USOs

[James R]

It makes sense to dismiss mere possibilities with no evidence of their probability.

Then by your own argument it makes sense to dismiss the mere possibility that your blob is an alien spacecraft.

A mere possibility isn't an argument for anything. Just idle and inconsequential speculations. If you have nothing more substantial that that, then maybe you should butt out.

So, when are you going to take your own advice and stop posting these mere possibilities you keep posting?

Actually the rest of the world sees a cylindrical object flying in sky.

No. The world sees a fuzzy blob in a poor-quality video that has no established provenance. Some, like you, imagine it is an alien spaceship. It is not obvious what the blob is, but it could be a shadow on a cloud or a water droplet, for example.

By your own argument, the mere possibility that it is an alien spaceship should be dismissed. This is your argument, remember, not mine.

Nobody is seeing a shadow or a water droplet except James R. He sees what he wants to see.

It could be something else. I am open to reasonable suggestions. How about you? Having dismissed the mere possibility that it is an alien spacecraft, according to your own standards of evidence, what do you think it is now?

I never saw rain with one black cylinder shaped drop on a jet windshield that moved in a straight line. Have you?

I've seen rain drops on windows that form lines and rivulets. Against a bright sky, raindrops on windows often look greyish rather than being fully transparent. In a poor-quality video such as this on, a greyish blob is quite possible.

There's exactly zero evidence that the object shown in the video is cylindrical, as far as I can tell. That is you seeing what you want to see.

I've seen plenty of ufos on video and photo.

You've seen lots of fake ones that you believed were absolutely real, so you're not much of a judge of these things, are you?

And yes, I take thousands of people saying they saw what they saw at their word just like I do from the nightly news and from history.

I don't think that aircraft would fit thousands of people. In fact, we don't even have one person saying what they saw in that plane.

It looks nothing like a raindrop.

Looks like a raindrop to me. Or maybe a shadow. I could be wrong, though. How about you?

And Mig fighters were chasing it.

There's exactly zero evidence that the Mig fighters were chasing anything. This is just something you want to believe.

So no...no raindrop.

So no ... no alien spaceship or "USO", based on what you've presented so far.

"On the night of November 6, 1973, a unique encounter with a USO occurred off the coast of America. Fishermen in Pascagoula, Mississippi, reported it, coastguards confirmed it. There were nine witnesses.

Can't stand the heat, so get out of the kitchen, eh?

Are you bored of your supposed Mig UFO now, Magical Realist, and ready to divert to the next "compelling" fantasy you've found?

It is clear you're not interested in properly examining the evidence. You made up your mind before you even watched the video, I'll bet.

 

[Magical Realist]

Then by your own argument it makes sense to dismiss the mere possibility that your blob is an alien spacecraft.


So, when are you going to take your own advice and stop posting these mere possibilities you keep posting?


No. The world sees a fuzzy blob in a poor-quality video that has no established provenance. Some, like you, imagine it is an alien spaceship. It is not obvious what the blob is, but it could be a shadow on a cloud or a water droplet, for example.

By your own argument, the mere possibility that it is an alien spaceship should be dismissed. This is your argument, remember, not mine.


It could be something else. I am open to reasonable suggestions. How about you? Having dismissed the mere possibility that it is an alien spacecraft, according to your own standards of evidence, what do you think it is now?


I've seen rain drops on windows that form lines and rivulets. Against a bright sky, raindrops on windows often look greyish rather than being fully transparent. In a poor-quality video such as this on, a greyish blob is quite possible.

There's exactly zero evidence that the object shown in the video is cylindrical, as far as I can tell. That is you seeing what you want to see.


You've seen lots of fake ones that you believed were absolutely real, so you're not much of a judge of these things, are you?


I don't think that aircraft would fit thousands of people. In fact, we don't even have one person saying what they saw in that plane.


Looks like a raindrop to me. Or maybe a shadow. I could be wrong, though. How about you?


There's exactly zero evidence that the Mig fighters were chasing anything. This is just something you want to believe.


So no ... no alien spaceship or "USO", based on what you've presented so far.


Can't stand the heat, so get out of the kitchen, eh?

Are you bored of your supposed Mig UFO now, Magical Realist, and ready to divert to the next "compelling" fantasy you've found?

It is clear you're not interested in properly examining the evidence. You made up your mind before you even watched the video, I'll bet.

LOL at frantic old James R obsessively trying to push his black cylindrical-shaped water drop theory again while getting in a few more ad hom jabs at me as a person. For someone who was not goin to respond to me anymore he sure isn't doin a very good job is he? Reminds me of another mod who couldn't leave well enough alone..

 

[James R]

Here's another account with video of a Russian Mig's encounter with a ufo. Notice the merging of the two objects. This is a common aspect of many ufos. It defies reason, yet there it is! Now waiting for the psuedoskeptic's rationalization...

First we notice that, as usual, the "UFO" footage is blurry and of extremely poor quality. Some stock footage of jets taking off has been spliced in at the start, but we only get a few seconds of the supposed "UFOs".

It is hard to tell from the footage from the aircraft as to which direction the aircraft is flying. One of my first thoughts is that the camera might be pointing backwards, showing the aircraft towing two objects on lines. The quality is so poor that the lines attaching the objects to the plane can't be seen clearly. However, in the enlarged version of the footage, it seems that lines can be seen attached to the two UFO "blobs".

Another possibility is that the blobs are conventional aircraft. It's hard to tell because the footage is so poor, but it looks quite foggy (or else the camera is looking through cloud or mist at the other objects). If that is the case, the lines could be jet trails or similar coming from the aircraft.

There is no evidence of any merging of the two objects. It seems far more likely that one object simply moved behind the other from the camera's point of view.

So, once again, the "compelling" footage turns out to be a ho hum yawnfest.

 

[James R]

LOL ...

There it is again. That nervous sign that shows that MR realises he has lot the argument and has no adequate response.

...at frantic old James R obsessively trying to push his black cylindrical-shaped water drop theory again while getting in a few more ad hom jabs at me as a person.

If you don't agree with me that it is a water droplet, and by your own standards of evidence you have ruled out that it is an alien spaceship, then what do you think it is? Do tell. And don't forget to post your reasons. I'd hate to think you were just "making shit up". That would be hypocritical now, wouldn't it?

There's exactly zero evidence that the blob is cylindrical, by the way.

For someone who was not goin to respond to me anymore he sure isn't doin a very good job is he?

You managed to change my mind by rejecting the implicit olive branch that I offered you. You keep posting unconvincing nonsense and trying to avoid all examination of your silly claims. When I have the time and the inclination, I'm not going to back off showing up your dishonesty and evasion and double standards. I don't hope to convince you of anything, of course. I think you're a lost cause. But other people might read these threads.

 

[James R]

Outstanding questions that Magical Realist either cannot answer or that he refuses to answer:

1. What is your excuse for the poor quality of these videos?
2. What is your excuse for the fact that the claimed Mig-21 cockpit is not in fact the cockpit of a Mig-21?
3. Do you think Star Wars is real? It looks real to me. Why would anybody make it up?
4. How did you decide that "the contrast between the object and the clouds in the background is too great"? What would you expect the contrast to be, and why? How did you measure the contrast?
5. How do you know the Migs are pursuing an object?
6. Are you aware that a circular shadow, for example, viewed at an angle, appears elliptical? The shadow of an aeroplane, viewed at an appropriate angle, can certainly look like a cylinder.
7. If it turns out that the video doesn't show a Mig cockpit, and it is claimed that it does, then we have established fakery, or at least a mistake somewhere. Do you agree?
8. What kind of cylindrical shaped craft do you have in mind, then, if not an alien space ship? Be specific as to what you think it is.
9. Do you have an account by actual witnesses (e.g. the pilots)? If so, please post it.
10. Are you able to refute the hypothesis that the video shows a shadow? If so, please post your refutation.
11. Are you able to refute the hypothesis that the video shows a water droplet? If so, please post your refutation.
12. What is the provenance of the video?
13. Where did the original come from?
14. Who is vouching for its authenticity?
15. What analysis has been done on the footage itself to establish that it hasn't been faked?
16. What work have you done to rule out the possibility of fakery?
17. Why are you not interested in investigating whether any given UFO photo or video is faked?
18. Why are you not interested in trying to eliminate any of the other possibilities, such the hypotheses I have suggested?
19. Is the video blurry or not? You have claimed that it is not. On what basis do you make that claim?
20. Is is possible for the shadow of a plane, seen from the side, to look cylindical?
21. Are you claiming that the cockpit configuration in your photo is the same as the one in the video, and that establishes the identity of the jet in the video?
22. How do you know the blobby cylinder has "pilots"?
23. Do you agree that the possibility that the object is an alien spaceship is not sufficient to establish that the object is an alien spaceship?
24. What evidence do you believe I have dismissed regarding this particular video? Can you point to anything important that I have missed?
25. If the blob in the video is simply an "unknown flying object", then it might not be an alien spacecraft. Do you agree?
26. How do you know the speed of the object in the video? How fast is it going, exactly?
27. When are you going to take your own advice and stop posting about "mere possibilities" that you say should be discounted - such as the idea that the blob in the video is an alien spacecraft?
28. Could you possibly be wrong in your assumption that the video shows an alien spacecraft?

 

[Magical Realist]

Outstanding questions that Magical Realist either cannot answer or that he refuses to answer:

1. What is your excuse for the poor quality of these videos?
2. What is your excuse for the fact that the claimed Mig-21 cockpit is not in fact the cockpit of a Mig-21?
3. Do you think Star Wars is real? It looks real to me. Why would anybody make it up?
4. How did you decide that "the contrast between the object and the clouds in the background is too great"? What would you expect the contrast to be, and why? How did you measure the contrast?
5. How do you know the Migs are pursuing an object?
6. Are you aware that a circular shadow, for example, viewed at an angle, appears elliptical? The shadow of an aeroplane, viewed at an appropriate angle, can certainly look like a cylinder.
7. If it turns out that the video doesn't show a Mig cockpit, and it is claimed that it does, then we have established fakery, or at least a mistake somewhere. Do you agree?
8. What kind of cylindrical shaped craft do you have in mind, then, if not an alien space ship? Be specific as to what you think it is.
9. Do you have an account by actual witnesses (e.g. the pilots)? If so, please post it.
10. Are you able to refute the hypothesis that the video shows a shadow? If so, please post your refutation.
11. Are you able to refute the hypothesis that the video shows a water droplet? If so, please post your refutation.
12. What is the provenance of the video?
13. Where did the original come from?
14. Who is vouching for its authenticity?
15. What analysis has been done on the footage itself to establish that it hasn't been faked?
16. What work have you done to rule out the possibility of fakery?
17. Why are you not interested in investigating whether any given UFO photo or video is faked?
18. Why are you not interested in trying to eliminate any of the other possibilities, such the hypotheses I have suggested?
19. Is the video blurry or not? You have claimed that it is not. On what basis do you make that claim?
20. Is is possible for the shadow of a plane, seen from the side, to look cylindical?
21. Are you claiming that the cockpit configuration in your photo is the same as the one in the video, and that establishes the identity of the jet in the video?
22. How do you know the blobby cylinder has "pilots"?
23. Do you agree that the possibility that the object is an alien spaceship is not sufficient to establish that the object is an alien spaceship?
24. What evidence do you believe I have dismissed regarding this particular video? Can you point to anything important that I have missed?
25. If the blob in the video is simply an "unknown flying object", then it might not be an alien spacecraft. Do you agree?
26. How do you know the speed of the object in the video? How fast is it going, exactly?
27. When are you going to take your own advice and stop posting about "mere possibilities" that you say should be discounted - such as the idea that the blob in the video is an alien spacecraft?
28. Could you possibly be wrong in your assumption that the video shows an alien spacecraft?

Now he's posting 28 "outstanding" question interrogations about that same video. Is being the administrator of a deadass science forum so boring that he actually spends time on shit like this? God! For your own sake let it go James. Noone's buying your bullshit shadow/waterdrop theory no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[Bells]

Now he's posting 28 "outstanding" question interrogations about that same video. Is being the administrator of a deadass science forum so boring that he actually spends time on shit like this? God! For your own sake let it go James. Noone's buying your bullshit shadow/waterdrop theory no matter how many times you repeat it.

In other words, you aren't able to answer the very simple questions or support your argument.

If this forum is so dead, as you claim, you are free to not post here.

 

[James R]

Now he's posting 28 "outstanding" question interrogations about that same video. Is being the administrator of a deadass science forum so boring that he actually spends time on shit like this?

I expect, then, that you will not be posting any more UFO videos on this "deadass science forum", since you don't want to spend time on shit like this.

Am I correct? Is this your undertaking?

God! For your own sake let it go James. Noone's buying your bullshit shadow/waterdrop theory no matter how many times you repeat it.

Can you refute it? If you cannot, you should admit that you have no answer. That is the honest thing to do.

I will be happy if you admit that you have no idea what that video shows, and you admit you cannot make a convincing case that it's an alien spacecraft.

 

[Daecon]

LOL at frantic old Magical Realist obsessively trying to push his black cylindrical-shaped OMG ALIENS!!! theory again.

 

[Magical Realist]

I expect, then, that you will not be posting any more UFO videos on this "deadass science forum", since you don't want to spend time on shit like this.

Oh I see. So your OCD interrogations about my posted evidence was supposed to get me to stop posting this evidence. Sorry, but Bells already tried this shit and it didn't work. I'll still be posting my compelling evidence just I have for the last 5 years here.

Can you refute it? If you cannot, you should admit that you have no answer.

1) Water droplets on a clear canopy aren't black and cylinder shaped.

2) The canopy is curved, but the black cylinder moves in a straight line and is itself straight. That's not possible for a water droplet.

3) There's no damn way in hell a water droplet on the outside of a jet canopy traveling at that speed would move that slowly. It would never show up period. Do you understand the force of the air on that canopy?


There..We're done. Theory refuted.

 

[Magical Realist]

In other words, you aren't able to answer the very simple questions or support your argument.

If this forum is so dead, as you claim, you are free to not post here.

I rarely do anymore. I discovered a new forum for posting with people who respect me and who don't have conniption fits about differing beliefs. It's called Facebook. You should try it.

 

[James R]

Oh I see. So your OCD interrogations about my posted evidence was supposed to get me to stop posting this evidence.

You only copied the link to a video. That is the full extent of your "evidence".

It is interesting that you consider a careful examination of supposed evidence to be "OCD", though. Very telling.

Tell me. Why are you spending more time on "this shit"? I thought you had better things to do.

Sorry, but Bells already tried this shit and didn't work. I'll still be posting my compelling evidence just I have for the last 5 years here.

You've never posted compelling evidence. You just "make shit up", as you like to put it.

1) Water droplets on a clear canopy aren't black and cylinder shaped.

Oh look. Are you going to attempt to address some of my points after all? That's a surprise.

Curved water droplets on a clear glass surface can look darker against a bright background (such as the sky). Thus, they may appear grey, like in the video.

There is zero evidence that the object in the video is cylindrical.

2) The canopy is curved, but the black cylinder moves in a straight line and is itself straight. That's not possible for a water droplet.

You claim the object moves in a straight line. Relative to what? Relative to the cockpit controls, or a straight line through the sky? How can you tell?

How do you know that the curvature of the canopy is large enough to significantly divert the path of a water droplet, over the distance shown in the video?

3) There's no damn way in hell a water droplet on the outside of a jet canopy traveling at that speed would move that slowly.

How fast was the jet travelling? And how do you know?
How many water droplets on the outside of aircraft windows have you examined?
What exactly is the canopy of this jet made of, and how do you know?
How do you know that surface tension in a droplet, combined with the surface effects of the airflow, could not possibly flatten the drop or make it move slowly, as observed?

It would never show up period.

Are you an expert on water droplets on the exterior of flying aircraft?
For how long have you studied the behaviour of water of the outside of flying aircraft?

Do you understand the force of the air on that canopy?

No. Please tell me about the force of the air on the canopy, if you actually know anything about it. I'm all ears.

There..We're done. Theory refuted.

Not until you've answered the questions I've just put to you.

 

[Magical Realist]

You only copied the link to a video. That is the full extent of your "evidence".

It is interesting that you consider a careful examination of supposed evidence to be "OCD", though. Very telling.

Tell me. Why are you spending more time on "this shit"? I thought you had better things to do.


You've never posted compelling evidence. You just "make shit up", as you like to put it.


Oh look. Are you going to attempt to address some of my points after all? That's a surprise.

Curved water droplets on a clear glass surface can look darker against a bright background (such as the sky). Thus, they may appear grey, like in the video.

There is zero evidence that the object in the video is cylindrical.


You claim the object moves in a straight line. Relative to what? Relative to the cockpit controls, or a straight line through the sky? How can you tell?

How do you know that the curvature of the canopy is large enough to significantly divert the path of a water droplet, over the distance shown in the video?


How fast was the jet travelling? And how do you know?
How many water droplets on the outside of aircraft windows have you examined?
What exactly is the canopy of this jet made of, and how do you know?
How do you know that surface tension in a droplet, combined with the surface effects of the airflow, could not possibly flatten the drop or make it move slowly, as observed?


Are you an expert on water droplets on the exterior of flying aircraft?
For how long have you studied the behaviour of water of the outside of flying aircraft?


No. Please tell me about the force of the air on the canopy, if you actually know anything about it. I'm all ears.


Not until you've answered the questions I've just put to you.

Right..I'll get right to work on answering your ridiculous questions about what water droplets do on canopies in a 500 mph wind. Keep waiting...I'm almost done. lol!

 

[Sarkus]

Figure it out...

Got it! This thread is just another excuse for you to spam "evidence" of UFOs without willing to actually discuss any of them?

 

[James R]

Right..I'll get right to work on answering your ridiculous questions about what water droplets do on canopies in a 500 mph wind.

And I'll get right to work watching ridiculous videos that you claim are UFOs, with not a shred of evidence to support your claims. LOL!

What a fool you've made of yourself here, Magical Realist.

Have you had enough? Can we close the thread now?

 

[Magical Realist]

And I'll get right to work watching ridiculous videos that you claim are UFOs, with not a shred of evidence to support your claims. LOL!

What a fool you've made of yourself here, Magical Realist.

Have you had enough? Can we close the thread now?

Nope..I have more evidence to present on USOs.

 

[Bells]

I rarely do anymore. I discovered a new forum for posting with people who respect me and who don't have conniption fits about differing beliefs. It's called Facebook. You should try it.

I don't do social media.

At all.

You should also be aware of the risk of posting online, or more importantly, what you post online, especially on social media. To wit, if you go for a new job, for example, your potential (or even current) employer can (and most probably will) check social media for your online footprint. Even if you are posting under a different name, who you are is not hard to track down. So all these posts that you are making or thinking of making about your beliefs in aliens/people from other times/conspiracies about aliens/bigfoot, etc on social media, can affect you personally. And very negatively. So be careful on social media. You may have a hard time here, but one thing is for certain, no one here actually wishes you any harm or malice. The same cannot be said for social media and sites like Facebook.

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't do social media.

At all.

You should also be aware of the risk of posting online, or more importantly, what you post online, especially on social media. To wit, if you go for a new job, for example, your potential (or even current) employer can (and most probably will) check social media for your online footprint. Even if you are posting under a different name, who you are is not hard to track down. So all these posts that you are making or thinking of making about your beliefs in aliens/people from other times/conspiracies about aliens/bigfoot, etc on social media, can affect you personally. And very negatively. So be careful on social media. You may have a hard time here, but one thing is for certain, no one here actually wishes you any harm or malice. The same cannot be said for social media and sites like Facebook.

So far I have only posted one youtube video about a haunted office. But I haven't discussed openly ufos or the paranormal with anyone. My main focus is positive quotes dealing with life and personal growth along the lines of Taoism and mystical spirituality. If people want to impugn me for that, that's not a concern for me. Everybody who sees my page is either a friend or a relative. There is no attempt to flame or put me down for my beliefs. If I choose to discuss fringe issues, I don't anticipate being castigated for it as I am here. There is value in social media in that you connect to people on a deeper level. Don't you have any friends and relatives you want to connect with?

https://www.facebook.com/sungazing1...30543.136336876521150/847710498717114/?type=3

 

[Magical Realist]

USO sightings from 1973-1979:

http://www.waterufo.net/nodate.php?date=1973_1979

 

[Magical Realist]

Got it! This thread is just another excuse for you to spam "evidence" of UFOs without willing to actually discuss any of them?

No..I will gladly discuss the topic of this thread with anyone respectful and honestly curious about it. I'm not here to defend myself against petty criticisms like why I'm such an idiot for believing in a video of an actual ufo or why I included a few ufo videos in with my uso thread. The evidence speaks for itself.