UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
What about it?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
So, you got nothing? Nada? Zilch?
Excellent. Glad to be of service. Keep on coming up with nothing, it defines your credibility here.
Okay, now what?
If you say so.
river:
So what?
It must be hard for you to hold the belief but be utterly incapable of supporting it.
The reality of UFOs? What does that mean? The reality is that sometimes some people see some stuff in the sky that they can't explain. Ho hum. It's not a big jump to accept that.
I accept that people sometimes see things they have no explanation for, too.
So what?
Yes. Some books are credible. Just not the ones that claim that aliens are visiting Earth.
It must be hard for you to hold the belief but be utterly incapable of supporting it.
Please present your evidence that the universe is full of intelligent life.
Why would UFOs be no big deal if the universe was full of intelligent life?
What would you call completely disregarding science in order to believe in something for which one has presented no evidence? That describes you, after all.
Last edited:
You have to keep in mind the sorts of people here who "like" every one of Magical Realist's posts, no matter how bereft of any concrete evidence for his alien hypothesis they are. These people do not necessarily do this because they think that MR has presented a good case, or anything like that. Rather, they see this as a kind of holy war with "skeptics". Bear in mind that some of these people have demonstrated incompetence in their own understanding of some scientific topics on this forum, while at the same time accusing "skeptics" of incompetence and crackpottery. This is a typical troll tactic - often the last resort of somebody who has been proven incompetent himself.
Strange that Q-reeus says this, given that MR regularly refers to many supposedly predictable and oft-repeated features of the alien craft he believes in so fervently. A little up from this post, MR even posted a handy wall chart showing all the different shapes of the alien spaceships he accepts as real.
Moreover, a quick perusal of MR's tall tales of aliens will evidence a rather high degree of predictability. MR himself even gives us lists of what his preferred UFOs supposedly are and what they do. They are "craft" with "pilots" that have amazing maneouverability. Most of the time they are self-luminous. They are "consciously controlled" (presumably by their pilots). And so on and so forth.
I think what Q-reeus is trying to set up is a holy barrier of unfalsifiability around MR's UFOs, thus exempting them (he hopes) from scientific investigation. It sounds to me like Q-reeus's own belief in alien craft is a faith-based, just like MR's.
Last edited:
Clearly you haven't heard of illusions and hallucinations.
Anyway, even if you meet the minimum standard and determine that a sighting is a "real physical thing", that is only the first step towards determining that it is a "craft" with a "pilot" and "not of this world" and all that other nonsense you believe on faith.
It stands for Unidentified flying object.
Is it your culture, or your cult?
Maybe you should present some evidence of strange and unpredictable things that can pop up at any time. Then maybe we could have a useful discussion. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to.
Do you believe that your UFOs can just "pop up at any time"? Are they magical, like pixies?
Unidentified flying objects. It's what the acronym stands for. It's a category of objects, distinguished from the categories of identified flying objects, identified and unidentified non-flying objects, and non-objects.
Maybe. Who did that? What are you referring to?
Let me get this straight. You believe that a UFO sighting is "resolved" when nobody has a clue what it is?
Intriguing.
See, I'd say a sighting is resolved precisely when we know what it is. Otherwise, there's just an unsolved mystery.
No. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. It's right there in the acronym: unidentified.
Some UFOs turn out to be mirages, atmospheric effects or hallucinations, for example. Hence, they were never real objects in the world.
I think your category definition is too narrow. You should try sticking to the standard definition.
Showing that a UFO is a real object is part of the process of establishing what it is. Unfortunately, you rarely present enough evidence even to clear that low hurdle.
Misidentifications of the planet Venus can be UFO reports until they are identified as Venus. It's there in the acronymn: unidentified flying object. Once we know it is a meteor or Venus, it is no longer unidentified. As you say, the planet itself then moves out of the "UFO" category. However, the report that turned out to be the planet Venus remains a UFO report. It's just a solved UFO case after Venus has been identified.
Did you know that Venus is the cause of probably the majority of UFO reports? Lots of people mistake it for an alien spaceship. Imagine that!
How can it be unidentified if you know the size, the shape, the luminosity (is that intrinsic luminosity, or observed luminosity?), and the flight characteristics? It sounds like that thing would be well on the way to being identified.
It sounds like the USAF agrees with me that UFOs are unidentified flying objects.
river:
If so, why can't you present it to us, with appropriate supporting evidence?
Do you have the truth about UFOs?
If so, why can't you present it to us, with appropriate supporting evidence?
I have but you ignore the evidence .
From the CIA to the FBI and the multitude of documents presented by these institutions on this topic of investigations . In the last few years .
Please link me to where you posted the evidence that you say I ignored.
You can't provide any link, can you?
Nope , not now , but you know me well enough to know that I have provided the evidence . Tell me that I haven't .