Bizarre sky phenomena

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magical Realist said:
Eyewitness accounts ARE evidence...

The Westall UFO:

"At approximately 11.00 am on Wednesday, 6 April 1966, a class of students and a teacher from Westall High School (nowWestall Secondary College) were just completing a sport activity on the main oval when an object, described as being a grey saucer-shaped craft with a slight purple hue and being about twice the size of a family car, was alleged to have been seen. Witness descriptions were mixed: Andrew Greenwood, a science teacher, told The Dandenong Journal at the time that he saw a silvery-green disc. According to witnesses the object was descending and then crossed and overflew the high school's south-west corner, going in a south-easterly direction, before disappearing from sight as it descended behind a stand of trees and into a paddock at The Grange in front of the Westall State School (primary students). After a short period (approximately 20 minutes) the object - with witnesses now numbering over 200 - then climbed at speed and departed towards the north-west. As the object gained altitude some accounts describe it as having been pursued from the scene by five unidentified aircraft which circled the object."====https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westall_UFO
Click to expand...
Eyewitness accounts can be faked.

You already know this, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.
 
Magical Realist said:
Eyewitness accounts ARE evidence...
Click to expand...

Not anywhere near convincing evidence for many reasons you already know yet continue to ignore.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
UFOs are real and a 100% certainty. [emphasis on the U= Unidentified:]
Everything else is speculative and plain old hear say.
 
paddoboy said:
It is most certainly if you immediately invoke alien intelligence, when it remains Unidentified.
Click to expand...

No..when the craft is obviously nothing humans have and beyond our technology, we can reasonably posit an alien intelligence behind it. It's the next most logical alternative given what we know about the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
 
Magical Realist said:
No..when the craft is obviously nothing humans have and beyond our technology, we can reasonably posit an alien intelligence behind it. It's the next most logical alternative given what we know about the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
Click to expand...
How would you know it is a craft?
How would you know its beyond our technology?
It's far more reasonable to posit UFO.
It's far more reasonable to accept it is unknown.
It is far more reasonable to posit possibly weather balloons, secret stealth aircraft or similar.
It is far more reasonable to posit a "trick" by someone as many of UFO sightings have been proven to be.
It is also reasonable to ascertain that any individual that straight away shouts alien, or Bigfoot, or ghost, or anything other than "I don't know" as highly susceptible and gullible in the extreme.
 
Like I said, a 100% UFO but most likely if one needs to speculate, some trick by someone or other.
 
Magical Realist said:
Belief based on evidence and eyewitness testimony isn't fallacious OR gullible.
Click to expand...
It is when that evidence is bad. That's what "gullible" means! And that's your deal: you make no effort to judge the quality of the evidence you will accept. You'll accept basically anything, no matter how stupid. That's "gullible" (or trolling, of course).
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
How would you know it is a craft?
How would you know its beyond our technology?
It's far more reasonable to posit UFO.
It's far more reasonable to accept it is unknown.
It is far more reasonable to posit possibly weather balloons, secret stealth aircraft or similar.
It is far more reasonable to posit a "trick" by someone as many of UFO sightings have been proven to be.
It is also reasonable to ascertain that any individual that straight away shouts alien, or Bigfoot, or ghost, or anything other than "I don't know" as highly susceptible and gullible in the extreme.
Click to expand...

No..the phenomenon is far too widespread and patterned to be tricks or weather balloons. We know the characteristics of these things from all the sightings we have of them. That's why we can say they are alien craft. The speeds they travel. Their typical silent running. Their ability to defy the laws of physics as we know them. Mankind has nothing like this, not even as a hoax.
 
Magical Realist said:
No..the phenomenon is far too widespread and patterned to be tricks or weather balloons. We know the characteristics of these things from all the sightings we have of them.
Click to expand...
Who is we? More silly gullible so called UFO investigators?
Magical Realist said:
That's why we can say they are alien craft. The speeds they travel. Their typical silent running. Their ability to defy the laws of physics as we know them. Mankind has nothing like this, not even as a hoax.
Click to expand...
:D No you certainly are unable to say they are alien craft for many reasons.
That's just more typical gullible fabricated bullshit.
Like I said, certainly a UFO, and most probably an elaborate trick/ruse by some practical joker.
No evidence what so ever to claim it to be of alien origin.
 
paddoboy said:
Who is we? More silly gullible so called UFO investigators?

:D No you certainly are unable to say they are alien craft for many reasons.
That's just more typical gullible fabricated bullshit.
Like I said, certainly a UFO, and most probably an elaborate trick/ruse by some practical joker.
No evidence what so ever to claim it to be of alien origin.
Click to expand...

Then tell me how these 62 kids were tricked by some elaborate hoax. How was it pulled off? Who did it? Why would they do such a thing? Your "answer" creates more mysteries and questions than just the simple acknowledgement of an alien visitation. It answers nothing, and merely obfuscates in its own resignation to being ignorant. It isn't an explanation at all. It is a pathetic excuse to not think about and research the phenomenon itself. Which is the exact opposite of the scientific spirit. It's defensive, dogmatic, and frankly intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Russ_Watters said:
It is when that evidence is bad. That's what "gullible" means! And that's your deal: you make no effort to judge the quality of the evidence you will accept. You'll accept basically anything, no matter how stupid. That's "gullible" (or trolling, of course).
Click to expand...

Methinks the troll doth protest too much. Guess the evidence is more compelling than I thought!
 
Magical Realist said:
Then tell me how these 62 kids were tricked by some elaborate hoax.
Click to expand...
They're kids, young, impressionable and scared.
Magical Realist said:
How was it pulled off?
Click to expand...
Don't know.
Magical Realist said:
Who did it?
Click to expand...
Don't know.
Magical Realist said:
Why would they do such a thing?
Click to expand...
Don't know. For plain old fun perhaps?
Magical Realist said:
Your "answer" creates more mysteries and questions than just the simple acknowledgement of an alien visitation.
Click to expand...
I havn't got an answer. It was a genuine UFO. I gave a suggestion. You appear the one with all the answers.
Magical Realist said:
It answers nothing, and merely obfuscates in its own resignation to being ignorant.
Click to expand...
The only ignorant person in this thread is the one claiming that a UFO is of alien origin, based on the word of some impressionable children.
Magical Realist said:
It isn't an explanation at all.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. It's a UFO unknown and unidentified.
Magical Realist said:
It is a pathetic excuse to not think about and research the phenomenon itself.
Click to expand...
No, it is simply the logical conclusion a person would draw based on only hear say evidence of a bunch of impressionable kids.
And of course it has been investigated.
Magical Realist said:
Which is the exact opposite of the scientific spirit.
Click to expand...
No the scientific spirit and the scientific method is based on hard evidence.....observational and experimental, that can be falsified by others if need be at any date.
Magical Realist said:
It's defensive, dogmatic, and frankly intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
Well going on past records, your posts are highlighted many times, with defensive, dogmatic fabricated scenarios to support your gullibility of accepting the weird and wacky in place of real science.
And this continuation of your dogmatic, unscientific and defensive diatribe, supports the fact that you are the intellectually dishonest claimant here just as you have been in other threads you start specifically for that purpose. eg: Your stupid claim that science has never benefited mankind.
Your record speaks for itself in that regard.
 
Magic - it is a ufo for a reason. If it were an alien craft, it would be a bogey.
 
Magical Realist said:
The speeds they travel. Their typical silent running. Their ability to defy the laws of physics as we know them. Mankind has nothing like this, not even as a hoax.
Click to expand...
Magical Realist said:
No..the phenomenon is far too widespread and patterned to be tricks or weather balloons. We know the characteristics of these things from all the sightings we have of them. That's why we can say they are alien craft. The speeds they travel. Their typical silent running. Their ability to defy the laws of physics as we know them. Mankind has nothing like this, not even as a hoax.
Click to expand...

There is no reproducible "phenomenon". That's the problem. All we have is anecdote after anecdote, with no objective evidence that can be checked by other parties after the event and nothing to enable us to set up a controlled observation for further occurrences. There are countless theories that reply on this sort of flaky non-evidence, from the Bermuda Triangle to the alleged murder of the Princess of Wales. Some people like to believe in them for various reasons related to their own psychological comfort. But the absence of reproducible, objective observations renders them unscientific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top