Top 8 most controversial UFO photos

[Magical Realist]

And your list of supposed scientists that accept them?

Certainly not a majority of scientists, is it?

Again, when they make their visitation official, when they stop landing in out of the way fields, when they eventually leave some artifact, body, excreta, or a space craft with mechanical trouble, then we can say we have extraordinary evidence.

Argument from incredulity--because ufos don't behave like you want them to, they must therefore not exist.

And of course I'm no more defending any world wide view, rather simply accepting that over riding fact, that as yet we have no extraordinary evidence.
And if that's the accepted world wide view, its possibly because it is the most logical view.

LOL! Says he's not defending a worldview and then says he's defending a worldview. I guess I can't argue with your faith. It's what you choose to believe no matter what.

 

[Magical Realist]

Agreed, you cannot deny solid evidence. There is none. No pictures that show a UFO that could not be something else. No bodies of aliens. No alien poop. No materials that cannot be explained by modern technology.

Liar..In the past 6 or so posts I have provided links filled with solid evidence and accounts of ufos that cannot be explained by modern technology, weather phenomena, balloons, or meteors. You should probably look at those links before making yourself look anymore foolish.

 

[Magical Realist]

In other words, if you claimed that a crime had been committed by someone with the "evidence" you have - a grainy picture of a person near your house, secondhand stories about abductions of neighbors who had no hard evidence they were abducted, a car driving away at 8000 mph, Bigfoot footprints in your backyard - you would be (rightly) laughed out of court, just as you are laughed out of science forums.

If I had thousands of photographs of a crime being committed, thousands of eyewitnesses to said crime, and physical evidence on the crime scene of who committed the crime, it'd be an indisputable case. That's the kind of evidence we have for ufos and you know it.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/view/topphotos.htm

 

[billvon]

If I had thousands of photographs of a crime being committed, thousands of eyewitnesses to said crime, and physical evidence on the crime scene of who committed the crime, it'd be an indisputable case.

Agreed. You don't have that. You have what I have - sightings of things you could not explain.

That's the kind of evidence we have for ufos and you know it.

You're not living in the real world, then.

 

[paddoboy]

Certainly not a majority of scientists, is it?

Exactly and the point I'm making...There are always a Maverick or two in any discipline, and the first of your list [without going any further] appears one who certainly fits that bill, considering other aspects he is/has dabbled in.

Argument from incredulity--because ufos don't behave like you want them to, they must therefore not exist.

No incredulity at all: I'm simply applying common sense: And I'm not telling UFO's to behave anyway, I'm simply saying if they don't leave any extraordinary evidence of their visitation/s, or make it official, then they are more than likely an illusion and figment of someones imagination.

LOL! Says he's not defending a worldview and then says he's defending a worldview. I guess I can't argue with your faith. It's what you choose to believe no matter what.

I'm simply saying I'm defending [as you put it ] the lack of extraordinary evidence suggesting any Alien visitation, and that if this is the world wide view, perhaps its because it's the most logical view.
And of course it's you defending your Alien/supernatural/paranormal mindset, which you are totally unable to accept any criticism for.


Again, you have no extraordinary evidence for any such extraordinary claims.

 

[Magical Realist]

Agreed. You don't have that. You have what I have - sightings of things you could not explain.

You're not living in the real world, then.

LOL! You're the one making up shit about a field of research you won't even look into. Did you even check out those links yet?

 

[Magical Realist]

Again, you have no extraordinary evidence for any such extraordinary claims.

Keep having faith brother! Halleluja! Praise mainstream dogma! Trust in the bible of peer reviewed pubs!

 

[paddoboy]

Keep having faith brother! Halleluja! Praise mainstream dogma! Trust in the bible of peer reviewed pubs!

You appear to be getting excited....again.
Let me put it to you, as it was put to river in another thread, with even more extraordinary claims then what you propose...He simply believes it to be true, because he read it in a book!

Simply, this is first and foremost a science forum: And you as a believer of woo, Alien probing and supernatural etc, must expect opposition to your ridiculous claims and suggestions.
Perhaps if the scientific scrutiny is getting you down, it maybe more fruitful for you to go to a proper Woo forum, or a forum that promotes the supernatural and paranormal...I'm sure there's some about if you can't stand the heat of logic and sensibility here.
It makes one wonder why certain posters here choose to be here - they persist in denying science, and complain of bias when a scientific scepticism is applied to their claims.
I mean how would the reverse go, I mean how would I go if I went to our local church next Sunday and started yelling JC is a fraud...or to the local woo forum, claiming that they were all conspiracy cranks and quacks>..Would we then be able to claim we were being ganged up on as poor river did in the "Why does government hide UFO"s".
But MR, to give you your due, your claims are certainly far less crazy then that implied by river that this face on Mars is anything sinister, or the outrageous claim of a nuclear war on Mars: This would I suggest rank as the greatest nonsense yet expressed on this forum.
And again, no faith necessary MR: Simply the application of the scientific method and proper scrutiny that in reality, we would all be back in the dark ages if not applied.

 

[Magical Realist]

Simply, this is first and foremost a science forum: And you as a believer of woo, Alien probing and supernatural etc, must expect opposition to your ridiculous claims and suggestions.

Getting testy now are we? Calm down. Breath.. First off, you're not in one of the 10 science forums. You're in the Fringe forum, which is set up specifically to talk about this subject. Two, I don't hang out in ufo forums because I promote a scientific approach to the phenomenon itself without all the conspiracy theories and New Age tripe. And three, my approach is always logical and evidence-based. I back up my claims with facts and keep the speculations down to minimum. Whoever or whatever is behind the ufo phenomenon it is real and surreal and beyond dispute. If that upsets you, then get over it. It's what this discussion forum is meant for. And fyi, I know about the "face" on Mars. It's part of that same reason why I don't hang out in ufo forums.

 

[billvon]

LOL! You're the one making up shit about a field of research you won't even look into. Did you even check out those links yet?

Yep. Are you a pilot?

 

[Magical Realist]

Yep. Are you a pilot?

So now you know that ufos over the years have shown themselves to be metallic discs, cyclinders, spheres, ovals and triangular objects that fly at high speeds and also hover in ways defying modern technology. Are you still claiming they are swamp gas?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I often look down at the debate forum and note there has not been a debate for a very long time.

Could we have a debate about this?

I suggest that out of the bank of evidence, the best available, the most compelling etc piece be selected and away we go....


Of course no one will think they have lost but firstly such action would activate that part of the forum and hopefully if would be entertaining.

Alex

 

[billvon]

Yep. Are you a pilot?

So now you know that ufos over the years have shown themselves to be metallic discs, cyclinders, spheres, ovals and triangular objects that fly at high speeds and also hover in ways defying modern technology. Are you still claiming they are swamp gas?

I will take that as a "no, I'm not." So you are talking out of your ass. Please continue!

 

[Magical Realist]

I will take that as a "no, I'm not." So you are talking out of your ass. Please continue!

Why do I have to be a pilot to know about ufos? Are those the only people who see them? No..

 

[paddoboy]

Getting testy now are we? Calm down. Breath..

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery MR, and it seems as usual I have hit the nail on the head with regard to yourself.

First off, you're not in one of the 10 science forums. You're in the Fringe forum, which is set up specifically to talk about this subject.

Again, this is first and foremost a science forum, and as such frequented by those adherents to science, and as such, any claims, in any forum is subject to scientific scrutiny, which obviously you have failed at again.

Two, I don't hang out in ufo forums because I promote a scientific approach to the phenomenon itself without all the conspiracy theories and New Age tripe.

That's nice and good to see you havn't gone totally overboard on such nonsense as river has.

And three, my approach is always logical and evidence-based. I back up my claims with facts and keep the speculations down to minimum.

False, as your many anti science threads show: Plus of course all you do is ignore the scenarios put to you, simply to suggest that other explanations are possible, so as not to intefere with your predetermined faith.

Whoever or whatever is behind the ufo phenomenon it is real and surreal and beyond dispute. If that upsets you, then get over it. It's what this discussion forum is meant for. And fyi, I know about the "face" on Mars. It's part of that same reason why I don't hang out in ufo forums.

Of course its real! I have already admitted to that, as have most scientists.
Unidentified and unexplained, is certainly applicable to some incidents.
And why would it upset me? Or is this furphy directed at me, simply because I have noticed the excitement building up in you...you know, tit for tat.

Let me state it again, most all reputable scientists know we do not have any hard evidence that ETL exists anywhere in the universe: Fact!
Logically then, as an extension, we most certainly do not have the extraordinary evidence required to claim ETI have visited Earth, for the many reasons already given, many times.
Have a good day MR.

 

[billvon]

Why do I have to be a pilot to know about ufos?

You don't have to be a pilot. You would simply be slightly more credible claiming that you know what pilots saw if you were one yourself. (Not hard to increase your credibility above zero.)

But you don't have that. So continue talking out your ass. It's fun to watch; it's like watching a Trump supporter explain why Trump supports minority and women's rights.

 

[Magical Realist]

You don't have to be a pilot. You would simply be slightly more credible claiming that you know what pilots saw if you were one yourself. (Not hard to increase your credibility above zero.)

I don't claim to know what the pilots saw. I claim the pilots know what they saw. And that's good enough for me. Anything else you wanna whine about? Oh right. You're the great pilot that saw a ufo and somehow knows it wasn't an alien craft. Right..Got it.

 

[Kittamaru]

I don't claim to know what the pilots saw. I claim the pilots know what they saw. And that's good enough for me. Anything else you wanna whine about? Oh right. You're the great pilot that saw a ufo and somehow knows it wasn't an alien craft. Right..Got it.

Except they don't know what they saw... if they did, it wouldn't be an Unidentified Flying Object

 

[Magical Realist]

Except they don't know what they saw... if they did, it wouldn't be an Unidentified Flying Object

They know they saw a flying metallic disc, or a black cylindrical object, or a cigar shaped craft with portal windows, or a brightly lit orange sphere, etc. That's not unidentified in the sense of possibly being anything. It's obviously a craft of some sort. It has specific identifiable traits that can be distinguished and are repeated across thousands of other sightings all around the world.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Pilot

 

[Magical Realist]

I often look down at the debate forum and note there has not been a debate for a very long time.

Could we have a debate about this?

I suggest that out of the bank of evidence, the best available, the most compelling etc piece be selected and away we go....


Of course no one will think they have lost but firstly such action would activate that part of the forum and hopefully if would be entertaining.

Alex

I can't participate in a formal debate fettered with rules and protocols that determine what may be argued when and where and by whom. I prefer the free and open polemics of everyday conversation, as emotional and undisciplined as it may get sometimes. Sorry..Tks anyway.