Why does the government hide UFO's?

[Magical Realist]

All extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: That's why at best they all remain as UFO's.
Atmospheric electrical disturbance, is certainly possible and plausible. :shrug:

Not based on the characteristics of the object. As usual you cherry pick only a few details and neglect all the others to support your assumption it is some totally unevidenced and unknown kind of electrical "disturbance". That's confirmation bias again---interpreting the evidence in a way that supports your belief. Why can't you just accept all the details of the account as reported and go from there?

 

[DaveC426913]

That's a ridiculously high standard

As always: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

-that the ufo phenomena isn't real.

Not that it isn't real - that the incidents don't have an explanation.

 

[Magical Realist]

As I said, all the other videos work fine.
This is one to which I am referring:
No audio at all. And the link to the YouTube video itself has the same problem:

It is refreshing to hear you communicating rather than fighting and LoLing.

I tried it three times and it works. Your computer is fucked up.

 

[Magical Realist]

As always: extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.

That's a lie. If the ufo phenomena were real, it would be leaving the same sort of evidence for itself as any other events that occur in our spacetime. And it wouldn't be too extraordinary to happen. It would be happening and be witnessed and photographed all over the world. As indeed it is.

Not that it isn't real - that the incidents don't have an explanation.

Then you admit the ufo phenomena is real and has no explanation yet? Now we're getting somewhere!

 

[DaveC426913]

That's confirmation bias again---interpreting the evidence in a way that supports your belief.

You have taken an untenable position in this discussion.
You have an aggressive assertion - you must prove it in order make your case.
Others do not make an aggressive assertion, they simply allow for other possibilities. No one is saying your assertion must be false, simply that you have not made a compelling case. Your opponets don;t need to believe anything, they need simply be open to possibilities, and pick least incredible one.

Your stance is false unless shown to be true.
Others' is true unless shown to be false.

That is the pitfall of making a strong assertion, and why the onus remains on you to make your case to your opponents' satisfaction.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then you admit the ufo phenomena is real and has no explanation yet?

What do you mean by 'phenomenon'?

A bunch of people seeing unexplained lights in the sky is definitely a phenomenon. It doesn't rule out natural phenomena or man-made phenomena or many other types of phenomena.

 

[DaveC426913]

As always: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That's a lie.

I think this will go into perpetuity as the quintessential byline of this thread.

I could not have dynamited your credibility any better than you just did.

Take a bow.

 

[Magical Realist]

You have taken an untenable position in this discussion.
You have an aggressive assertion - you must prove it in order make your case.

I only assert that ufos are real and show the characteristics of being craft of nonhuman superintelligences. There is nothing in that claim that isn't directly supported by all the evidence gathered over many years of thousands of professionals studying this phenomenon.

Others do not make an aggressive assertion, they simply allow for other possibilities.

You offer no claim either way. You might as well not be examining evidence at all if you are only concerned with possibilities. The evidence provides certainty beyond possibility. It provides proof that there is a real mysterious phenomenon here that recurs over and over again in many different forms and ways all over the world.

No one is saying your assertion must be false, simply that you have not made a compelling case. Your opponets don;t need to believe anything, they need simply be open to possibilities, and pick least incredible one.

So iow, no evidence will ever convince you because you are only concerned with weak undecidable possibilities. Why then even discuss this? You bar all possibility of finding anything out about the phenomena at all from the outset. It's like you are scared of looking deeply into it for fear it will change your belief that ufos aren't real.

Your stance is false unless shown to be true.
Others' is true unless shown to be false.

No it isn't. We are agnostic on either stance in the beginning. Then when we look at the evidence, we go with the stance that best explains the facts. That's basic science.

That's the pitfall of making a strong assertion, and why the onus remains on you to make your case to your opponents' satisfaction.

There is no pitfall in making a strong assertion based on the evidence. And the evidence makes my case for me, as it indeed it does in these what now? 11 compelling cases I've posted so far?

 

[Magical Realist]

I think this will go into perpetuity as the quintessential byline of this thread.

I could not have dynamited your credibility any better than you just did.

Take a bow.

And I logically explained why it's a lie. Why did you leave that out? Quotemining now?

 

[paddoboy]

Not based on the characteristics of the object. As usual you cherry pick only a few details and neglect all the others to support your assumption it is some totally unevidenced and unknown kind of electrical "disturbance". That's confirmation bias again---interpreting the evidence in a way that supports your belief. Why can't you just accept all the details of the account as reported and go from there?

No, it's a plausible explanation, and there are probably others.

 

[paddoboy]

There is no pitfall in making a strong assertion based on the evidence. And the evidence makes my case for me, as it indeed it does in this what now? the 11 compelling cases I've posted?

What you see as evidence of Aliens is your own "confirmation bias" based on flimsy say so, blurry photographs and sensationalistic journalism from the History channel.
They remain UFO's....

 

[Magical Realist]

What do you mean by 'phenomenon'?

A bunch of people seeing unexplained lights in the sky is definitely a phenomenon. It doesn't rule out natural phenomena or man-made phenomena or many other types of phenomena.

You said you never claimed it wasn't real. What is the "it" you are referring to?

 

[Magical Realist]

What you see as evidence of Aliens is your own "confirmation bias" based on flimsy say so, blurry photographs and sensationalistic journalism from the History channel.
They remain UFO's....

Ah..but I haven't asserted that they are necessarily aliens have I? So you can attack that strawman all day, as in fact you have been for 11 pages now.

 

[paddoboy]

Ah..but I haven't asserted that they are necessarily aliens have I? So you can attack that strawman all day, as in fact you have been for 11 pages now.

Calm down matey!
I also havn't asserted they are not Alien craft: So therefor they remain as UFO's.
Nice to see you finally agreeing to that.
Dave, Deacon, myself and the others that have been trying to educate you, we can all take a bow!

 

[Magical Realist]

Calm down matey!
I also havn't asserted they are not Alien craft: So therefor they remain as UFO's.
Nice to see you finally agreeing to that.
Dave, Deacon, myself and the others that have been trying to educate you, we can all take a bow!

I'm the one educating YOU guys about a field you know little about and dismiss as all so much psuedoscience. Bear that much in mind..

also havn't asserted they are not Alien craft: So therefor they remain as UFO's.

Except for that Tehran incident you claim is some heretofor unknown electrical "disturbance" that intelligently flees jets and gets picked up on radar. lol!

 

[paddoboy]

I'm the one educating YOU guys about a field you know little about and dismiss as all just psuedoscience. Bear that much in mind..

Sure you are! *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*

Except for that Tehran incident you claim is some heretofor unknown electrical "disturbance" that intelligently flees jets and gets picked up on radar. lol!

I don't claim anything other than it is/was a UFO just as you have agreed.
I just suggested an unknown electrical disturbance, and possibly even other unknown causes.

 

[Magical Realist]

I don't claim anything other than it is/was a UFO just as you have agreed.
I just suggested an unknown electrical disturbance, and possibly even other unknown causes

You claim that is what it was. What evidence is there for this sort of physical phenomena that is multicolored, morphs it's shape from a starfish to a diamond, emits intelligently moving orbs and glowing discs, is detected on radar, and evades pursuing jets? Or is this just something you made up?

 

[paddoboy]

You claim that is what it was.

Correct! I claim it is a UFO as you have agreed to....
what i said
Atmospheric electrical disturbance, is certainly possible and plausible. :shrug:
Other than that, I agree that it is a UFO.

What evidence is there for this sort of physical phenomena that is multicolored, morphs it's shape from a starfish to a diamond, emits intelligently moving orbs and glowing discs, is detected on radar, and evades pursuing jets? Or is this just something you made up?

I'm not making anything up...You linked the video and I watched it...everything you say is true except your "intelligently moving" nonsense.
So as we agree, it's a UFO.
Or are you now revealing your true gullibility after many posts denying you infer these apparitions as being of Alien or interdimensional origin....Your "intelligently moving" superfluous addition seems to support that belief now.
You seem all over the place in your vain efforts to defend whatever it is you are defending.

 

[paddoboy]

So then this thread is done and dusted. MR finally agrees that it is a UFO, as most here have been telling him.
Our work is done!

 

[Magical Realist]

Correct! I claim it is a UFO as you have agreed to....
what i said
Atmospheric electrical disturbance, is certainly possible and plausible. :shrug:
Other than that, I agree that it is a UFO.

I'm not making anything up...You linked the video and I watched it...everything you say is true except your "intelligently moving" nonsense.
So as we agree, it's a UFO.
Or are you now revealing your true gullibility after many posts denying you infer these apparitions as being of Alien or interdimensional origin....Your "intelligently moving" superfluous addition seems to support that belief now.
You seem all over the place in your vain efforts to defend whatever it is you are defending.

You're the one claiming it was an "electrical disturbance", not a ufo. What in science makes such an explanation even feasible? Where has it been observed before? Is it repeatable in a lab?

And yes, it evaded jets. It shows intelligence. It emitted intelligently moving orbs that circled the jet. And it was picked up on radar. How does a natural phenomenon do that? Back up your claims. That's what you always say to me. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, hmmm? lol!