Magical Realist:
Yes, the obligatory nervous tic when you have no adequate response to what I wrote. Noted once again.
James R is still all up in arms over that USAF definition of a UFO and the fact that it isn't an IFO like a weather balloon, a plane, a meteor, etc.
Clearly you didn't read any of my detailed reply to you. Or you're dishonest in addition to being lazy. I'm leaning towards the latter explanation.
I have no problem at all with the USAF definition, other than I think it could be clarified to make it clear that it is not necessary that a UFO be forever unidentifiable in order to be called a UFO. But I wrote on this
in detail above.
It blows his mind that UFOs not only exist physically as real objects with distinct characteristics but that UFOs exist semantically as well.
Let's be clear: the existence of clouds doesn't blow my mind. Remember that you agreed that an ordinary cloud was an alien craft, just above.
If further clarification is needed (assuming you're not dishonest but just plain old stupid), then let me also say that it doesn't blow my mind that some people report seeing things in the sky that they can't identify. And that's all that UFOs are. Using your terminology, as soon as something is identified as a "craft" it is an "IFO", not a UFO. In other words, you believe
all of your UFOs are really IFOs, because you believe that all of them are "craft", at the very least. You just want to call them UFOs and then complain when I or the USAF uses that term as it was intended.
What's he so scared of? Every investigation he insists that hasn't reduced the UFO to an IFO must forever remain open until it does simply because he believes UFOs are all really IFOs.
No, not because of that, obviously.
Every UFO investigation must remain open until it's positively identified as something because until it is identified there is an unsolved mystery. I mean, if you like, you can wind up the investigation with an indefinite conclusion, saying "Case closed. We have no idea what this thing is." What you
can't do, unless you're dishonest, is to pretend that you know the UFO is craft in the absence of sufficient evidence for that conclusion.
That's alot of faith to place in a mere belief: "One day all UFO accounts of 40 ft tic tacs and metallic discs and spinning tops and black triangles COULD be identified as something familiar."
It's possible, but I think unlikely in the extreme.
What's far more likely is that it will be impossible to draw definition conclusions for many of the cases, simply because the available evidence is of such low quality or quantity. The only honest conclusion in that case is "Case closed. We can't confirm what it was."
The accounts of saucers of Oklahoma not ufos but some mundane objects we could one day identify them as.
Maybe, maybe not.
After griping obsessively for several tiring posts of mental acrobratics about this....
Do you get tired when you have to read more than a sentence or two at a time, Magical Realist. Does it hurt your brain when you're asked to think about stuff? Poor you.
James then informs us that eyewitnesses again are always unreliable and should be doubted whenever possible.
That's a straw man. Try reading what I wrote, just this once. Try being honest.
That further makes ufo accounts impossible because once the compelling eyewitness account is dismissed automatically, there's virtually nothing left but a tall tale to be shared around campfires.
You talk about accounts being dismissed - automatically even. Who said anything about that? Not me, that's for sure.
An eyewitness account is
one piece of evidence that must be evaluated both in the context of all the other specific evidence relating to the reported events and in the context of everything else that is known about events that happen in the world. (And before you start up again, 1000 anecdotes are not necessarily any more persuasive that one, especially when a lot of them involve the same faulty assumptions.)
The defensiveness and overkill here to deny ufos is almost pathological, in spite of all the convincing accounts of ufos already given.
The only thing I deny is that you - or anybody else - has presented sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that aliens are visiting Earth.
Yours is a faith-based belief that demonstrably fails to stand up to scrutiny. You have failed to make a good case so many times on this forum alone it's not funny any more.
So not only are ufos nonexistent, not only are they semantically impossible, but any eyewitness account of such is unreliable.
Straw men and lies, all.
UFOs exist. People see stuff in the sky that they can't identify.
The "semantic" argument over the definition of UFO is mostly a waste of time, playing with words. It would be better to concentrate on the real point of contention: your claim that UFOs are alien "craft".
The question of whether eyewitness accounts are reliable or unreliable can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I have never claimed that all eyewitness accounts are unreliable. I have only ever claimed that eyewitness accounts should not be considered reliable in all their particulars by default. There is very good reason for that cautionary approach, borne out by scientific investigations of human perception and memory.
And yet as anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows, ufos are a well-known and well-evidenced phenomenon for over 70 years now...
70 years and
still no good evidence. When will you give up the faith?
And so I inevitably remain the "fool", the "idiot'', the "fanboy", the "dishonest liar", who is once again pushing my groundless belief in aliens and "little green men" on the vulnerable masses.
If you play the fool, it's fine for me to observe that you're making yourself look foolish.
If you paint yourself as an idiot, it's fine for me to point out that that's what you're doing.
The demonstrated fact that you will believe in alien "craft"
no matter what and spend your time talking about UFOs almost exclusively on this forum, justifies the "fanboy" label.
Your dishonest lies justify my calling you a dishonest liar.
I've known you on this forum
for years now, Magical Realist. I know all your tricks. I know your beliefs back to front. Your long record of posts to this forum over years leaves no doubt about either your beliefs about UFOs or the desperate lengths you will go to in order to prop up that psychological crutch you rely on (for whatever reason).
