USOs

[James R]

Magical Realist:

It would if you mentioned it and later retracted it for another so-called "possibility".

You misunderstand how critical thinking is done.

I have not retracted any possibility. Rather, I am examining three different possibilities to see which is the most likely and to see whether any of them can be ruled out. In other words, I am spinning multiple hypotheses and keeping an open mind. You, on the other hand ... well, not so much. You made up your mind right from the start. Didn't you?

Now it's a water droplet? Wait? You said it was a shadow. Which is it now? It can't be a shadow AND a water droplet.

Right. It can't be a water droplet and a shadow and an alien spacecraft. But it might be any of those things, or something else again.

Why are you not interested in trying to eliminate any of these possibilities? Is it because you decided what it was right from the start?

It was mentioned in the account given in the vider didn't you watch that?

I watched it. It has a second-hand account given in a voice-over. That's all. No documentation. No interviews with the pilots. Nothing. The "account" you refer to is hearsay at this point in time.

What are babbling on about blurry btw. The video isn't blurry in the least.

You must be watching a different video to the one I posted above. Your "cylinder", or whatever it is, is just an ill-defined blur. Suggesting either that it is out of focus (perhaps close to the camera), or else that it is actually an ill-defined thing, like a shadow on a cloud, for example.

Clear enough for you to call it a shadow of a Mig 21 jet.

That would be an inference, not a direct perception. If it clearly had the shape of a plane, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Though, in your case, you never know.

Are you aware a jet doesn't cast a circular OR a cylindrical shadow? You can change angles all day long and it's still going to look like a jet shape.

You're quite wrong. Consider how the shadow of an aeroplane looks from the side. You don't see the wings; they are hidden in the shadow of the fuselage.

Do you believe this is impossible? Do you have a rational reason for believing it to be impossible?

The video provided that account.

The only "account" in the video is second or third hand.

If you think it didn't happen, prove it.

Recall that it is you who claims the object shown is extraordinary. Ergo, it is up to you to establish its extraordinary nature. The default position, as I have so often explained to you, is to look for a mundane explanation. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

I see clear video of clouds, the sky, and the cylindrical object, which is seen to accelerate.

You see what you want to see. You want to see an alien spaceship, so that's what you see. The problem is that you won't even consider alternatives. Your mind is closed.

You see enough to claim it's shadow.

I've made no claim that it is a shadow. Once again, you don't understand what I'm doing here. I am suggesting mundane explanations that have not yet been refuted. If you can refute them, good luck to you. I'll happily reject any hypothesis that is shown to be flawed. How about you?

No..that's not how this works. I provided the account in the video, and you are the one who makes up the shit about it not being real. The burden lies on you to support that claim. Or is it a claim? One can never tell if you are just speculating about possibilities or actually arguing for a point based on evidence.

A few points:

1. You did not provide the account in the video. You just found the video somewhere and posted it here. You have collected no evidence yourself, and in fact do not seem interested in examining any evidence.

2. We are both running hypotheses here. Yours is that this is an alien spacecraft, a projection from the future, a pyramid-powered anomaly, the Ghost of Fu-Manchu, or some other paranormal thing. (You refuse to specify what you think it is, other than it is not mundane.) My hypotheses are currently that it is a shadow or a water droplet.

If I am "making shit up" by running my hypotheses, then you are equally "making shit up" running yours. You see that, do you not? Unless you produce sufficient supporting argument or evidence that makes it more probable than not that this is an alien craft or whatever you think it is, you have not established your claim. If you then go on to insist, despite failing to make your case, that this thing is an alien craft or whatever, then you truly are "making shit up".

Understand?

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Why yes I have. I even provided a pic of a Mig 23 jet cockpit that looks nothing like the other one.

It's not clear to me what you're saying. 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? If so, please make this clear.

Go ahead and prove it's not a Mig cockpit then. I'll wait.

Since it's your claim that the "account" in the video is true, it would help your case if you could prove that it is a Mig cockpit. I don't see why I should spend time doing your homework for you. If you think it important to dismiss the claim that it is not a Mig cockpit, then get up and do some work of your own.

Cylindrical shaped craft will suffice until we actually see one land and interrogate it's pilots.

You see what you did there? First, you assume there is a "cylindrical craft", which you have completely failed to establish at this point. Then, you assume that said "craft" has pilots, for which you have even less evidence.

I'm sorry, but you won't be able to sneak in assumptions about "craft" and "pilots" with me. You'll need to make a case for them.

You would be willing to concede, I assume, that the object could be a mundane human-operated aircraft - perhaps a US plane, for example? They are cylindrical, after all, especially seen side-on.

Don't be an idiot. The film gives the account of what happened. Or are you now deaf?

The films gives a second or third hand account. It is a film made and posted by people who are biased towards the existence of aliens. Even you must admit that.

Great. Then you have nothing to offer but baseless speculation. Move on then.

Wrong. My speculations have been based on the video footage. I have explained my reasoning clearly in both cases. That is, I have a clear basis for suggesting each hypthothesis.

And you?

No evidence so far has been presented suggesting this video or the account given is faked at all. I'm still waiting for that.

I haven't made that suggestion up to this point. Perhaps something will turn up later in the discussion to suggest that might be case. It is, of course, possible that the footage is faked. But there's no smoking gun that I've noticed so far.

You'll admit, of course, that fakery is possible, won't you?

No it isn't. It's a sharply defined moving cylinder that speeds up.

Again, you must be watching a different video. In what sense is the object in the video "sharply defined"? Is looks like a blurry blob to me. Please explain.

Show me how a cylindrical shadow is cast from a jet on blue sky and we'll take your absurd speculations seriously.

I have already discussed the issue of "blue sky". If you wish to discuss that matter, please address the points I made previously about that.

Specifically, a jet could cast a cylindrical shadow if it were banking at an appropriate angle to the Sun. You will, of course, admit that this is possible. Won't you?

I'm not the one claiming it is faked. That'd be you, and so on you to establish that with some evidence. Don't make claims you can support with evidence.

Again, you misunderstand the process of critical thinking. I have made no claim that it is faked.

However, I am willing to investigate the possibility. I hope you are, too. Here's what I'll need for a start:

• Where did the footage come from?
• How did it come to be in the hands of the makers of the program from which that excerpt was taken?
• Where is the original footage?
• Who can vouch for its authenticity?

Once you have provided that information, for a start, we will be in a better position - the two of us - to investigate the possibility of fakery. This assumes that no hint of fakery turns up in the video footage itself (assuming other people reading this thread watch it, or you and I re-watch it with a view to finding evidence of fakery).

Right..unevidenced speculation that it COULD be fake. Not good enough.

I agree that the possibility of fakery is not sufficient to establish fakery.
You, in turn, will agree that the possibility that the object is an alien spaceship is not sufficient to establish that the object is an alien spaceship.

Correct?

We'll need evidence for the probability that it is faked to consider your claim seriously. Got none? Then you have no argument do you?

We'll need evidence for the probability that it is an alien spaceship to consider your claim that it is an alien spaceship serious. Got none? Then you have no argument do you?

Just as I said. You don't believe in ufo craft and therefore you dismiss all evidence as either fake or mistaken.

I have not dismissed any evidence, as far as I am aware.

What evidence do you believe I have dismissed regarding this particular video? Please be specific.

My position is that the available evidence for your claim that this video shows an alien spacecraft is weak and unconvincing. That's all.

Moreover, tellingly, you have been unable to refute my perfectly reasonable mundane alternative hypotheses, so far at least.

I didn't claim it was an alien spaceship. Remember when I told you that?

You've now backed off, but you're still claiming there's a "craft" with "pilots". What is your evidence for that? Got any?

LFMAO! Water droplet now. This is getting rich. I can't wait to see what you change your mind to next.

You misunderstand the process of critical thinking.

The water droplet hypothesis is just one more plausible explanation that does not require the introduction of space aliens in order to explain the video footage. I'll probably think of a few others before we're done with this.

It's your job to make your case, and I must say you're not doing a good job of it so far. As far as I can see, you have nothing beyond the footage itself to bolster your case. Am I correct?

 

[Magical Realist]

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...

 

[Magical Realist]

(continued...)


It's not clear to me what you're saying. 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? If so, please make this clear.


Since it's your claim that the "account" in the video is true, it would help your case if you could prove that it is a Mig cockpit. I don't see why I should spend time doing your homework for you. If you think it important to dismiss the claim that it is not a Mig cockpit, then get up and do some work of your own.


You see what you did there? First, you assume there is a "cylindrical craft", which you have completely failed to establish at this point. Then, you assume that said "craft" has pilots, for which you have even less evidence.

I'm sorry, but you won't be able to sneak in assumptions about "craft" and "pilots" with me. You'll need to make a case for them.

You would be willing to concede, I assume, that the object could be a mundane human-operated aircraft - perhaps a US plane, for example? They are cylindrical, after all, especially seen side-on.


The films gives a second or third hand account. It is a film made and posted by people who are biased towards the existence of aliens. Even you must admit that.


Wrong. My speculations have been based on the video footage. I have explained my reasoning clearly in both cases. That is, I have a clear basis for suggesting each hypthothesis.

And you?


I haven't made that suggestion up to this point. Perhaps something will turn up later in the discussion to suggest that might be case. It is, of course, possible that the footage is faked. But there's no smoking gun that I've noticed so far.

You'll admit, of course, that fakery is possible, won't you?


Again, you must be watching a different video. In what sense is the object in the video "sharply defined"? Is looks like a blurry blob to me. Please explain.


I have already discussed the issue of "blue sky". If you wish to discuss that matter, please address the points I made previously about that.

Specifically, a jet could cast a cylindrical shadow if it were banking at an appropriate angle to the Sun. You will, of course, admit that this is possible. Won't you?


Again, you misunderstand the process of critical thinking. I have made no claim that it is faked.

However, I am willing to investigate the possibility. I hope you are, too. Here's what I'll need for a start:

• Where did the footage come from?
• How did it come to be in the hands of the makers of the program from which that excerpt was taken?
• Where is the original footage?
• Who can vouch for its authenticity?

Once you have provided that information, for a start, we will be in a better position - the two of us - to investigate the possibility of fakery. This assumes that no hint of fakery turns up in the video footage itself (assuming other people reading this thread watch it, or you and I re-watch it with a view to finding evidence of fakery).


I agree that the possibility of fakery is not sufficient to establish fakery.
You, in turn, will agree that the possibility that the object is an alien spaceship is not sufficient to establish that the object is an alien spaceship.

Correct?


We'll need evidence for the probability that it is an alien spaceship to consider your claim that it is an alien spaceship serious. Got none? Then you have no argument do you?


I have not dismissed any evidence, as far as I am aware.

What evidence do you believe I have dismissed regarding this particular video? Please be specific.

My position is that the available evidence for your claim that this video shows an alien spacecraft is weak and unconvincing. That's all.

Moreover, tellingly, you have been unable to refute my perfectly reasonable mundane alternative hypotheses, so far at least.


You've now backed off, but you're still claiming there's a "craft" with "pilots". What is your evidence for that? Got any?


You misunderstand the process of critical thinking.

The water droplet hypothesis is just one more plausible explanation that does not require the introduction of space aliens in order to explain the video footage. I'll probably think of a few others before we're done with this.

It's your job to make your case, and I must say you're not doing a good job of it so far. As far as I can see, you have nothing beyond the footage itself to bolster your case. Am I correct?

You can tell how desperate for an argument one is by the long drawn out ranting and constant excuses for not providing any evidence for your claims. How many different ways can you deny what you see right before you: a black cylinder flying thru the sky and caught on jet cockpit video? How much unevidenced bullshit about shadows on the sky and black water drops do we have to tolerate here, all in the sciency name of a "hypothesis"? My case stands firmly on its own merits: an account of Russian Migs chasing a ufo and even catching it on video. No claims of fakery have been provided. Only bogus speculations that don't even match the traits of the object. Psuedoskeptics will do anything to deny the evidence for ufos. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. What possible harm would come from admitting this to be an unknown flying object? Apparently enough to warrant longwinded repetitious denials and strawmen and pretentious displays of so-called "objective analysis".

 

[sideshowbob]

What possible harm would come from admitting this to be an unknown flying object?

Unidentified Flying Object is an unfortunate term because they are not all flying objects. For example, many are photographic effects.

But we're stuck with the historical term.

Unfortunately, UFO nuts tend to ignore the most important of the three words: UNIDENTIFIED.

 

[paddoboy]

How many different ways can you deny what you see right before you:

On your previous video, the possibility of a mirage or illusion of some sort, or atmospheric conditions. Otherwise, its a UFO.

My case stands firmly on its own merits: an account of Russian Migs chasing a ufo and even catching it on video.

I agree, it is a UFO.

No claims of fakery have been provided. Only bogus speculations that don't even match the traits of the object. Psuedoskeptics will do anything to deny the evidence for ufos.

It's a UFO...what different people speculate on, including mirages, atmospheric conditions, Alien craft, are just that...speculation.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. What possible harm would come from admitting this to be an unknown flying object? Apparently enough to warrant longwinded repetitious denials and strawmen and pretentious displays of so-called "objective analysis".

The numbers of UFO videos you have posted, the numbers of ghost stories, the numbers of supposed Bigfoot envounters would most certainly qualify as long winded.
Otherwise I have not seen anyone deny that it was a UFO.
In actual fact, the lady doing the most objection appears to be you.

 

[Magical Realist]

UFO
noun

1. a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found
   
   synonyms: flying saucer, alien spacecraft/spaceship, unidentified flying object
   
   
   "the Phoenix police received sixteen calls about the sighting of a UFO last night"

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS699US699&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=define ufo&oq=define ufo&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.3658j0j8

UFO
"Abbreviation for "Unidentified Flying Object". The USAF defines a UFO as: Anything that relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be identified as a familiar object. (USAF Regulation 200-2)"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=UFO

 

[paddoboy]

UFO
noun

1. a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found

1. Yep, a UFO.
   

   synonyms: flying saucer, alien spacecraft/spaceship, unidentified flying object

2. Synonymous of course meaning closely associated with or suggestive of something. With our gullible friends, assume 0f Alien origin, but in realty still a UFO.
   
   

   "the Phoenix police received sixteen calls about the sighting of a UFO last night"

Perhaps if the powers that be, decide to waste their time scientifically investigating some of those sightings, more mundane reasonable explanations may be forthcoming, other than any extraordinary claims that they were extraterrestrial in origin.

 

[Magical Realist]

1. Yep, a UFO.
   
2. Synonymous of course meaning closely associated with or suggestive of something. With our gullible friends, assume 0f Alien origin, but in realty still a UFO.

Perhaps if the powers that be, decide to waste their time scientifically investigating some of those sightings, more mundane reasonable explanations may be forthcoming, other than any extraordinary
claims that they were extraterrestrial in origin.

syn·o·nym
(sĭn′ə-nĭm′)
n.
1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synonym

 

[Daecon]

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.

Common how? I don't remember you ever mentioning it before.

 

[paddoboy]

syn·o·nym
(sĭn′ə-nĭm′)
n.
1. A word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/synonym

if one person, thing, or idea is synonymous with another, there is an extremely close connection between them, so that you cannot think of one without also thinking of the other
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/synonymous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Naturally the gullible few amongst us, will automatically assume UFO means Aliens, despite the original meaning and coining of the acronym.

 

[Magical Realist]

if one person, thing, or idea is synonymous with another, there is an extremely close connection between them, so that you cannot think of one without also thinking of the other
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/synonymous
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Naturally the gullible few amongst us, will automatically assume UFO means Aliens, despite the original meaning and coining of the acronym.

From that same page:

2
LINGUISTICS if two words are synonymous, they have the same meaning or almost the same meaning

 

[Magical Realist]

Common how? I don't remember you ever mentioning it before.

Why would my mentioning it or not mentioning it have anything to do with it being common?

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/what-is-the-origin-of-the-term-ufo
The word UFO is an abbreviation which comes from the initial letters of the words ‘unidentified flying object’. A UFO is a mysterious object in the sky which can’t be explained by current scientific theories. UFOs are often associated with extraterrestrial beings: they’re believed to be the spaceships of the ‘little green men’ of science-fiction movies and stories.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘unidentified flying object’ goes back at least to the 1950s: it is recorded in 1953, in a book by the US aviator and writer Donald Keyhoe. TheOED also gives a citation in 1956 by Edward Ruppelt, an officer in the USAF, stating that he’d invented the term as a more general one to replace the earlier description for such objects, flying saucer.

Strange objects in the sky were first named flying saucers in the 1940s: the first OED citation is from The Times, in 1947. They were so called because of an account by a US pilot, Kenneth Arnold, who stated in various newspaper and radio interviews of that year that he’d seen ‘saucer-like’ objects in the sky while he was flying past Mount Rainier. The media seemed to have quickly changed this to the snappier ‘flying saucer’ and so the term was born. By the time Ruppelt and his USAF colleagues were investigating reports of these sightings in the 1950s, it was clear that ‘saucer’ was too limited a description, since the objects in question were said to be of many different shapes: hence Ruppelt’s invention of ‘UFO’.

UFOs captured the public’s imagination and it wasn’t long before sightings were reported from all over the world. The study of UFOs became known as ufology (recorded in The Times Literary Supplement in 1959) and experts in the field were named ufologists about four years later, even though research in this area isn’t generally regarded as an academic discipline.

The highlighted part is what I mean by gullibility.

 

[paddoboy]

From that same page:

2
LINGUISTICS if two words are synonymous, they have the same meaning or almost the same meaning

Yes, as seen by the gullible few who I have mentioned.
In reality though a UFO is a UFO...Unidentified Flying Object, and I accept that literal meaning of the phrase.
What you chose to imagine a UFO to be, is your problem.

 

[Magical Realist]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/what-is-the-origin-of-the-term-ufo
The word UFO is an abbreviation which comes from the initial letters of the words ‘unidentified flying object’. A UFO is a mysterious object in the sky which can’t be explained by current scientific theories. UFOs are often associated with extraterrestrial beings: they’re believed to be the spaceships of the ‘little green men’ of science-fiction movies and stories.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘unidentified flying object’ goes back at least to the 1950s: it is recorded in 1953, in a book by the US aviator and writer Donald Keyhoe. TheOED also gives a citation in 1956 by Edward Ruppelt, an officer in the USAF, stating that he’d invented the term as a more general one to replace the earlier description for such objects, flying saucer.

Strange objects in the sky were first named flying saucers in the 1940s: the first OED citation is from The Times, in 1947. They were so called because of an account by a US pilot, Kenneth Arnold, who stated in various newspaper and radio interviews of that year that he’d seen ‘saucer-like’ objects in the sky while he was flying past Mount Rainier. The media seemed to have quickly changed this to the snappier ‘flying saucer’ and so the term was born. By the time Ruppelt and his USAF colleagues were investigating reports of these sightings in the 1950s, it was clear that ‘saucer’ was too limited a description, since the objects in question were said to be of many different shapes: hence Ruppelt’s invention of ‘UFO’.

UFOs captured the public’s imagination and it wasn’t long before sightings were reported from all over the world. The study of UFOs became known as ufology (recorded in The Times Literary Supplement in 1959) and experts in the field were named ufologists about four years later, even though research in this area isn’t generally regarded as an academic discipline.

The highlighted part is what I mean by gullibility.

List of reported UFO sightings:

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

 

[Daecon]

Why would my mentioning it or not mentioning it have anything to do with it being common?

LOL, seriously? How about the fact that you constantly post so-called "compelling" anecdotes, YouTube videos and blurry photos of otherworldly craft, yet for some reason up until now seem to have failed to mention this apparently "common" aspect of them?

 

[Magical Realist]

LOL, seriously? How about the fact that you constantly post so-called "compelling" anecdotes, YouTube videos and blurry photos of otherworldly craft, yet for some reason up until now seem to have failed to mention this apparently "common" aspect of them?

LOL! Why would me not mentioning every common aspect of ufos mean there are no common aspects? Do I have to tell you everything we know about ufos? No...you have to do your own research if you are to gain any credibility on this subject.

 

[paddoboy]

List of reported UFO sightings:

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

From your link:
This article lists some alleged sightings of unidentified flying objects

In other words, the gullibles and Impressionables.
gullible
ˈɡʌlɪb(ə)l/
adjective

1. easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.

impressionable
ɪmˈprɛʃ(ə)nəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. easily influenced.
   "a girl of eighteen is highly impressionable"
   synonyms:easily influenced, easily led,

 

[Magical Realist]

Right. Like my alleged sighting of the moon last night, or my alleged sighting of the Grand Canyon back in 2007. Every sighting of everything is alleged. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.