USOs
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Wrong, it's totally logical to just plainly admit to the fact that there is no extraordinary evidence to claim it is anything with any degree of certainty, and as a result it remains a UFO of unknown origin and/or make up.
Wrong again, the vast majority of the rest of the world is totally unaware of anything concerning this occurrence, as evident by the lack of publicity, due of course to the fact that it cannot be shown to be anything more than just another plain old hum drum UFO sighting and unworthy of any further constination.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If you heeded that wisdom, there wouldn't be a thread about this at all.
See, this is perfect example.
You claim there is "no evidence of the probability" of raindrops, even though rain is as common as ... well, rain.
But something funny shows up in a picture and you are suddenly sure this is "compelling evidence" of Unidentified craft.
When asked how you can support such an extrordinary claim, you say "it's not extraordinary at all - people have been reporting UFOS for decades. Therefore they're quite common."
Yet you fail to apply that very same logic to raindrops. People have been seeing raindrops for millenia, yet you can't believe they would have the unmitigated temerity to show up on the windscreen of a jet fighter - because there is ... wait for it ... "no evidence of their probability."
So:
UFOs? You bet! The skies are lousy with em. All we have to do is invent an entirely alien civilization, with advanced technology, hidden from humanity.
But rain?? No. I'm way too skeptical to believe I could be seeing rain in the sky in a way I've never seen it before (because, in fact, I've never been in the cockpit of a jet fighter.)
Do not do this.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I never saw rain with one black cylinder shaped drop on a jet windshield that moved in a straight line. Have you? Tip: don't even presume to tell me what to do. You aren't qualified.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Wrong again, the vast majority of the rest of the world is totally unaware of anything concerning this occurrence, as evident by the lack of publicity, due of course to the fact that it cannot be shown to be anything more than just another plain old hum drum UFO sighting and unworthy of any further constination.
It's from a TV documentary and now on Youtube. Do you have any numbers on how many people aren't aware of it? Or are you just making up shit again?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Figure it out...
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You're never seen a UFO with your own eyes, yet you are perfectly willing to take the word of anyone that comes along that they exist in myriad novel forms.
But a raindrop? No! If it doesn't look like a raindrop I've seen before, it's impossible! And I sure wouldn't take the word of anyone else on that!
Again, there is no logic to where and how you decide to apply your idea of critical thinking.
It's a dirty job but somebody's gotta do it
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
IOW: "I don't know."
Do you have any numbers on how many people are aware of it and that also religiously accept what they see on you tube? Or are you again just making up shit?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I've seen plenty of ufos on video and photo. 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.
It looks nothing like a raindrop. And Mig fighters were chasing it. So no...no raindrop.
Always making it personal. Now I'm a person who can't apply logic. Why do you constantly make this about me and the person I am. Don't you have any argument to make?
It can also get you ignored. Would you like that?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Do you have any numbers on how many people are aware of it and that also religiously accept what they see on you tube? Or are you again just making up shit?
I asked you first. Still waiting for your answer.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That would be awesome. It would cut you out of the conversation and we could get some real work done.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Done..
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
"...But raindrops? No way! I'll need some extraordinary evidence for those."
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Note to moderators. I'm being misquoted. Isn't this a violation of the rules?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's not about you; it's about what you post. That is something you are offering up for public consumption.
What? Do you want an exemption for being called out when you're illogical?
To be clear. You're a person who isn't applying logic. Here, In this forum. What you can or can't do on your own time is up to you.
Much as you'd like it to be true, I am not attacking you personally. I am attacking your argument.
My only obligation is to refute bad logic in a discussion. The counter-stance - that this is not compelling evidence is the default state. You made your case; it wasn't strong.
This stands for others to read.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I have obliged.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
"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.
The object was circular or elliptical in shape, about 12ft long, and gave out a beam of amber light. The two fishermen who raised the alarm said it looked like 'a mini-submarine' and hovered about 4ft below them in the water. It was so close that they tried to hit it with their paddles.
HOWEVER, each time they tried to make contact, the light would go out and reappear in another position. When coastguard officers were summoned, they, too, tried to hit the USO. They succeeded, and reported that the object, whatever it was, felt metallic.
The coastguards made detailed notes. The object, they said, had a parachute-like shape and moved at a speed of six to eight knots, making steadily for deeper water.
The intensity of its light varied from nothing to a glare that was sometimes too bright to look at. When a torch was shone at it, the light 'turned off' until the beam was removed. 'The phenomena observed were not consistent with any known fish, other marine life or known light source,' concluded the coastguard report."====http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1652.htm
The object was circular or elliptical in shape, about 12ft long, and gave out a beam of amber light. The two fishermen who raised the alarm said it looked like 'a mini-submarine' and hovered about 4ft below them in the water. It was so close that they tried to hit it with their paddles.
HOWEVER, each time they tried to make contact, the light would go out and reappear in another position. When coastguard officers were summoned, they, too, tried to hit the USO. They succeeded, and reported that the object, whatever it was, felt metallic.
The coastguards made detailed notes. The object, they said, had a parachute-like shape and moved at a speed of six to eight knots, making steadily for deeper water.
The intensity of its light varied from nothing to a glare that was sometimes too bright to look at. When a torch was shone at it, the light 'turned off' until the beam was removed. 'The phenomena observed were not consistent with any known fish, other marine life or known light source,' concluded the coastguard report."====http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1652.htm
DaveC426913:
Thanks for your post.
Thanks for your post.
The aircraft is banking to the right, so airflow over the canopy would be from right to left. A water droplet on the canopy might therefore move from right towards the left. Movement backwards along the fuselage would correspond to upward movement in the image. So, I'm not yet convinced that any of the movement shown is inconsistent with the water droplet explanation.