Why does the government hide UFO's?

[Magical Realist]

You misunderstand. I am not dismissing them. Some of them are indeed quite compelling.
I have reviewed them because many of them are virtually worthless but some are not.
This gives others what they asked for, which is your best account - one or two accounts.

Worthless? Because they don't have video footage which you would only dismiss as fake anyway? Because we don't have the witness themselves tell you what they saw? Because the account is too old? We all know how you guys operate here. There is simply no amount of evidence that will ever satisfy you.

 

[Magical Realist]

Multiple independent videos, multiple geographically-distant viewpoints.

Again, simply pointing out that spontaneous, non-repeatable events are captured.

That, and the the fact meteors do fall from the sky all the time. The Earth is inundated with tons of debris every day. Verifiable by means other than eyewitness accounts. Verifiable in a lab.

It is not rare - in fact it is expected - i.e. consistent with known science. There is no unnecessary multiplication of entities here.

Nope..all the videos could all be faked. And they are ofcourse very old versions of second hand accounts, wrapped in dramatic narrative. Certainly enough grounds to dismiss the evidence as worthless.

 

[DaveC426913]

Worthless? Because they don't have video footage which you would only dismiss as fake anyway? Because we don't have the witness themselves tell you what they saw? Because the account is too old? We all know how you guys operate here. There is simply no amount evidence that will ever satisfy you.

Fallacy: argue the issue, not the issuer.

One of those YouTube videos is corrupted. The soundtrack is missing.
If you can find a version that has the audio track, as I said, it could be revisited.

 

[DaveC426913]

[dupe]

 

[Magical Realist]

Fallacy: argue the issue, not the issuer.

One of those YouTube videos is corrupted. The soundtrack is missing.
If you can find a version that has the audio track, as I said, it could be revisited.

No..I'm not jumping thru your always raised hoop like a dog. Research it yourself.

 

[DaveC426913]

No..I'm not jumping thru your always raised hoop like a dog. Research it yourself.

Why would you provide a corrupt video in a list of 10 best - and then demand that people view them? Surely there's better than that you want us to see.

If it's up to us to research it ourselves, then you can stop complaining that nobody will look at your videos.

 

[Magical Realist]

You provided it. That video you provided is virtually worthless. One with audio would be useful.
Why would you provide a corrupt video in a list of 10 best? Surely there's better than that in the 10 best.

If it's up to us to research it ourselves, then you can stop complaining that nobody will look at your videos.

You've already demonstrated you will just make up some flaw in the case that excuses you from considering it compelling. You need to do your own legwork to convince me you are not being disengenous here. What was corrupt about the video btw? The audio is totally working when I play it.

 

[Magical Realist]

9 - video footage
- radio audio in cockpit

(controller mentions Venus twice)
- two minutes of bright light shot by pilot
- shame pilot can't focus on light

Funny how you overlook one pilot confirming the light was above him while it was below another pilot. That's not Venus.

Also, so now 2 minutes isn't enough time to SEE a ufo? What's the standard time here that you've arbitrarily decided on? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? How long must something be seen to be regarded as really THERE?

 

[Magical Realist]

The Tehran UFO incident--1976. One of the best documented ufo cases ever. What's the mundane explanation for this one pseudoskeptics?

If this were the only ufo case on record, it'd be sufficient basis for acknowledging the reality of the ufo phenomenon. But it isn't. There are many others backing it up.

 

[krash661]

an interesting story for me is the 1890s aurora texas incident.

 

[paddoboy]

In this ufo case there is apparently a huge body of evidence, none of which is as informative as many people (including me) would like. That's why I can't draw any final conclusions about whether or not anything extraordinary and anomalous/transcendent is happening in some subset of the cases. Those problem cases may be inexplicable as they stand, but might not be nearly as mysterious if we knew more about them. That's my guess, but I don't really know it for a fact. But it's why I don't get very excited about ufos.

So you agree that they remain as UFO's...nothing any more sinister.

I don't think that you understood the context of the text that you quoted. Let's review. Paddoboy had asked the following question:
Paddoboy had introduced the assumption that if ufos are truly of "Alien origin" (however that's defined), then they would want to establish some kind of formal contact with Earth's governments, or something. I was arguing that that particular assumption is very weak, since if aliens do exist, we don't have any idea what their motives might be. It's possible that "any number of possible unverifiable motives" as you put it, might contradict the assumption. I don't need to verify the truth of any of those contradictory motives, since their mere possibility implies that the 'desire for contact' assumption (which itself is unverifiable) can't be conclusive.
Nor can we simply assume that the aliens would be motivated by the desire to make contact with earth governments, if a host of possible contradictory motivations are still on the table. So the "gregarious aliens" assumption is untenable.

Just as MR said,
Magical Realist said: ↑
Of course the pseudoskeptic will just say it's possible this is all just a hoax. Possible? Maybe. Plausible? I don't think so.
The same applies to my assumption:
Possible they may prefer to align with the "Star Trek" prime directive?, maybe, Plausible I don't think so.


Let me state again for the umpteenth time.....As one who is as close to being 100% certain ETI exists somewhere, sometime for the many reasons I have previously stated, I would dearly love that some irrefutable evidence for contact be discovered/made before I kick the bucket.
I have also observed a UFO and researched that sighting as best as I could, and came to the conclusion it was and remains a UFO.

 

[paddoboy]

The Tehran UFO incident--1976. One of the best documented ufo cases ever. What's the mundane explanation for this one pseudoskeptics?

If this were the only ufo case on record, it'd be sufficient basis for acknowledging the reality of the ufo phenomenon. But it isn't. There are many others backing it up.

Watched your video MR.
My opinion? Another beat up story, indulging in mystery and intrigue, as the History Channel does on many occasions.
My opinion is, for reasons of continually changing shape, moving ahead and behind craft that approached it, bits coming off etc, is that it was some sort of atmospheric electrically charged disturbance, but I'm not an expert on those things.
Other than that, I agree that it is a UFO.

 

[DaveC426913]

What was corrupt about the video btw? The audio is totally working when I play it.

I get no audio at all. Tried it several times. All the other ones are fine.

 

[Magical Realist]

I get no audio at all. Tried it several times. All the other ones are fine.

I've checked it twice and it works for me. Is your volume turned down?

 

[Magical Realist]

Watched your video MR.
My opinion? Another beat up story, indulging in mystery and intrigue, as the History Channel does on many occasions.
My opinion is, for reasons of continually changing shape, moving ahead and behind craft that approached it, bits coming off etc, is that it was some sort of atmospheric electrically charged disturbance, but I'm not an expert on those things.
Other than that, I agree that it is a UFO.

Right..some multicolored shape-changing "disturbance" that flees pursuing jets, emits orbs that circle around the jets, drops a glowing disk that lands on the ground, disappears and reappears a mile away, and is picked up on radar. That's an extraordinary claim isn't it? It requires extraordinary evidence!

 

[DaveC426913]

Funny how you overlook one pilot confirming the light was above him while it was below another pilot. That's not Venus.

Also, so now 2 minutes isn't enough time to SEE a ufo? What's the standard time here that you've arbitrarily decided on? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? How long must something be seen to be regarded as really THERE?

You are misinterpreting my review. You are reading into it that I am attempting to debunk them. I am not. I am simply highlighting the type and quality as succinctly as possible.

Absolutely, 2 minutes is plenty of time. That's a point in favor of the event.
12 minutes is even better. That's certainly an interesting account.

The Tehran incident (which I guess is video #0? Better than 1 through 10?) is very well documented.
Although this third person story leaves quite a bit to be desired. Why is the narrator telling the pilot's story for him? 'He saw this' instead of 'I saw this'. Who is the narrator to say what the pilot saw? Only yhr pilot can say that. Why can't they get the actual first-hand account from the pilot and directly translate it? The provenance of the story is totally lost. This is a script for a TV show. It may be accurate, but we have no way of knowing.

This is what we've been trying to tell you: yes they're very interesting, and certainly unexplained. But do they compel a specific answer? No. They compel us to leave the case open as unsolved.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've checked it twice and it works for me. Is your volume turned down?

As I said, all the other videos work fine.
This is one to which I am referring:
No audio at all. And the link to the YouTube video itself has the same problem:

It is refreshing to hear you communicating rather than fighting and LoLing.

 

[paddoboy]

Right..some multicolored shape-changing "disturbance" that flees pursuing jets, emits orbs that circle around the jets, drops a glowing disk that lands on the ground, disappears and reappears a mile away, and is picked up on radar. That's an extraordinary claim isn't it? It requires extraordinary evidence!

All extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: That's why at best they all remain as UFO's.
Atmospheric electrical disturbance, is certainly possible and plausible. :shrug:

 

[paddoboy]

This is what we've been trying to tell you: yes they're very interesting, and certainly unexplained. But do they compel a specific answer? No. They compel us to leave the case open as unsolved.

Bingo!
Most people have been saying exactly that.

 

[Magical Realist]

The Tehran incident (which I guess is video #0? Better than 1 through 10?) is very well documented.
Although this third person story leaves quite a bit to be desired. Why is the narrator telling the pilot's story for him? 'He saw this' instead of 'I saw this'. Who is the narrator to say what the pilot saw? Only yhr pilot can say that. Why can't they get the actual first-hand account from the pilot and directly translate it? The provenance of the story is totally lost. This is a script for a TV show. It may be accurate, but we have no way of knowing.

This is what we've been trying to tell you: yes they're very interesting, and certainly unexplained. But do they compel a specific answer? No. They compel us to leave the case open as unsolved.

LOL! So you're claiming when a source provides an account of a ufo sighting, then the source itself is immediately questionable? That doesn't follow at all. I read accounts all the time online, from books, and learn about them from videos. Those sources are not questionable unless you are some paranoid conspiracy theorist. I don't have to have the witnesses standing right in front of me telling me it happened. That's a ridiculously high standard that you only raise to dismiss the highly documented account. Further proof that you only pretend to conclude what you always assume--that the ufo phenomena isn't real. Give me a break...