Are You A Quack?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magical Realist said:
No..none of those explain a metallic disk FLYING IN THE SKY.
Click to expand...
If the sightings are genuine why would you not conclude that it is more likely a military related object rather than something from another world.
You indicated you were in the military so maybe could tell us why my suggestion, which I think is reasonable, could not be so such that you conclude it is a craft from another world.
Why is it that aliens is the only answer you can come up with.
Alex
 
Daecon said:
Why do you think it's technology and not magic?
Click to expand...

It might as well be magic. Anything that can defy gravity, burst into speeds of several thousands mph, make sudden turns and stops, and morph into other shapes, is beyond anything we can understand..
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
If the sightings are genuine why would you not conclude that it is more likely a military related object rather than something from another world.
You indicated you were in the military so maybe could tell us why my suggestion, which I think is reasonable, could not be so such that you conclude it is a craft from another world.
Why is it that aliens is the only answer you can come up with.
Alex
Click to expand...

See post #282.
 
Magical Realist said:
It might as well be magic. Anything that can defy gravity, burst into speeds of several thousands mph, make sudden turns and stops, and morph into other shapes, is beyond anything we can understand..
Click to expand...
Magical Realist

except, it's not beyond what we can understand: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=mass hysteria delusion&btnG=&as_sdt=1,4&as_sdtp=

in fact, it has been demonstrated, time and again that not only is mass hysteria or mass delusion the far more likely culprit, but that once someone vocalizes some "answer" that others can hear or consider, then it is far, far more likely to be accepted as "the" answer to a lot of others

if you want people to believe you, first you must address the links i've produced, and the evidence must be equivalent or better
IOW- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

and considering the volume of "sightings" and "abductions" or "encounters" (or whatever the f*ck they want to call it) the one thing that is absolutely common in them all is so often overlooked: there is absolutely no evidence other than the unfounded claims of the person and perhaps some crappy pics (and considering that google and other sites actually teach people how to "fake UFO" pics, they're not reliable - plus most can't get past any reliable forensic lab) ...

show me one piece of metal that can be definitively proven to be of non-terrestrial origin... because believe me, if there are UFO's or aliens and they travel in space, then space will leave it's mark and we will be able to tell.

but most important of all: remember that the first letter means "unidentified"
to ASSume that because it's unidentified it must then be an "alien" is like saying that clouds must be alien artifacts because blind people can't see them. brain failure: hence the Dr. Tyson video i linked earlier (where he stated it far more eloquently - and makes ya look more ignorant as well, magi-kook)

until then, you're just another in a long line of snake-oil con men wanting attention because .... ?????
 
Magical Realist said:
Really? How many photos from the 1980's before there were cellphones?
Click to expand...
That would be the 90s, not the 80s. And many more back then in proportion to cameras available. And just as high quality - despite primitive tech. We've got all this tech, and the photos presented to us are still blurry little blobs. In fact, quite often the exact same blurry little blobs.
LOL! You've obviously never photographed a quickly moving object before. You can't autofocus that away. Oh and a blurry ufo is still a ufo. Blurriness doesn't mean it wasn't real. And tell me which were photoshopped. You seem to be an expert in this area.
Click to expand...
They are supposed to have been hovering, a lot of them. They are supposed to be nearby, many of them. And a blurry photo is far more likely to be a UFO than a clear one, because you can't tell what it is. And I'm not the one claiming they aren't photoshopped - you are. If you can't tell whether or not they are photoshopped, what are you basing the claim that they aren't on?

Here's a clear cellphone photo of a fast moving flying object taken at what looks like a fairly typical "UFO" photo distance: https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.tech...0rockets-4.jpg?sw=802&cx=0&cy=0&cw=794&ch=447

Another:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4632059275_eeaf0e7e6f.jpg
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
That would be the 90s, not the 80s. And many more back then in proportion to cameras available. And just as high quality - despite primitive tech. We've got all this tech, and the photos presented to us are still blurry little blobs. In fact, quite often the exact same blurry little blobs.
They are supposed to have been hovering, a lot of them. They are supposed to be nearby, many of them. And a blurry photo is far more likely to be a UFO than a clear one, because you can't tell what it is. And I'm not the one claiming they aren't photoshopped - you are. If you can't tell whether or not they are photoshopped, what are you basing the claim that they aren't on?

Here's a clear cellphone photo of a fast moving flying object taken at what looks like a fairly typical "UFO" photo distance: https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.tech...0rockets-4.jpg?sw=802&cx=0&cy=0&cw=794&ch=447

Another:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4058/4632059275_eeaf0e7e6f.jpg
Click to expand...

Uh no..not all ufos are hovering, not all ufos are "near by", fast moving objects look blurry on camera, and no I never said they were photoshopped, you did. Quote: "plus a barrage of better photoshop scams."

Anything else? Let's see. Nope. That pretty much covers it.
 
Here's one possible definition of a crank: someone who doesn't study or cite the pre-existing scientific literature before submitting their paper. DE
 
"T]he scientific method [is] an approach to learning that has been nearly deified in the centuries following the European Enlightenment. Children are introduced to the scientific method in middle school and informed that it is the only accurate process by which to gather knowledge and learn about the real world around us ... The scientific observer is never a participant in the reality he or she observes, but only a voyeur. As for the world he or she observes, it is a cold, uncaring place, devoid of awe, compassion or sense of purpose. Even life itself is made lifeless to better dissect its component parts. We are left with a purely material world, which is quantifiable but without quality ... The scientific method is at odds with virtually everything we know about our own nature and the nature of the world. It denies the relational aspect of reality, prohibits participation and makes no room for empathic imagination. Students in effect are asked to become aliens in the world."===Jeremy Rifkin, "The Empathic Civilization"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-larry-dossey/the-scientific-method-an_b_550004.html
 
Magical Realist said:
As for the world he or she observes, it is a cold, uncaring place, devoid of awe, compassion or sense of purpose. Even life itself is made lifeless to better dissect its component parts. We are left with a purely material world, which is quantifiable but without quality ... The scientific method is at odds with virtually everything we know about our own nature and the nature of the world. It denies the relational aspect of reality, prohibits participation and makes no room for empathic imagination. Students in effect are asked to become aliens in the world.
Click to expand...

I think we will all happily agree with that quote.

If what you're after is an unfettered imagination and a warm, fuzzy feeling in your tummy, then the method you are choosing (wish-fulfillment) will work well.

But the rest of us are interested in truth. You'll notice the above quote doesn't address that as important. And yes, it requires observation and dissection.
 
Magical Realist - are there common characteristics would you say, in photos that have nothing to do with each other? In other words, would you say that different sightings of UFO's and such, across the US, all seem to share common attributes? See, if that's the case, I'd be more likely to believe that some of the photos are not fakes or hoaxes. As far as resident experts go on UFO's, etc..I know that you have done a lot of your own research on this topic, and just curious as to what your findings have been relating to my question? And maybe one more question...what causes you to believe that some of these photos are actual shots of UFOs?
 
wegs said:
Magical Realist - are there common characteristics would you say, in photos that have nothing to do with each other? In other words, would you say that different sightings of UFO's and such, across the US, all seem to share common attributes? See, if that's the case, I'd be more likely to believe that some of the photos are not fakes or hoaxes. As far as resident experts go on UFO's, etc..I know that you have done a lot of your own research on this topic, and just curious as to what your findings have been relating to my question? And maybe one more question...what causes you to believe that some of these photos are actual shots of UFOs?
Click to expand...

The patterns are time related and geographically related. For instance in the 1940's thousands of ghost rockets were seen over Sweden by eyewitnesses, usually descending and hovering over water, and then submerging. And they were totally silent. Decades later they are still being spotted. But this phenomenon is exclusive to Sweden. Black triangles began being seen in the late 80's and 90s. This was a new shape that had not been seen before. Generally though the shape of the silver disc or oval shape remains predominate, showing up in the majority of cases everywhere. Why do I believe the photos are shots of ufos? Because they clearly are. Disks and cigar-shapes and spheres. We have no technology like that at all. And that's how cameras work. They record images of what is actually there. They don't make up images of things that aren't there.


2.jpg
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
...different sightings of UFO's and such, across the US, all seem to share common attributes? See, if that's the case, I'd be more likely to believe that some of the photos are not fakes or hoaxes....
Click to expand...
The idea of common attributes lending some erstwhile credence - this is a factor that has not escaped hoaxers. i.e. they are hoping people will follow exactly the same logic as you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top