UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ex-pilot seeks investors.
https://www.mergedpoint.com/about

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Guy's gotta make a living somehow. Why not incorporate it with something he feels strongly about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it does. In the context of flying a jet and being a pilot, these trained and experienced pilots are the best observers of whatever is observed while flying a jet. They are aware of the perceptual discrepancies and the quirks and can be relied on to make accurate observations. Armchair debunkers on computers...eh..not so much!

 

Since I was addressing Dave, your response seems disingenuous.

 

Send him a link to this thread. He could use your evidence for time travelling and extra dimensional whatnots in his drumming for backing.

 

Have you ever heard of blue on blue with jet fighter pilots, or does that never happen with these gods of yours?

 

I have no reason to think otherwise. Do you? All that training and experience must count for something..

 

It would be helpful if you would answer the question that I asked. How do you or your source (which I'm assuming is Mick, if not I might owe him an apology) know that the airfield was "recently built" "for the express purpose of testing new unmanned drones"? I'm doubtful about that, since the airfield has been there for many years, since long before UAVs were a thing.

Your own words: "The purpose of those drones: to pose as a "phantom fleet" of ships" I'm skeptical that you or your source really know that, since that information would be highly classified.

I have no objection to that (it's essentially the same speculation I presented earlier in the thread, when you dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory" as I recall) except for the claim that the USS Omaha's Sea Giraffe radar is "essentially identical to commercially-available systems at the time", which I believe is false.

And there you go with your "woo" dismissal. It looks like an admission of your own bias, since "woo" appears to be whatever you happen to believe doesn't exist. Since "woo" are things that are assumed to not exist, they must have low a-priori plausibility simply by definition. (The "priors" thing that I wrote about in an earlier post.)

I agree.

One hypothesis seems to be your secret UAV speculation (except not-so-secret since you believe that you know about it). While it may or may not be true (I've speculated about it myself in several previous posts that MR replied to and didn't ignore) it's little more than a speculative hypothesis at this point.

The other "competing hypothesis" isn't your "woo". It isn't really an explanatory hypothesis at all. It's simply the admission that these things appeared extraordinary to those who observed them (in some cases trained observers using advanced detection instruments) and that we don't currently know what they were.

My own judgement is that the latter "hypothesis" (some are difficult to explain and we don't currently know what they were) is far more plausible than the former (very speculative hypotheses seemingly advanced simply in hopes of dismissing the reports). Just given the human condition, admitting ignorance about things is hugely plausible, especially in extraordinary cases.

My confidence in Mick's objectivity would increase tremendously if he was less sarcastic and more willing to admit that for some cases he has no clue what they were. That admission needn't commit him to the reality of "woo", nor should it prejudge the nature of what is being reported.

 

It's a common tactic of skeptics to foist speculations as fact by claiming their speculation is more probable (read: a priori true) than any woo (read: other speculations that they disgree with). That's how they skirt the issue of having to provide evidence for their claims. Their speculation is presented as inherently true, like any a priori statement, based on nothing more than a subjective sense of its comparative plausibility.

 

This is a direct contradiction. Simply put, "more probable" is not synonymous with "fact". Nothing in the rest of your post changes that initial falsehood.

You continue to argue in bad faith. At some point, enough bad faith arguments add up to trolling, which is an infractable offense. *tick tock tick tock*

 

Although I gotta say - it is so adorable to see MR putting things into practice he's learned from his time here.

Every time he says something even vaguely scientifically-relatecd, this image pops into my head:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Censorship will use any means available to achieve its end of silencing opposing views. It's tyrrany's way of shutting down conversation and getting the last word.

 

"Woo" seems to be anything that a certain kind of person believes isn't real. The proposition that things that aren't real might be real will have an exceedingly low plausibility weight, simply by definition.

It seems to me to be circular to then turn around and try to justify one's belief that something isn't real by one's subjective plausibility assessment which is itself an expression of the initial disbelief.

That's really just the familiar Argument from Incredulity repackaged.

 

You are not being censored, so this is utterly spurious.

Every one of your topical posts is as public as anyone's. But you insist on trolling (deliberately stating falsehoods) and, since you know the rules about lying and trolling, that is what you are being suspended for.

Argue in good faith and you surely won't be suspended. You know this.

 

No. Maybe don't wing it when it comes to learning what words mean. Google is your friend.

'Woo' is effectively synonymous with 'pseudoscience' - simplistically, a collection of statements and claims that smack of scienciness but are not supported by the scientific method.

No. Objective preponderance of evidence.

It seems you have drunk MRs Koolaid. You know better than to say things you know are not true.

 

If trolling is defined as saying something that other posters or moderators disagree with, then we are all trolling everyday. Trolling is an infraction catchall--a trumped-up and conveniently vague charge aimed to get someone banned from the forum for simply expressing their point of view. That's why you use it for me. You want to get me banned again to shut me up. Why? Only you know the answer to that.

 

Gonna let you in on a little secret. I can't get you banned. I can't put any words in your mouth. Welcome to adulthood, where you are responsible for you own actions.

No, what I want is for you to stop telling lies. Saying things you know are false.

And now you know the answer too.

 

Prove where I intentionally told a lie. I'll wait.