UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Correction to statement "2004 Nimitz group encountered tic tacs were radar detected by Princeton at 80000 ft altitude - too high for any conventional jet aircraft -", 2nd last para #5078.
Actually the SR71 reportedly could get to ~ 85,000 ft altitude, and modern version of U2 reportedly to ~ 90,000 ft.
Obviously neither of which has anything like the other observed/recorded characteristics of tic tacs and like UFOs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't beat up anybody about those topics. I simply post the evidence and let people decide for themselves, despite the pathetic attempts of the skeptical brigade to invalidate it typically by the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." Example: "Television shows are for entertainment only, and offer no reliable information to the viewers."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shall refer you back to the thread about paredolia?
You're like Trump: If I rewrite history, and lie for long enough, maybe people will forget.

You didn't post "evidence"; you posted a piece of entertainment that tries to woo the credulous with the video equivalent of yellow journalism.
That may clear your bar and Q-reuss' bar, but that's not really saying much.

Still asking why you called it 'ad hom'. What do you think that term means in the context of the video critique? Gonna bet on silence.

I did not say that, but now I can quote you saying it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quoting MagicalRealist.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would have expected "them" to use Linux.

 

I see what you did there.

 

From #5073: "...This post is not about debunking UFOS; it is about the crappiness of TV shows - and especially Youtube shows..."

Notice there is no qualifier like 'some' - just intimating TV shows (and YouTube shows) are crappy - period. Hence MR's paraphrase in #5082:

"Television shows are for entertainment only, and offer no reliable information to the viewers."

is an accurate representation of that highly prejudiced pov. And this harping on about stuff extraneous to the thread topic tells much about 'debunkers' impoverishment of topic relevant critique.

 

Yes there is. It's just that your attention span ran out before you finished reading one sentence.

Liar. Show me the period you refer to in the sentence I posted. Here, I'll help:

"This post is not about debunking UFOS; it is about the crappiness of TV shows - and especially Youtube shows - designed to suck in the credulous - and their damaging effect on the UFO phenomenon and thus their validity as reference material in a thread about UFOs > . < "

Oh look. There it is - after the great big long qualifier that restricts the context to reference material in a thread about UFOs.




You make MR look positively erudite by comparison. I forbid you from posting further until you edumacate up and get to some logicin'.

 

No your criticisms are invalid. And now slipping into outright insulting ad homs. Oh - have we sort of come full circle? Guess so. The sort of behavior one can expect of debunkers who have no real ammo. Who have to petulantly lash out, knowing full well the preponderance of evidence is now squarely and overwhelmingly in favor of reality of nonmundane UFOs.
And who the hell are you to forbid me to do anything here? Pull your head in and try to be objective.
PS - It's obvious my #5078 tearing apart your flimsy #5073 attack points has really stung hard. Get over it and move on.

 

Best explain a bit re my last post. Which mentioned an ad hom in relation to post #5089. My response was actually to the email alert version, and I failed to notice the posted version was later edited to remove the offending ad hom. It was either done within ~ 4 minutes of initial posting, OR DaveC obtained special help from admin to post edit outside of normal user rights. Anyway here reproduced is the original email version of #5089 - with obvious highlighting added:

Q-reeus, DaveC426913 replied to a thread you are watching at Sciforums.
In defence of space aliens
DaveC426913

Q-reeus
Notice there is no qualifier
Yes there is. It's just that your attention span ran out before you finished reading one sentence.

Q-reeus
like 'some' - just intimating TV shows (and YouTube shows) are crappy - period.
Liar. Show me the period you refer to in the sentence I posted. Here, I'll help:

"This post is not about debunking UFOS; it is about the crappiness of TV shows - and especially Youtube shows - designed to suck in the credulous - and their damaging effect on the UFO phenomenon and thus their validity as reference material in a thread about UFOs > . < "

Oh look. There it is - after the great big long qualifier that restricts the context to reference material in a thread about UFOs.

You're such a doof, Q. I forbid you from posting further until you edumacate up and get to some logicin'.

 

Is it that some of you completely disbelieve in the idea that aliens exist (at all) - or - are you open-minded to the possibility, but don't believe (are skeptical) they've ''visited'' Earth, yet? I'm in the latter group.

 

From that I gather wegs you stick to the usual dichotomy that dominates debates. 'Real' UFOs are - either advanced hi-tech military craft, OR alien piloted spaceships from another planet (with minor variations to that theme). No other option worth considering. Yes?
And if aliens haven't visited - well that leaves just military 'breakthrough' tech craft as the sole option for 'real' UFOs. Or so many believe.

 

It's sad and annoying that you never tire of bating with repetitive disingenuous questions having gotten as best as possible answers to them many times before. Or you are claiming really poor memory?

 

Full of bile much? Such is the style of SF's shining light admin overlord. Pathetic.

 

See my last two replies. I'm sick of your cheap repetitive tactics.