UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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

  1. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    16,691
    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."
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2021
    Q-reeus likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    Quoting MagicalRealist.
     
  8. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,476

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    I would have expected "them" to use Linux.
     
    Yazata and foghorn like this.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    I see what you did there.
     
  11. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    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.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    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'.
     
  13. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2021
    river likes this.
  14. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    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'.
     
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    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.
     
  16. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    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.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Maybe you should tell us what your "paranormal entities" are, if not regular old ghosts that do hauntings. And, much more importantly, don't forget to tell us how you know that's what they are.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Oh, I'm sure that Dave must have meant that all TV shows are crappy, and not just the breathlessly credulous cheap UFO pseudo-documentaries regularly served up by the likes of the "History" channel.

    Why are you so defensive? Could it be that such shows are one of your main, trusted sources for UFO information? That might be the problem, right there.
    Everything about balony detection is relevant to this topic. You and Magical Realist don't actually know how to critically examine evidence, nor is either of you remotely interested in applying a critical lens to your UFO fanboyism. It's the thrill of the fantasy that pushes your buttons, I guess. And all the crappy TV shows pander to that - indeed, encourage it.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    I have said many times that I'd be extremely disappointed if it turns out that there are no intelligent aliens out in the universe somewhere. With so many planets available, it seems very unlikely that life would only arise on one of them. (It would be nice to find life on Mars or somewhere, because if life started in two planets in the same solar system, then the chances will be very good indeed that life will be ubiquitous in our galaxy alone. Unless the life on Mars came from Earth, or vice versa, which is possible. But that's another story.)

    On the other hand, it's very quiet out there. One would think that at least one intelligent species - if they exist - would have invested in a big radio transmitter to try contacting other civilisations. Mind you, we have only been broadcasting weak signals into space for 100 years or so, so the "bubble" of radio noise that surrounds our own little planet is only 100 light years wide at the moment - a minuscule volume of space compared to the galaxy. There's only a smallish number of stars within 100 light years, and they are the only ones that could possibly receive our signals (unless somebody out there is constructing roaming probes, which is possible).

    What we can say for sure about alien visitations to Earth is this: if they are happening, then the aliens are doing a great job of hiding from us. So good a job, in fact, that there's currently no convincing evidence of alien contact available to us. On the other hand, it's far more likely that the aliens (if they exist at all) simply haven't visited us. Chances are good that they don't know we're here. Besides, interstellar travel is probably going to be very difficult, however one tries to go about it. That's why making contact by radio makes a lot more sense, at least initially. Much cheaper to do it that way, and much easier to reach a wide audience.

    Of course, I could be wrong. But it's totally not up to me to prove that aliens aren't visiting us. It's up to the people who claim they have good evidence that aliens are visiting us to present their evidence and argue their case. And just look at what a poor showing the True Believers are putting on for us, just in this thread on this forum!

    One other thing: arguments from ignorance do not equal evidence. If you see a strange light in the sky that you can't identify, then the default conclusion is not "It must be an alien spaceship" (or, in Q-reeus's case, "It must be a paranormal ghost from another plane of existence", or whatever). If you don't know what it is, then it's an unsolved mystery, for now. That's all. Get back to me when you do know what it is, and when you can show me the evidence that strongly supports the conclusion that it's aliens, or paranormal time travellers, or magical pixies from the Forbidden Forest.

    Think about this, too: UFO enthusiasts have had about 70 years now to dig up some good evidence of aliens (or whatever). But the vast majority of stuff they count as evidence consists of unreliable anecdotes, fuzzy photographs and pure fantastical speculation.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    If you have evidence that UFOs are paranormal ghosts, or whatever, please feel free to present it. Make your case.

    The fact is, very few UFOs even rise to the level of being identifiable as "craft" of any kind. Light in the sky aren't "craft", at least not until the objects the lights are attached to are evidenced. And UFOs can't have "pilots" until they are "craft", so wild speculations about the "controllers" of UFOs are just that, nothing more.

    The term "real UFO" doesn't actually mean much. The label "UFO" (or "UAP") is just a place-filler for "I don't know", when it concerns something seen in the sky. It doesn't make a lot of sense to distinguish between "I don't know" and "I REALLY don't know".
     
  21. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    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?
     
  22. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Full of bile much? Such is the style of SF's shining light admin overlord. Pathetic.
     
  23. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    See my last two replies. I'm sick of your cheap repetitive tactics.
     

Share This Page