What is wrong with you? What happened to you to make you like this?
Then you'll admit that saying you know exactly what happened is silly, won't you? You and I both have access to the same information. You don't have special inside knowledge about what happened.
What we're seeing here is what we see every time you post a breathless, credulous fan-boy enthusiasm piece about a UFO sighting or a ghost or whatever other woo has caught your attention lately on youtube. It starts off sounding pretty mysterious, then with just a little digging and investigation - something you never bother doing before posting - it all starts to unravel. Then you get angry because you're confronted by the messy reality that interrupts your cosy fantasy.
How many times have we heard this from you? Your "common sense", time and time again, has been proven to be useless in coming to reasonable conclusions about this stuff. Isn't it time you gave up on your "common sense" assumptions and started looking at the evidence?
Oh, but then there's the "evidence speaks for itself" - another common saying of yours. But it never does. All evidence requires interpretation and analysis. A bloody footprint at a murder scene speaks for itself only as far as saying that somebody stepped in blood. It doesn't say it was an alien who stepped in the blood, or a time traveller. It doesn't even say it was the murderer. It's just one item in a big picture. It has to be put in the context of everything that is known about the circumstances. And, at the end of day, it might be that the police never work out who left that footprint.
In these UFO cases you trot out, the evidence is always of dubious origin and low quality. We never get the complete picture of the circumstances. Even the evidence we get can usually be interpreted in many ways. It never speaks for itself.
So, there's another guy being paid to spruik another credulous pseudo-documentary? Ho hum.
Notice how he jumps straight from UFOs to "they" and "technology" and "devices"? See what he did there? A UFO is not a "they" or a "technology" or a "device" until it is identified as such.
It's ironic that this doesn't set of alarm bells in his head, don't you think?
How were these speeds measured? Oh wait, they weren't. They were guessed.
Preying on the paranoid fear of the conspiracy theorists who love the UFO stuff.
The US, far and away, shows the greatest interest in UFOs and the greatest number of "sightings". Not really surprising when you consider the bombardment of UFO stuff in US movies, on TV and in the gutter press. Combine that with low trust in the government and officialdom in general and you set up an environment where conspiracy theories flourish.
It's so funny when people quote Fox News as if it was a serious news outlet.
Of course. Only the men in black in the government and the illuminati cover things up.
The accounts are what they are. That they tend to unravel when subjected to actual investigation is not our fault. You really ought to find better evidence.
Only, it's not. Because, as you know, eyewitnesses are human beings, with human flaws and failings - something you have not once ever been able to bring yourself to admit.
The bloody footprint was left by an alien. Prove me wrong!
Trained eyewitnesses?
Is there an academy somewhere that trains up people to see UFOs and ghosts? How interesting.
Really? Months later you're still unable to own up to your silly error, even after it having been extensively and convincingly debunked?
It really is an insight into your mindset. Even a completely watertight dismissal of a woo claim you support has no impact at all on you.
What is wrong with you? What happened to you to make you like this?
Your thanks not really needed as it will probably inflame the precious one about my conspiracy in such matters with yourself and the other mods here and elsewhere.
Probably right. Sorry about that.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Uh no..We know exactly what happened because of what the eyewitnesses say happened plus because of the videos. That's what we do James. Rely on the eyewitness accounts and don't make up shit about them like skeptics do.
You're the only one always bent on painting a portrait of me as naive and stupid and gullible. That means you're the one with the anger issues not me. Why don't you just relax and accept the evidence as given instead of trying to handwave it away as seagulls or outright lies? Your world won't suddenly end just because people witness ufos flying in the sky. Accepting the evidence might even give you more credibility as someone who is really interested in the truth instead of as just a skeptic with a desperate agenda to debunk every single ufo sighting.
Going by the evidence instead of your made up lies about what happened IS common sense. I am the one with no agenda to disprove and debunk. I am merely posting the eyewitness evidence with the videos which are very compelling accounts of the ufo phenomenon.
No it isn't dubious. The accounts are multiply sourced and corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses, radars, sonar, and infrared cameras. The videos are clear and of an object of unmistakable shape and size and movement. And the attempts of the govt to try and cover up the incident are obvious. All of this adds up to a compelling account of what happened and undeniable proof for the existence of ufos. I'm sorry if that ruins your day, but such are the inevitable sufferings of those living in a bubble of denial.
That's what the eyewitness reports and multiple radars and sonar and infrared camera footage confirm---that it is some kind of unknown craft that can reach hypersonic speeds in a matter of seconds and that can outmaneuver our own state of the art jets. Those are the undeniable facts of the case.
Nothing about the accounts has unraveled yet. You and your professional skeptic buddies just make up some shit about sea gulls or Fata Morgana and claim certain things didn't really happen and so we are to accept that over the eyewitness's statements. The bias is obvious and enormously self-serving to your agenda to disprove all ufo sightings. There's absolutely no reason to give anything you claim any weight at all.
Not when the events are multiply supported and corroborated by jet and ship radars, missile systems, sonar, visuals, and infrared cameras. The likelihood of error becomes miniscule after we consider all these additional sources of information.
Yes..navy trained personnel who can read radars and missile systems and sonar and infrared cameras and who can visually ascertain the nature and speed of a target using their experience and knowledge.
Once again making up some shit about a policeman standing there who wasn't seen without any evidence whatsoever isn't debunking anything at all. It's just making shit up, something skeptics are prone to do almost constantly.
Last edited:
Magical Realist:
We're going for another round of the same, are we? Okay. Some people never learn.
Multiply sourced, you say? What sources are you referring to, exactly? And how has the reliability of these sources been verified?
Why hasn't the NSA had all the videos removed from the web, if it's all so secret and hush hush? For that matter, how did any of this get into the public domain in the first place? Why are these naval personnel allowed to sell their stories to cruddy TV shows and the like? Isn't there some kind of military secrets Act that they'd be breaching if they were exposing state secrets? Shouldn't they all be prosecuted like Julian Assange?
In short, it's all unravelling in the usual way, typical of everything woo that you post.
As for sea gulls and Fata Morgana etc., maybe you ought to familiarise yourself with the notion of something called a hypothesis. That's a big word from science. Look it up. Hint: the meaning you will find does not include the word "shit".
We're going for another round of the same, are we? Okay. Some people never learn.
Do you think it's possible for an eyewitness to reach a mistaken conclusion about what he saw? Don't equivocate. A simple yes or no will suffice.
What if the eyewitness accounts are made up shit?
You paint that portrait by yourself. You hardly need my help.
I am continually amazed at the lengths you'll go to in order to protect your psychological security blanket, but it doesn't make me angry, as such. You, on the other hand, tend to fly off the handle any time somebody pricks your bubble.
By "accept" you mean just believe it without doing anything to check if it's reliable. Just like a religious leap of faith. Sorry, but I don't do those. The evidence is what it is. Like I said, it's not my fault it's so shoddy.
Indeed. And your world won't end when you discover the aliens spaceships aren't real.
As far as I can tell, it's not me who spams this forum with anti-UFO material. All I do is react, occasionally, to the spam you post. If you're looking for desperate agendas, I think you need to look closer to home.
But I do go by the evidence. Made up lies are things like saying "We know exactly what happened."
Is that what you call clear? The fuzzy blobs on the video footage, features of which have been shown to be artifacts of image processing?
Multiply sourced, you say? What sources are you referring to, exactly? And how has the reliability of these sources been verified?
How so? Where's the evidence of a cover up?
Why hasn't the NSA had all the videos removed from the web, if it's all so secret and hush hush? For that matter, how did any of this get into the public domain in the first place? Why are these naval personnel allowed to sell their stories to cruddy TV shows and the like? Isn't there some kind of military secrets Act that they'd be breaching if they were exposing state secrets? Shouldn't they all be prosecuted like Julian Assange?
I've never denied the existence of UFOs. Just little green men and alien spaceships and time travellers from Mars and all that - for all of which you have zero evidence.
A fact is an uncontested item of data. You can't even tell me how these hypersonic speeds were measured. You can't confirm the manoeuvering. Hell, you can't even confirm there were any mysterious objects at all.
As is common in these cases, the credibility of certain witnesses has been called into question. The video footage cannot be verified as authentic and undoctored. Many elements of the eyewitness accounts are hearsay and unverifiable.
In short, it's all unravelling in the usual way, typical of everything woo that you post.
I'm not a professional skeptic. Nobody is paying me to debunk your rubbish. I'm just a guy asking some questions you don't want asked.
As for sea gulls and Fata Morgana etc., maybe you ought to familiarise yourself with the notion of something called a hypothesis. That's a big word from science. Look it up. Hint: the meaning you will find does not include the word "shit".
I have no agenda to disprove any UFO sighting. I'd love it if your little green men turned out to be real. It's just a pity that you bring such low-grade material to the table to try to make your claims. I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable that somebody like me prods you with sensible questions you don't want to deal with.
I haven't made any claims. The claims are all yours, and they are quite extraordinary ones, at that. So where's your extraordinary evidence?
But you don't have access to most of that data. You're just relying on hearsay to assume it supports your claim.
There's evidence here that certain personnel were using a brand-new type of radar that they did not have much experience with. Evidence shows that reports of unexplained radar contacts drastically reduced after the glitches in the system were sorted out and operators became more familiar with the new system. Seagulls were no longer mistaken for alien spacecraft, for example.
You're still going on about that debunked ghost story? Really? The evidence that a policeman was in the photo was put right in front of you, and you still won't believe it. That really says it all about the lengths you'll go to in order to try to preserve your fantasies.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's basically all I do here..repeat the evidence already presented over and over again while you bitch and whine about the eyewitnesses lying or being mistaken and the videos being too shoddy to reach a conclusion. It's the same shit as it ever was. Everything to draw a conclusion has already been presented. The fact that you would rather make up shit about the eyewitnesses being mistaken or the radar registering artifacts shows me further debate here wouldn't be constructive. Watch the documentary video again if you have any questions. Beyond that I would only be repeating myself here. And I've got better things to do than that.
Bitching and whining, eh? Methinks you're projecting, just a tad.
Right. And I've drawn a conclusion based on what has been presented. My conclusion is that the evidence is unpersuasive of alien activity, and of dubious provenance and quality.
I note that you avoided answering the direct question I put to you in my last post. I'll ask it again and add another one, to see if you can be honest this time.
1. Do you think it's possible for an eyewitness to reach a mistaken conclusion about what he saw? Don't equivocate. A simple yes or no will suffice.
2. Do you think it is possible for a radar to register something that looks like a solid object on the radar but isn't?
3. Do you think it is possible for a radar operator to misidentify an object on radar?
Okay, that's three questions, but each one only requires a yes or no answer from you. It should be easy for you to answer. But something tells me you won't be able to manage it.
How would that help? It won't get any better the second time around. Watching half of it once wasted enough of my time.
I don't think you do. You'll keep on about this, or you'll move on to the next shiny pebble. Either way, you can't stop yourself posting your made-up shit (as you like to put it).