In defence of space aliens

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

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,590
    Your opinion of what a "fact" is is also not something others have to buy in to.

    How about we stick to the thread topic.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    10,627
    And if you think encounters with ufo occupants are rare or hoaxed events, here's a database of hundreds of accounts of such encounters gathered over the decades.

    http://iraap.org/rosales/#cufos
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    10,627
    A fact is fact. It doesn't depend on others "buying" into it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,590
    Your idea of what constitutes a "fact" is incorrect.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,627
    No it isn't. It is simply self-evident fact that in the field of ufology you have the knowledgable ones who actually study the cases over many years and you have the ignorant ones who avoid studying any of the cases. And they both reach conclusions. There's no way you can deny this.
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,590
    I deny that there are ignorant ones who avoid studying any of the cases.
    You have an opinion, - biased by your own degree of skepticism, and formed at a distance - of some whom you think don't study any of the cases.
    You're welcome to it, but don't for a moment, think that opinion constitutes fact. That would be ... irrational.

    Now, back on topic.
     
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,627
    ...
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017 at 10:24 PM
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,507
    Such as?
    I just checked Rose's Flying Saucer Technology (a look at actual aircraft that had circular or near-circular wing planforms[1]) in case my memory was falling apart and there's nothing listed for the RAF having tested one.

    So far as I'm aware no one has managed to fly any circular aircraft capable of VTOL, let alone "several".
    There was the Canadian (tested by the US) Avrocar (circular and hovered rather than "flew" since it was massively unstable outside of ground effect altitude), the US also flew the V-173 (circular, not VTOL, large propellers - not really "flying saucer") and proceeded to the XF5U (also circular not VTOL etc but never flew).
    Avro Canada planned the WS606A (aka/ linked to/ derived from Project Y, Project/MX 1794/ Silverbug) which (in SOME stages of design) was circular, VTOL capable (but also varied between flat-riser and "point it into the sky edgeways before launch") but didn't get past the mock-up stage in any version.
    WWII Germany had a couple of attempts (Sack AS-6 for example) but all were propeller-driven and quite small (even for a single-seater in the case of the AS-6) and more likely to fall into the category of "What type of weird 'plane is that?" rather than "That's an alien flying saucer!" if sighted.

    1 Note that term "wing planform" - an indicator that, regardless of shape they still relied on known, current aerodynamics for flight and couldn't perform any of the manoeuvres attributed to UFOs.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  12. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,018
    My apologies - I erroneously attributed John Frosts works with the RAF - I recall he had been a pioneer in British Supersonic aircraft technology, and thought that Project Y and Y2 were RAF - they look to have been USAF. Several of his patents were filed in Britain.

    I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that there had been a saucer prototype as part of the Harrier project that was a VTOL testbed... I'll have to dig around to see if I can find what I am thinking of though.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,283
    You might be thinking of the Flying Bedstead. You'd need to be charitable to describe that thing as saucer-shaped.
     
  14. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,018
    Wasn't that thing more a skeletal framework with some engines attached? If it's what I'm thinking of, calling it an aircraft is being charitable lol
     
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,283
    Yes. Well it did get airborne.....a bit.......
     
  16. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,018
    I saw a video yesterday of a semi truck and trailer going airborne after ramping an overpass due to a runaway diesel engine... Doesn't mean I'd want to fly that way lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    but I get what you mean
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,507
    Officially the Thrust Measuring Rig (i.e. not intended to be an "aircraft" per se, merely a proof of concept "breadboard" for jet lift).

    Essentially it showed that not only were "flat-risers" eminently feasible but that they were really the way to go for VTOL.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  18. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,209
    I didn't see anything thing about evidence be left in the Normanton case. Come to think about it I have never heard about ANY evidence left behind. I would think any evidence, once science has finished checking it, would take pride of place in a premium museum

    Shades of Superman

    Think they are checking to see if our DNA is a match to theirs. If it does match they might wish to keep it quiet.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,018
    Aye, that's the one! Freaky looking thing! I cannae see anyone mistaking it for a flying saucer though lol
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    MR:

    The problem with this hypothesis is that skeptics, in general, don't do that.

    The problem is that people don't like to think that they are capable of making mistakes, or acting stupidly. They get all embarrassed. So, it is understandable when people choose to ignore plausible alternative explanations of their experiences that they feel may result in embarrassment for them.

    And, it goes without saying that the people who make these kinds of mistakes are often not well qualified to tell whether "science" is impotent.

    Some people would rather just be told what they want to hear.

    It is considered evidence. But time and again, on close examination the house of cards fails to stand up. The so-called "evidence" so often turns out to be misinterpreted, flawed, or simply faked.

    Apparent intereference. Reported interference.

    Scopes have their own set of problems.

    Sure. Some things are unidentified. The problem is jumping from there to "It's an alien spaceship! Run for the hills!"

    Argument from authority now? Is there nothing better?

    When did this large metallic flying disc show up? Details, please! Where's the evidence for the rays, the speed, the disciness, the metallicity, the landing, the small beings, etc? Or is this just another anecdote?

    But there are just so many other explanations. There's no lack of other explanations, in most cases. That's not the problem.

    Why would they need to keep doing it, over and over and over again? And why all the sneaking around and hiding? Why not be open about what they want? Why abduct, when you could simply ask?

    It's all idle speculation, since there are no convincing "alien abduction" stories, anyway. None that I'm aware of, anyway.

    Why has nobody studied them, then?

    Let me know when and where the next alien spaceship is going to land, and I'll do my best to make sure somebody is there to study it.

    Most such evidence is of disputed origin, or else its identification is disputed.

    No. The evidence is flaky, just like all the other alien spaceship evidence.

    More anecdotes.

    Indeed. It doesn't have to be in a lab. But there must be agreement on what the facts are and how they are best to be interpreted.

    Also there's a lot of important steps between "something happened" and "An alien spaceship landed in my back yard and little green men took me for a ride."

    There are certainly many hundreds of unreliable anecdotes. Nobody disputes that.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    I have to laugh if you are claiming you have "studied" UFOs for years, Magical Realist.

    Every time you're faced with the prospect of actually studying any of your favorite anecdotes, by which I mean looking into them with any level of skepticism or prudence, you run away as fast as your little legs can carry you, only to produce the next shiny bauble that briefly captures your attention. You have no idea what studying something means. Or so you would have us believe.
     
  22. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Member

    Messages:
    210
    Vallee was a charlatan. His advocates were low grade morons.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,627
    Right..I approach evidence objectively and without an agenda of proving it is fake or mistaken. And no, I don't run from threads or debates at all. If anything I put so much effort in arguing my case that my generous contributions have to be snipped and turned into an whole new thread.
     

Share This Page