UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist said:
Often it is a question of what more can be said about a ufo account that isn't said in the excerpt or the video or website. Since I basically seek out and post those that are most self-explanatory, any commentary comes off as uselessly redundant.
Click to expand...
You are inappropriately assuming everyone who comes across a post with a link in it is going to automatically follow the link and take whatever time is required to peruse the content - whether website or video - merely to find out if your stuff is a subtopic of interest to them.

It's tantamount to habitually bringing some documents that interest you to a meeting, but instead of telling anyone, you leave them in a closed, unlabeled box and just expect everyone to use their own time go open it and sift through your content.

That's lazy, passive-aggressive, anti-social behavior and its detrimental to the meeting.

Label your boxes descriptively. Inform others of its contents and how, specifically, you think they are of benefit to the meeting. The specificity will be directly proportional to their usefulness to the rest of the attendants. (The corollary being that the lack of clarity will be directly proportional to their uselessness.)
 
Magical Realist said:
I DID label the link with a description. Is there some unwritten rule somewhere about descriptions that they must consist of more than one or two sentences?
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-276#post-3686043
Click to expand...


Below, why do you use the words ''interesting images '' why do you find them ''interesting'' ?
Magical Realist said:
Here are some photos of ufos taken many years ago long before photoshop. Just two pages but some interesting images nonetheless:

https://www.granger.com/results.asp?txtkeys1=UFO
Click to expand...
My bold ^
Here is an ''interesting image'' of a cat:cat.jpg
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
I DID label the link with a description. Is there some unwritten rule somewhere about descriptions that they must consist of more than one or two sentences?
Click to expand...
The unwritten rule is called Adulting.

The premise of posting is that one wishes to draw people to read one's chosen content (if that were not one's premise, one would simply not post it).

So, with that premise: the specificity of your description will be proportional to its usefulness to your desired recipients. The corollary being that the lack of clarity will be proportional to its uselessness to your desired recipients. Presumably it is not your desire to post stuff that is intentionally useless to your desired recipients.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The unwritten rule is called Adulting.

The premise of posting is that one wishes to draw people to read one's chosen content (if that were not one's premise, one would simply not post it).

So, with that premise: the specificity of your description will be proportional to its usefulness to your desired recipients. The corollary being that the lack of clarity will be proportional to its uselessness to your desired recipients. Presumably it is not your desire to post stuff that is intentionally useless to your desired recipients.
Click to expand...

Hmmm..I never heard that rule before. Maybe you should ask James to include it in Sci Forums rules. He's also good at pulling made up rules out of his ass.
 
If we don't agree with you, so what? Life goes on, and everybody is happy. Right?
Click to expand...
Sure! But you could be happier. I could be happier. But you're stuck. That's where we're at. You do you.
Click to expand...

I'm as happy as I need to be living in a universe full of mysteries and wonders and awe-inspiring events. Allowing for the existence of other intelligent entities besides living humans is like the cherry on the cake. It allows me to believe there must be some meaningful albeit hidden point to all this. It even opens me up to the possibility of an afterlife. It really is the true spirit of science to be open to the infinite possibilities of Being.

"Science is not about control. It is about cultivating a perpetual condition of wonder in the face of something that forever grows one step richer and subtler than our latest theory about it. It is about reverence, not mastery."---Richard Powers
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
LOL The skeptics are on the war path again, this time about some old photos of ufos. "How dare you post evidence for ufos in a thread about evidence for ufos!" Meh...and so the thread goes on.
Click to expand...
Here's a handy link to a thread from May, 2018. That's more than three and a half years ago now.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/james-rs-new-rule.160817/

Are you telling me that you've forgotten all this, and that in all your time here, with your 60+ warnings, you have picked up nothing about how this forum works, or about what kind of behaviour is expected of you?
 
Repeat offenders
I29. The moderator team have limited time and resources. We reserve the right to ban members who require continual policing by the moderators, those who contribute little useful content...
 
Are you telling me that you've forgotten all this, and that in all your time here, with your 60+ warnings, you have picked up nothing about how this forum works, or about what kind of behaviour is expected of you?
Click to expand...

As far as I know all of my posted links, article excerpts, and videos are accompanied by relevant commentary of some sort. Since you are now to the point of micromanaging the content and/or amount of that relevant commentary, you have gone beyond Sci Forums rules into arbitrary infraction la la land. Hence the made up aspect of your rule.
 
Last edited:
So, let me get this straight.

Since there is a sub-forum "UfOs, Ghosts and Monsters" it gives you the right to post anything you want?
 
Magical Realist said:
Since you are now to the point of micromanaging the content and/or amount of that relevant commentary, you have gone beyond Sci Forums rules into arbitrary infraction la la land. Hence the made up aspect of your rule.
Click to expand...
Behaviour that may get you banned
  • Interfering with moderation
 
Magical Realist said:
I'm as happy as I need to be living in a universe full of mysteries and wonders and awe-inspiring events.
Click to expand...
Except there is no mystery in what ufos are for MR... Notice MR stresses the ''ARE'' below:
Magical Realist said:
UFOs ARE craft of unknown origin and nature. That's clear from all the evidence posted here.
Click to expand...
Magical Realist said:
As far as I know all of my posted links, article excerpts, and videos are accompanied by relevant commentary of some sort. Since you are now to the point of micromanaging the content and/or amount of that relevant commentary, you have gone beyond Sci Forums rules into arbitrary infraction la la land. Hence the made up aspect of your rule.
Click to expand...
MR's research on an event in a recent post of his:
Magical Realist said:
This astounding incident occurred at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana in 1967 and involves an encounter with a ufo that definitely got the military's attention. The incident is depicted here in dramatized form and is based on the account of an eyewitness who was there at the time:
Click to expand...
MR's analysis... '' The incident is depicted here in dramatized form''.

''and is based on the account of an eyewitness who was there at the time''
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
The ''eyewitness'' was Robert Salas who did not see a ''ufo'' because he was 60ft down in a bunker at the time and got a call from a guard above.
 
Last edited:
foghorn said:
MR's analysis... '' The incident is depicted here in dramatized form''.

''and is based on the account of an eyewitness who was there at the time''
Click to expand...
I remember seeing a tabloid once with a headline something like, "Man photographs UFO." The article was accompanied by a drawing of a man photographing a UFO.
 
sideshowbob said:
I remember seeing a tabloid once with a headline something like, "Man photographs UFO." The article was accompanied by a drawing of a man photographing a UFO.
Click to expand...
Wow, if that tabloid story had been spotted first by one of those American ufo ''documentary'' shows, there would be enough material there for a 1 hour dramatization show.
 
Just to be clear, let me iterate that I will do my best to include extensive commentary/analysis with any videos, articles, and links I post. But to be honest, so much has been posted already in this thread that I will probably not be posting any more evidence here. There's enough here to make up anybody's mind. C'est la vie!;)
 
Last edited:
Meme going around.

256737304_10159851261661228_760528226721000732_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top