What evidence would work?

So, all that you have in the last sighting is possible ground radar contact with a slow moving object with lights. There are a lot of mundane possibilities and in either case, "unknown" is just "unknown". But the fact that the pilots of the planes never saw anything and their radar contact doesn't match the ground radar contact makes their evidence contradict the other evidence and reduces its veracity. Seeing nothing when they were supposed to see something casts further doubt on the thing that they were supposed to see.
Click to expand...

As I already pointed out, one of the craft disappeared to ground observers when the pilots were in pursuit of the radar target. What makes you think a ufo can't go dark when being pursued by jets? It makes perfect sense to me. Also, there wasn't just possible ground radar contact. It was real ground radar contact with the object confirming visual sightings at the same time. I can if you need me to provide numerous other examples of ufos picked up on radars while sighted by pilots. We know ufos exist. It's just a matter of surveying the evidence.
 
Last edited:
There are already several threads with posted UFO videos. Let's not hijack this one and clutter it with more specious examples.

This thread is really more a of hypothetical question: "do we actually find evidence that is solid but yet believable"

 
Magical Realist said:
As I already pointed out, one of the craft disappeared to ground observers when the pilots were in pursuit of the radar target. What makes you think a ufo can't go dark when being pursued by jets? It makes perfect sense to me. Also, there wasn't just possible ground radar contact. It was real ground radar contact with the object confirming visual sightings at the same time. I can if you need me to provide numerous other examples of ufos picked up on radars while sighted by pilots. We know ufos exist. It's just a matter of surveying the evidence.
Click to expand...
No one knows what the hypothetical performance of unconfirmed craft might be. You might be right that they have a feature that evaded visual confirmation by the pilots. But that attempt to goalpost shift/weasel out of the failure to confirm doesn't help your case any: that's just yet another behavior that hasn't been confirmed.

That said, I'll consider this a win: you have acknowledged that the pilots failed to visually confirm the contact on their radar, the sightings of the ground radar or the sightings of the people on the ground. In another thread recently you protested vigorously when I pointed out the lack of such confirmation.

So, MR, since as Dave points out this isn't a thread for specific cases, but a thread for discussion of criteria, can we agree that visual confirmation of a high performance radar contact would be compelling evidence? If you have such evidence, I'd be delighted to review it in another thread.
 
Russ_Watters said:
No one knows what the hypothetical performance of unconfirmed craft might be. You might be right that they have a feature that evaded visual confirmation by the pilots. But that attempt to goalpost shift/weasel out of the failure to confirm doesn't help your case any: that's just yet another behavior that hasn't been confirmed.

That said, I'll consider this a win: you have acknowledged that the pilots failed to visually confirm the contact on their radar, the sightings of the ground radar or the sightings of the people on the ground. In another thread recently you protested vigorously when I pointed out the lack of such confirmation.

So, MR, since as Dave points out this isn't a thread for specific cases, but a thread for discussion of criteria, can we agree that visual confirmation of a high performance radar contact would be compelling evidence? If you have such evidence, I'd be delighted to review it in another thread.
Click to expand...

You have won nothing. You completely fail to explain the thousands of sightings of the triangular craft, its confirmation on ground radar, and the targets registered by the pilots. Nothing you have said debunks anything about this account. Are you saying the visual accounts were all made up and the radar targets were bogies? That'd be a hell of a coincidence. But sure, I'll start a thread on visual and radar confirmed ufo sightings. I have many I have already posted and many more I haven't.

And as I pointed out, ground witnesses confirmed the behavior of the craft when being pursued by the jets:

"During this time, ground witnesses broadly corroborate the information obtained by radar. They described seeing the smaller triangle completely disappear from sight at one point, while the larger triangle moved upwards very rapidly as the F-16s flew past."===https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
You have won nothing. You completely fail to explain the thousands of sightings of the triangular craft, its confirmation on ground radar, and the targets registered by the pilots. Nothing you have said debunks anything about this account.
Click to expand...
MR, it Just. Does not. Work that way.

The account has not been debunked; it remains unexplained. It does not indicate UFOs.

How many times must the joys of critical thinking be pointed out to you? (It's a rhetorical question.)
 
How many times must the joys of critical thinking be pointed out to you? (It's a rhetorical question.)
Click to expand...

Uh..you certainly don't speak for "critical thinking." You speak only for the sort of confirmation bias that seeks to twist the evidence to fit some sort of preconclusion. The preconclusion being "not ufo". So don't tell me about critical thinking.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Uh..you certainly don't speak for "critical thinking." You speak only for the sort of confirmation bias that seeks to twist the evidence to fit some sort of preconclusion. The preconclusion being "not ufo". So don't tell me about critical thinking.
Click to expand...
MR, you are only describing yourself: you are the one who has explicitly stated that you assume your pre-chosen conclusion is correct regardless of the quality of evidence in favor of it. You might believe that we mirror your ridiculously bad logic, but it isn't true.
 
Russ_Watters said:
MR, you are only describing yourself: you are the one who has explicitly stated that you assume your pre-chosen conclusion is correct regardless of the quality of evidence in favor of it. You might believe that we mirror your ridiculously bad logic, but it isn't true.
Click to expand...

The quality of the evidence was never in dispute. Radar tracking and hundreds of multiple eyewitness accounts over a period of a year IS quality evidence. I conclude ufo. What do you conclude? That it's unexplained. So now we can say there is an unexplained phenomenon out there that appears to be an aerial craft far more advanced than anything humans have and that is intelligently operated. Isn't that the same as saying it is in fact the ufo phenomenon as confirmed by hundreds of other sightings? Yes it is. It is exactly what I conclude based on this compelling evidence.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Yes, that's our point: you never dispute evidence quality. You always assume evidence is genuine and high quality. You are very much alone in that absurd lack of critical analysis.
Click to expand...

You've presented no reason for me to think the evidence isn't genuine. You can't just make up conspiracy theories to lie and sporadic malfunctions of radar. You have to have some evidence for that. You have presented nothing.
 
Magical Realist said:
You've presented no reason for me to think the evidence isn't genuine.
Click to expand...
Perfect. Keep em coming.

Magical Realist said:
You can't just make up conspiracy theories to lie and sporadic malfunctions of radar. You have to have some evidence for that. You have presented nothing.
Click to expand...
You can say this as many times as you want; it does not work like that.

Plausible explanations fall to the least exotic explanation by default. Otherwise we'd be seeing ghosts everywhere we...

Never mind. :)
 
DaveC426913 said:
Perfect. Keep em coming.


You can say this as many times as you want; it does not work like that.

Plausible explanations fall to the least exotic explanation by default. Otherwise we'd be seeing ghosts everywhere we...

Never mind. :)
Click to expand...

Plausible explanations need evidence to be accepted as plausible. Every time. Otherwise we'd never discover new phenomena. We'd just dismiss the existence of the phenomena in favor of more familiar mundane explanations. We'd confirm only what we already assume. And that's not science.
 
Ophiolite said:
MR, do you have any training in the scientific method? If so, when do you intend to apply it?
Click to expand...

What scientific method? You mean the one I learned in 7th grade general science class? That's my training in the so-called "scientific method". Same as modern day scientists.
 
Magical Realist said:
Plausible explanations need evidence to be accepted as plausible. Every time.
Click to expand...
No. Plausible explanations already have evidence; that's what makes them plausible.
Remember when I proved to you that your own eyes are lying to you every waking moment?
The eye does play tricks.
Cameras do play tricks.
Witnesses do misremember things.
Witnesses do inadvertantly alter their stories.
This is fact.

No, these confounding factors don't explain all things. But they cast enough doubt on low quality evidence (just as witness statements) that mundane explanations become plausible.

That's why we need extraordinary evidence.

Magical Realist said:
Otherwise we'd never discover new phenomena. We'd just dismiss the existence of the phenomena in favor of more familiar mundane explanations. We'd confirm only what we already assume. And that's not science.
Click to expand...
Well, yes it is. Thus, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Science builds upon itself. It does not invent whole branches with whole new physics just to explain something.

By your logic, Tabby's Star is for sure a Dyson Sphere, because
a] it is the most implausible explanation,
b] somebody said it was - and you have no reason to doubt them, and
c] it is more fun to invent a new explanation with new physics out of whole cloth than to examine new variations on known science.

You see where that logic gets you?
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
You've presented no reason for me to think the evidence isn't genuine.
Click to expand...
I know. You neither apply your own critical thinking nor consider the critical thinking of others. Your lack of critical thinking is so appalling that if you lived your entire life this way it would be difficult to fathom how you could be a functional human being. Let me ask you: is your house full of snake oil, homeopathic medicine and almost functional perpetual motion machines? Are you heavily in debt to televangelists and psychics? Are you waiting to hear back from a Nigerian princess? Would you like to buy some magic beads?
 
Russ_Watters said:
Are you waiting to hear back from a Nigerian princess?
Click to expand...
I've already had this exact discussion with him. For some reason, people who live in Nigeria are not to be trusted, but the rest of the world is full of honest, humble, altruistic people to whom it would ever occur that publicity and opportunity and money often go hand-in-hand.
 
Russ_Watters said:
I know. You neither apply your own critical thinking nor consider the critical thinking of others. Your lack of critical thinking is so appalling that if you lived your entire life this way it would be difficult to fathom how you could be a functional human being. Let me ask you: is your house full of snake oil, homeopathic medicine and almost functional perpetual motion machines? Are you heavily in debt to televangelists and psychics? Are you waiting to hear back from a Nigerian princess? Would you like to buy some magic beads?
Click to expand...

Is flaming people part of critical thinking for you Russ? Or does that just stroke your little ego when it can't support its own arguments?
 
DaveC426913 said:
No. Plausible explanations already have evidence; that's what makes them plausible.
Remember when I proved to you that your own eyes are lying to you every waking moment?
This is fact. There is already evidence that this does happen.

It does not make it the answer to specific illusions, but it's a dang sight more plausible than inventing explanations out of whole cloth without any physics to back it up.

Well, yes it is. Thus, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Science builds upon itself. It does not invent whole branches with whole new physics just to explain something.

By your logic, Tabby's Star is for sure a Dyson Sphere, because
a] it is the most implausible explanation,
b] somebody said it was - and you have no reason to doubt them, and
c] it is more fun to invent a new explanation with new physics out of whole cloth than to examine new variations on known science.

You see where that logic gets you?
Click to expand...

LOL! No..you have never proved that I hallucinate things with my own eyes. And plausibility relies on evidence. Always. Estimates of it based on worldviews don't count. We will always favor what we are used to experiencing over what is anomalous. But that is a bias not an accurate assessment of reality. We have no idea what is possible in this universe. UFOS just happen to be one of those things we know happens sometimes based on thousands of eyewitness accounts over around 70 years. There is no basis for ruling it out based on some subjective estimation of plausibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top