UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yes. And this is a good lesson in forum discussion debating.
    James can refer to external sources, but the debate happens here.
    All you have to do is rebut James' reliance on West's video. Show that it falls apart. (IOW, don't give James power as an authority either!)
    But you've got to do the work, here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2023
    foghorn likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    1. The video you showed is radar only, so your comment is missing context.
    2. Neither radar nor FLIR can intrinsically show the 3-dimensional shape of a unknown target.
    3. Oval and spherical are not synonymous. An oval is a 2-dimensional shape; a sphere is 3-dimensional shape. If you had said it is "oval", you wouldn't have been challenged, but you didn't, you said spherical. That is unwarranted.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    Wrong. It's a frigg'n camera! Ofcourse it shows the shape of the target it is recording.

    Jets on FLIR compared to UAP..

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    This is the relevant video.
    Your post 8173.
    My challenge in post 8177.

    Perhaps you got confused.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I have shared my views about Mick West, but he dismisses them because West supports his thinking on UAP’s. Human nature and all that…

    But, I’ll do the work if others do the work. And by “work,” I mean…if some of you think the tic tac flying object is a weather balloon, for example, I want to know why. It’s not up to me to educate myself on everything there is to know about weather balloons.

    It’s up to you to say why you think it could be that. And how a group of experienced navy pilots who were sober, who probably have seen hundreds of weather balloons in their careers, could misidentify the tic tac object for something extraordinary, that they’ve never seen before.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    That's the radar. I'm talking about the FLIR camera..
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    This is an ad hom.
    Presumably, James supports West's arguments because they are well-formed and logical, and not because he's a flawed human.


    You want to revisit that one? I suppose there's nothing stopping you.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    What FLIR camera, exactly?

    I was very clear in post 8177 that the video you posted was radar only. And that if you were referring to some FLIR imagery, you didn't mention it, so your FLIR comment has no context.

    There is nothing in post 8173 that indicates any sphericity.

    This is like pulling teeth. You need to take stock and reformulate your claim to remove the ambiguity. (But I suspect you won't because it would require effort - something only skeptics do.)
     
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said James or West are “flawed”. Human nature meaning, confirmation bias. We all do it, there’s no shame in it. But, if you have a tendency to only seek to debunk UFO claims, you likely will gravitate towards those who do the same.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    You can't be this obtuse. I'm referring to the FLIR video posted in post 8145, which you mentioned in post 8182..
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    That's an ad hom. Suggeasting James's assessment is flawed.

    It is, nonetheless, an attempt to lower James' credibility by attempting to apply it here.

    And there it is, laid out.

    Attack the argument not the arguer.
     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I made no such reference in post 8182. The is referring to post 8177. You can tell because I quoted 8177. Please review thread history before responding so there's no more confusion.

    This is post 8177 in its entirety. It is a video of radar only.

    This is the post where I asked you how you concluded the objects were spherical:


    If you want to draw a link to some other content, then do so. And take responsibility for your errors in communication.

    As it stands, there is no FLIR in that video, and no indication of any shape in the bogeys, let alone spherical.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2023
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    You're the one who said FLIR doesn't show the shape of the target. That's what I was referring to. If you can't comprehend that then that's on you, not me.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Please review posts 8173, 8177 and 8182.

    Until then, no claim about sphericity has been supported.
     
  18. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    No, he should be required to back up his debunkery. If he can't, then it could be flawed.


    This isn't about James. It's about Mick West, but James brought him into this thread, so he must trust his assessments. I don't trust West's assessments, because they're sloppy, and he is a professional debunker.


    And this is known as projection. You have done this to MR throughout the entire thread. I'm not attacking anyone...I'm stating that if you want to debunk, then you need to explain why we should believe your ideas over the eyewitnesses. (And I'm not saying all eyewitnesses, but those cases that are currently ''unsolved''.)
     
    Yazata likes this.
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Good, then your ad hom about "human nature" will be considered retracted.


    Stop talking about trust. A good scientist does not "trust". A good scientist checks anothers' analysis or does his own.



    It's not a big deal, but you did.

    You said, referring to James: " ... likely will gravitate towards those who do the same." That's is an attempt to discredit James R by suggesting his assessment is perhaps based on this silly thing you call trust.

    It's not a big deal. I'm just showing you how easy it is to do (coming from one who knows). Even you can succumb to ad homs.
     
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    *thumb up emoji*



    Confirmation bias. We all do it. We gravitate towards people who believe what we do, who debunk what we want to debunk, etc…

    Trust is defined as believing in the reliability of what someone is saying. If you’re not comfortable with that word, why? If you believe in the reliability of what Mick West is saying, then you “trust” him. At least as it relates to the subject you’re interested in.
     
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Touché. I didn’t realize it was an ad hom, definitely not a deliberate one. But, point taken.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    If you want to debate the UAP reports, lets do that. If you want to discuss your theories about who in this thread is subject to confirmation bias, I think that's been beaten to death.

    I gotta say, its making me think twice about anything useful that might come from rediscussing the Tic tac incident...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Yeah, they're not always direct or obvious.
     

Share This Page