UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

And it is important to note that this thread will live in perpetuity; others will come across it. It would be irresponsible to let such dishonest commentary go unchallenged on what is still - at its core - a forum of science.

An entire thread, yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's start with what I consider a rather shocking admission of shameful behavious on your part:

So you have strung him up as a punching bag. You let him exist here so you can constantly take punches at him, to assert your superiority over him, and so you can show others just how superior you are to him. Wow. It had been stated by others that this is how you behave, and have behaved, but I never thought you'd actually admit it quite so openly. Just... wow. Certainly not behaviour I'd expect from a moderator. Frankly, given your clear prejudice and agenda as far as MR is concerned, should you really be allowed to moderate him any further, and should you not instead pass any moderation of his behaviour to the others?
Meh. Whatever.

As to the rest...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Irrelevant to my point, but hey, whatever.

Noone's asking you to. So thanks for the strawman. Maybe you can build a new and tidier haystack with the straw instead?

What you think about it is, frankly, irrelevant. Just another example of you throwing punches against your punchbag. The fact is that a case is put forward. It doesn't matter who, or why, or whether they are the "very best of the best cases" or just some watermark on a photo or video. The case put forward is all that matters.

Agreed.

So it's clear you're more interested in the meta-discussion than the actual cases. So, why not set up a thread to discuss the meta issues? Why derail an existing thread for a tangential discussion that you use for nothing but throwing punches. Oh, that's right, the thread's in a lull!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As have many of us. That's what this thread is actually useful for.

Then discuss with them and don't bother discussing with those you know won't change and don't have the open minds you want. Unfortunately you can't help yourself: you see the punchbag you have hoisted, and so you feel you have to throw the punches.

No, I have no such perception, and nothing I have said should lead to that conclusion. Have another go.
But maybe, just maybe, if MR, by your own admission by far the main person who puts forth any cases, isn't constantly trying to defend himself from your punches, he might post some more. See how that might work?

Indeed, I wouldn't be. So what?

Yep, that's about it, and that's what this thread seems to be for, not the effluence of the meta-discussion which is clearly nothing but an excuse to punch your MR-bag, the one you have hoisted so as to make an example of him. If you honestly want to have that meta-discussion, which could genuinely be an interesting discussion, rather than it being an excuse to have a go at your punch-bag, then set up a thread for it. You might even get 2 active threads for the price of 1.

So what? Are you duty-bound to fill the lulls in threads with tangential issues that you only raise to throw punches at your bag? After all, the 3rd rule when posting: "Post on-topic. Avoid going off on a tangent - if you have to, start a new thread." Meta-discussion is a tangent. Start a new thread for it.

I.e. a tangent. Which your rules state should be avoided, or moved to a new thread. You can even call it "Punching the MR-punchbag" thread if you want.

It's possibly an interesting discussion but is clearly tangential to this thread. So start a new thread for it, if you honestly want to have that discussion. But that clearly doesn't suit your agenda, your bias, your personal issues with MR. So, well, yeah. Whatever.

We do have rules here. Maybe you should follow them?

No, not really.

...

I am not oblivious to the irony, JamesR, but sometimes one needs to join the fray to end it. WW2 would have been a different affair if all those wanting peace stayed at home, right?
But for some reason you seem to think that a lull in a thread is a bad thing. Are you that desperate for post count and activity that you just fill lulls in a thread with effluence? You'd get the same activity by setting up another thread to have that meta-discussion, but then it might probably not be so obvious that you're throwing punches at MR, right? It might not be so obvious that there is a target for people, that you've strung up for that very purpose?
Heck, by creating a separate thread for such meta-discussion, you might actually get 2 active threads for the price of 1. Now there would be a thing!!

Oh, wow. The irony is strong with this one, the one who simply can't help himself in trying to psychoanalyse people's motivations, littering their posts with such efforts. Probably lost on you, though. Whatever.

It was rhetorical.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How long back is "a while back"? You don't seem to have started any threads in this forum for the past 7 years, for example. You started one back in 2014 about the Phoenix Lights case, but I do hope you're not referring to that one as it is hardly an "illuminating tutorial" on anything, and certainly not a "proper" investigation. (Also, note that it is not conclusions that are persuasive, but arguments. Conclusions are just statements.) So maybe you were referencing a different thread? Please can you indicate which it is, and provide a link?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Russian Boy Claims He Has Come From Mars To Protect Humankind From Nuclear War (msn.com)

Sounds like a very intelligent child, with an overactive imagination. Thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So ... how much analysis of this story would be considered "sufficient" so that we don't get accused of dismissing it too hastily?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh, I’m okay with quickly dismissing this claim. lol

 

I don't know. I find most Martians to be pretty level headed, almost like Swedes.

 

Maybe James will agree with you and we’ll have a tie.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why would he lie?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here's a substantial list of ufo sightings thruout history if anybody is looking for some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings

 

Not sure if I’d say he’s willfully lying, but he may suffer from hallucinations or an illness that causes them/delusional thinking. He’s extremely bright and knows a lot about astronomy for his age, so I wonder if people are merely awestruck by that, and believe everything else he’s claiming.

I don’t believe he’s a Martian.

 

James must be referring to this thread from 2016 where he concluded after much mental gymnastics and confirmation bias that the object witnessed was the planet Venus, then a meteorite, and then a deflating weather balloon. A trifecta of coincidental mundane causes seen by multiple eyewitnesses!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/portage-county-ravenna-ufo-chase-1966.158484/

 

But.......maybe MR isn't trying to convince you or anyone, though? I think MR posts things, he states why he believes what he does, you vehemently disagree - rinse and repeat. For the record, I understand why you feel the way you do. You are passionate that this site doesn't become a woo outlet. I do get that, but why can't this section have a simple disclaimer like ''this section and the comments therein, aren't representative of sci-forums.''

I'm just guessing, but I think(?) what troubles you about MR is that you believe he is converting minds with his posts and that somehow, this will turn off regulars or potential, new members who are lurking. That you need to keep this subforum controlled and centered, lest it becomes a dumpster for all kinds of crazy theories. If MR posted pet theories about UFOs in the astronomy subforum for example, and continued to do so despite warnings, infracting and banning him would make sense. But this section could be laxer, in my opinion.

This is off topic, but here's a site feedback suggestion - why not keep this section only visible to those who are logged in members? Other sites have certain sections blocked from the general public (who aren't members or are logged out). Just food for thought.

 

Sci Forum rules: Netiquette

• Abide by basic standards of good manners and courtesy. Remember the human who is reading your post.
• Do not insult or harass other members.
• Avoid engaging with members with whom you have a personality clash.
• Beware of the potential for discussions to become heated - particularly religious and political discussions.
• Do not flame other members.
• Do not engage in ad hominem attacks (i.e. attack the argument, not the person).

 

So being a hostage is the one thing you take from the analogy, is it? Not that you use him as a punchbag? Well, that speaks volumes, doesn't it. Abhorrent behaviour for a mod. Truly.
Sure, why MR chooses to keep coming back is for him to reconcile, but, well, whatever.

No, what is strange is that you're incapable of recognising your own motivations. You said: "But I believe there is value to be had in showing how this sort of person operates. Like I said, he is an excellent example." This is your motivation, as you have stated it, word for word. To show how "this sort of person operates" requires you dissecting it to highlight it - aka his posts are nothing but a punchbag for you. You only do this because you think his is the example not to follow - hence you want to show how superior you are than him.
Stop me when it's getting too confusing for you.

And again with the irony. Will you never learn. It's almost as if you're too stupid to recognise it in yourself. Or too stupid to stop yourself from doing it. And yes, I am being deliberately ironic in parrotting your approach. If you're also referring to your pathetic and weasily lack of apology for calling me a bigot, no, I haven't forgotten, but it is not influencing my posts.

And using MR as a punchbag to do so. I get it. Thanks. It's abhorrent behaviour for a mod to keep someone around for that.

You don't do that by continually throwing punches at someone, someone you have kept around just for that purpose. All you really end up doing is show how pathetic you are.

I have thought about that, thanks. Prejudiced in that, by your own admissions, you treat him differently because you want him around to make a point for you about how not to act on this site, so you can continue to throw punches at him. Tell you what, JamesR, you do you, eh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where did you think I asked you to? Perhaps you're referring to where I said that "if you want to put up cases, no noone is stopping you"? That is not asking you to, is it. So, please, where did I ask you?

What is relevant is that he puts forward cases, not the quality of them. What is relevant is that we analyse those cases that he does put forward, not whether those cases represent the "best of the best". What you said, therefore, about your thoughts of MR's filtering, is irrelevant. Again, stop me if I'm going too fast for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whatever, JamesR. Whatever. Does your patheticness know no limits?

When given 2+2, I am of course free to conclude that the answer is 4. If you're trying to claim now, though, that you didn't mean to imply what you did, and that the conclusions I have drawn aren't the ones you intended, well, that's another matter. As it is, you have implied that you are more interested in the meta-discussions.

On topic, yes. But tangential. I suggest you re-read the site rules.

If you don't like what MR says, don't engage with him!! Moderate him, yes, but don't engage with him! See how that works, yet?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My point regarding the meta-discussion is to move it to another thread! It has derailed this one. It is tangential, and should, per site-rules, be moved. So please move it, and all the accompanying posts from this thread.

Well, I'm not accusing you of deliberately lying, so yes, it is obvious that something I have said has led you to that conclusion since it is a conclusion you have reached regarding what I have said. What that something is, however, is really only for you to establish, as I am not privy to where your mistake has been made. Or are you trying to lay your mistake at my door. But you reaching incorrect conclusions is not unusual.

Of you reaching wrong conclusions of what someone has said? Because wrong conclusions are irrelevant to what was said, perhaps?

I don't believe I know everything or have all the answers, JamesR. That is just you coming up with an ad hominem to avoid having to address the issues, a pathetic attempt to try to argue the person rather than what has been said.

Oh, I wish I did. But no, I don't, although thank you for thinking it seems like that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It should be bleeding obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of English, JamesR. But your comprehension is demonstrably lacking, given the number of incorrect conclusions you've already reached. But let's see if you get it, eventually, shall we...

Well, you're starting to. Although you still only glance at it, and by way of trying to throw another punch. But you're getting warmer...

Why do you think that might be?

 

Cont'd...

Or, just maybe, you can apply some good ol' common sense to the situation?
1. Let MR post to his heart's content, "no commentary, analysis or brain activity involved". This thread becomes a repository, of sort.
2. People can comment if they wish, especially if "Oh, it's a watermark", and MR is free to say how we're dismissing anecdotal evidence. But, here's the trick, people ignore MR's comments, or take that meta-discussion of the heirarchy and strength of evidence, to another thread. Which leads me to:
3. A meta-discussion thread is set up so that people like you can feel better about yourself as you point fingers at the likes of MR and laugh about how you're glad you're not like him (well, that's the way such meta-discussions would likely turn out), and another to discuss the heirarchy of evidence etc. If there are other such meta-issues, set up other threads.
4. In the meantime, as has been done in the past, interesting cases are extracted to their own threads and analysed more deeply.

Result: activity! MR gets to post his cases en masse, we get to analyse individual cases more deeply if we so wish in their own threads, and grown-up discussions can be had in their own threads without the need to string someone up as a punchbag every time there's a lull in one thread. No, the analogy is not as a hostage, just a punchbag everytime they walk through the door. Sure, they can choose not to walk through the door (and why MR chooses to come back is for him to assess), but what image do you think you portray for this site when you allow people to stay just so you can throw punches at them?

Sure, what's the point of the meta-discussion if the... oh, right, it's not a meta-discussion you're after, is it, but just a desire to throw punches under the guise of "a warning for all!" A warning that noone will actually see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You said your "agenda" is to advocate for critical thinking and promote rational discourse, yet pretty much everything you do here is anathema to that.

You really do need to learn to spot rhetorical questions.

The ones you don't want to. I've already pointed out one, and MR has added some others.

Why do you knowingly argue a strawman (and it's not the first time!)? I referred to a lull in a "thread" and you argue against a lull in a "forum". Why? Do you have no counter to what I have said about a lull in the thread?

The rhetorical questions you reply to, you mean?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I did, but you're struggling to spot the difference between rhetorical and non-rhetorical questions. Have another go.

I don't think I do. And even if I did, there's nothing wrong in asking so as to be sure, is there?

Clearly. And you have to wonder why this site is in the mess it is, with the low activity it has. You keeping MR around as a punchbag is a symptom of a much larger problem here. Stick your head in the sand all you want, up until the point your alone on your deserted island. At least it will be an "island of rationality in the vast internet seas of stupidity, politics and vested interests."

There's no strawman here, JamesR. Your desire for post-count and activity on threads might go some way to explaining your desire to keep letting MR through the door to be a punchbag.

No, JamesR, I am better than I was, because now I am not only more aware of people's hypocrisy and patheticness, but also now more willing to point it out to them.

Whether you think it a hobby of yours is irrelevant. It is hypocrisy on your part to tell people to "you do you" when you can't stop "doing them", so to speak. And while you may "study", you really don't seem to be learning much.

Spectacle, as in wanting my points to be noticed, sure. Is being a spectacle relevant to what I'm saying, though? No. But, hey, whatever it takes for you to ignore the points, right!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wonder how long you'll continue to be a pompous and pathetic poster who really only posts to try to make themselves look better than others, and to blow their own trumpet. "Look at me! Look how great I am! Look how much better I am than him, and him!". I guess we'll both have to continue watching this space to find out, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'd have thought all posts make us feel better about ourselves. That's surely why we post. It would be an odd person indeed who posted because it didn't make them feel better.

No, it really isn't. Certainly not the "illuminating tutorial on how to conduct a UFO investigation properly" (but rather 16 pages of inanity punctuated by the occasional pertinent bit of analysis) which is possibly why I overlooked it, but then it's not recorded as being started by you, either. Seriously, the one DaveC linked to was the one I thought you meant as that really was a good bit of analysis. Not by you, of course, as your only real involvement was, once again, to throw punches at MR, but analysis by DaveC in particular. But since you also didn't start that one I didn't assume you meant that, either.

No doubt you'll fail to address the issues, once again simply respond to a summary of what you think they are, and in doing so create a strawman, or at least fail to grasp the actual points.
But, yeah. Whatever.

 

I think that Sarkus has a point on that score. Assuming that your goal here is to convince other people of something (what?) you probably should post more about what your analysis was and what conclusions you reached. Otherwise whatever others you hope to convince aren't going to be convinced.