Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Joaquin, Feb 16, 2015.
I refer to your post # 24
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes you've said that.
So I'll ask again: Can you point out an example of my ignorance on the subject?
the speed and maneuverability of UFOs
what do you think the speed and maneuverability of UFOs are ?
This has been previously addressed.
For your question to have ANY relevance you'd have to show that "UFOs" ARE aircraft/ aerospace vehicles (as opposed to something else).
[O]nly after they've been positively identified by type can a speed and "manoeuvrability" (whatever you mean by that) be given.
(The latter is like asking "What's the speed and manoeuvrability of a plane?").
Plus, as has ALSO been pointed out, that question is irrelevant with regard to the current discussion.
So you have no idea of the speed and the maneuverability of UFOs .....
Hence your ignorance shows
And you do?
Are you claiming to be an expert on UFOs and flying carpets and other such things?
1) I claimed expertise in aerospace. So far you haven't shown that "UFOs" fall under this category.
2) As with the planes example (assuming, for the sake of argument, that "UFOs" DO fall into that remit) then the possible range is likely to be vast.
3) You STILL haven't explained what you mean by "manoeuvrability".
I think what he means is: in cases where radar detects objects moving at speeds or angular speeds currently unattainable by known huu-man aircraft, or where radar detects solid contacts which witnesses describe as moving in unattainable ways, what then? I'm curious about those - or perhaps credulous.
None have been shown to be aerospace vehicles, thus my point stands.
That's what "unidentified" means. To call someone "ignorant" belies the fact that by definition EVERYONE is ignorant about what UFOs are. Its just trolling, really: a burden-of-proof shift. There is no need for any debunker to prove anything. Unknown is unknown, so UFO advocates have simply not met their burden...really, haven't even attempted to prove anything. No debunking necessary.
Of course, if the UFO advocate is purposely misusing the term, then they do have a claim that they are hiding to avoid proving it.
No, but it is curious.
Personally, given the time frames involved for life on earth, and the concept about the Great Filter in which civilisations destroy themselves, possibly, it seems mathematically more likely that aliens capable of interstellar flight would have visited long before, in the primeval past. If such an event came to pass and they were to leave any sign, surely it would be some constant that one would have to decipher in the long-distant future.
Thus I invoke the holy name of Dan Brown!
It's most likely fake.
What is the source? Who took the video? What is his name? What is his story?
Do you have any background information on this at all, or is this just one more anonymous video?
Can't locate the background story, but even UFO sites concede it is too good to be true. Which raises the question: would ANY clear video of a spacecraft ever be accepted as real?
Sure! If it was shown to be real.
That wouldn't be a very wise move on behalf of the authorities; if I'm not mistaken, military aircraft engines roar, rattling window panes and drowning out chit-chat — heads would obviously turn upwards. Wouldn't that be letting the cat out of the bag? Ha.
Can't locate the back-story? That should tell you something, right there.
Given the mess that the UFO nuts have made of things over many years, any such video would now definitely be regarded with suspicion.
Realistically, any single video taken by just one person would likely not hold much weight as evidence. The only exception might be if the person involved had more to lose than to gain by presenting such a video. That would probably require somebody with a high public profile and high public trust, rather than the usual garage skywatcher.
Much better would be a set of clear videos by people who had no connection to one another, backed up by further independent eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. This last, by the way, is why the "Phoenix lights" incident is moderately interesting. In that case, a lot of people did independently see things, and in a few cases they also made videos (though not very good ones, on the whole). But the other available evidence in that example all points convincingly towards a mundane explanation.
It is a mistake to think that any one piece of evidence - even a single clear video - could ever establish the existence of space aliens visiting Earth. Virtually everything worth knowing is supported by converging lines of evidence of different kinds from multiple sources.
It would be if it came from several reliable sources.
I mean, the Nigerian Minister of Finance really might be sending you emails offering you TWENTY THREE MILLION US DOLLARS ($23,000,000) to help him out of a jam. But at this point it would probably take more than one email to convince you, since those Nigerian "Ministers of Finance" have made a habit of scamming people. Still, if you got a visit from the man himself, and he showed you the money, and you had heard he was looking to give away money, and there was some rational reason he might have picked you - you might be convinced.
Not necessarily. The footage shows a very stern looking craft — a very beautiful craft — waltzing, gracefully showing off. One could almost deduce that the occupants inside were "allowing" the footage to take place, and being pleased as pie about it. Which might also explain something about the sole witness involved: a solitary "shy" type perhaps, who would quietly post his footage on the net without seeking cheap fanfare — telepathy, and telepathy is an ET specialty, right? might explain why perhaps that particular person was singled out.
Separate names with a comma.