UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Don't know about those. Do you have a source about what they were?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From the link above -

Aaron Sakulich writing for the Iron Skeptic agrees with the alcohol-use explanation.[27] Michalak's inconsistencies in his testimony when discussing his interactions with highway patrol officer G.S. Solotki as well as the nature of the drinks Michalak had prior to the incident were of note. Michalak's claim that he was sober was disputed by the staff at the Falcon Hotel, who stated Michalak had drunk several Presbyterians (a type of cocktail drink consisting of rye whiskey, ginger ale, and water).[27] Michalak's claim of his interactions with G.A. Solotki are directly disputed by Solotki's own report for the RCMP the night of the incident, which stated Michalak was reluctant to answer Solotki's questions despite his visible burns and possibly inebriated state.[27] In claiming that he was victim to a UFO related attack, Michalak could deflect attention away from prospecting competition on a site in which Michalak had already staked a claim.

Seems suspicious. The trouble with inconsistent statements like these, if he couldn't tell the truth about his interactions and sobriety, why should we believe the rest of his story? (which is far more bizarre than answering simple questions about how many drinks he had, etc)

See, the pilots with the tic tac video...their statements have never changed, they were sober...and they all agreed with one another's statements. Doesn't mean that what they saw was other worldly or a secret military weapon, but they have credibility, you know?

I know that he may have been afraid to say he had been drinking that night because his story would be quickly dismissed, but better to just be honest than now have people poke holes through your story because it keeps changing. All these years later, people are still poking holes in it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A few discrepancies in the police report? Meh..doesn't discredit the veracity of his whole account. I keep going back to why make up something so outlandish? And then stick to the story for years later. Just doesn't seem to be a hoax or a hallucination (burns on stomach and clothes + lifelong illness from those burns + trace evidence.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Same MR mantra: "It's a UFO (or ghost) unless you can prove it isn't. And you can't prove it isn't, so it is. Also: all skepticism is whining."

 

Hmm, they’re a little more than discrepancies, he lied about having alcohol that night (he had a substance abuse problem supposedly). Sometimes I overlook things too, but he doesn’t seem reliable, is all I’m saying.

I’m not sure MR, if you’ve answered this earlier in the thread, but… just curious what types of info would cause you to believe that some of these UFO sightings are not credible? (or just flat out lies/hoaxes)

 

Probably ulterior motives like making money off the story or physical evidence of the hoax. Something along the lines of giant wooden feet shoes found after a bigfoot encounter claim. Evidence that they actually created the hoax instead of just aspersions cast upon their character by armchair skeptics.

 

These stories never make sense on a higher level even (to me). The "flying saucer" design produces no lift, the propulsion required for Earth wouldn't be the same as required through space. No one ever sees a "Mother Ship".

NASA never finds and tracks these objects. The grid on this guy's chest is silly unless he rubbed against the grid. There are even statements that over the years they healed and kept coming back?

I don't think anything about these sightings make any sense.

 

If it comes my way, I'm boarding.

 

How do you know what the "character" is of someone who is a complete and utter stranger to you?

 

You can check in but you can never leave...

 

Yay trace evidence. To bad it can be interpreted to fit other narratives

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I give them the benefit of the doubt. For me people are trustworthy until they do something or something is revealed about them that is dishonest. Merely claiming to have seen a ufo or bigfoot or a ghost isn't one of those dishonest things.

 

I see Bigfoot right now. Oh sorry, I didn't have my glasses on. It was just a tree. My bad.

 

I’ll save you a seat.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can have the window seat but can I have the aisle? (long legs)
Thanks.

 

Exactly. And, while that makes you a lovely person, it is counterproductive in objectively analyzing a mysterious incident.

Also, it means implicitly that you grant the existence of God, Jesus' Resurrection, Buddha, Allah, the Great Flood and the Parting of the Red Sea. All these things were claimed to be witnessed by people whose character you have no reason to doubt.

 

I've never met those people nor even know of them. I tend to put my trust in real people.

 

Just like you've never met Michalak, nor do you know him.

 

I know of him and some details of his life. I have no reason to think he was untrustworthy.

 

Exactly. Nor do you have any reason to think other strangers are untrustworthy.
As you yourself said:

"I give them the benefit of the doubt. For me people are trustworthy until they do something or something is revealed about them that is dishonest. "