Early report UFO Australia

Xelasnave.1947 said:
I have just found this an thought I would bring it to the attention of members.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1901823/ufo-sighted-over-the-hunter-poll/

I am still looking I to this as I only heard about it minutes ago.
Alex
Click to expand...
Are you quite all there Alex? Your 'Early report' that you 'only heard about it minutes ago' had a date attached: 11 Nov 2013, 11 p.m.
And btw if just out for a shit stir, such a sighting at such a date is highly suggestive of someone else out to shit stir using an LED draped drone.
 
Q-reeus said:
And btw if just out for a shit stir,
Click to expand...
Me ???:rolleyes:
I have been taken in.:biggrin:
But given MR presents stuff from before the birth of many members this is breaking news.
I have not had time to look at it and I can see now I may have jumped the gun but someone told me over coffee that she jsd seen it on Facebook and I will be driving through Newcastle tomorrow...well it all just got too much.
I was thinking of putting off my trip.
Maybe there is nothing to it...but I was shown a photo of two jets chasing it..and I often see those jets when passing Newcastle.
I was hoping MR may have heard more.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Me ???:rolleyes:
I have been taken in.:biggrin:
Click to expand...
A case of UFO fever perhaps - from following a very long thread elsewhere. So I typed in '2013 Belmont ufo sighting' and went straight for the first hit:
Read the comments - especially the one by peejay351. I'd say case solved.
But given MR presents stuff from before the birth of many members this is breaking news.
Click to expand...
For precisely the reason I gave earlier, plus widespread use of CGI/Paintshop apps nowadays, earlier sitings in general carry much more weight than recent ones.
Attempts at debunking a famous 1966 UFO incident by our resident Expert Debunker in another thread here just leave me alternately frowning and laughing.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
Attempts at debunking a famous 1966 UFO incident by our resident Expert Debunker in another thread here just leave me alternately frowning and laughing.
Click to expand...
You appear to have everything arse up my friend.
All "debunkers" are trying to do, is bring out the fact that while some are explained, others remain as UFO's, you know, like Unknown? In other words overcoming the silly inference that because it isn't easily recognised, does not automatically equate to some Alien or inter-dimension being. :rolleyes:
That's all.
 
I made a hoax vid on my phone years ago. Only seconds long.
I just held up a light at arms length and moved it around and yelled "quick come look, quick" changed my voice " what the f... is it" voice change " I don't know sh... its gone..what was it" ..end. Took away light to show trees.. At dusk.

And of course all I showed it to believed it was a UFO until I told them I was pulling their leg.

I so recall at the pub one night pointing out Jupiter as planet x which had just entered our solar system. Not one person thought otherwise which shows to me upon my limited experience folk will believe some exyrodinary stuff.
Alex
 
paddoboy said:
You appear to have everything arse up my friend.
Click to expand...
No, I'd say you do.
All "debunkers" are trying to do, is bring out the fact that while some are explained, others remain as UFO's, you know, like Unknown? In other words overcoming the silly inference that because it isn't easily recognised, does not automatically equate to some Alien or inter-dimension being.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The last part is typical of you and others unjustly projecting that inference onto certain folks. One in particular who made it clear he was not positing any particular explanation as to identity of a given UFO. Merely that none of the multiple credible witness accounts and known then extant astronomical etc. data could possibly be fitted to a mundane explanation.
 
Q-reeus said:
No, I'd say you do.

The last part is typical of you and others unjustly projecting that inference onto certain folks. One in particular who made it clear he was not positing any particular explanation as to identity of a given UFO. Merely that none of the multiple credible witness accounts and known then extant astronomical etc. data could possibly be fitted to a mundane explanation.
Click to expand...

It gets to the point that the collusion of improbable events required to debunk a ufo sighting is more extraordinary than the ufo itself. Occam's razor says: it is more likely one thing is causing all these sightings of glowing discs and spheres in the sky. And we call it a UFO.
 
Magical Realist said:
It gets to the point that the collusion of improbable events required to debunk a ufo sighting is more extraordinary than the ufo itself.
Click to expand...
Entirely agree. In the 1966 Portage County case, it would really require that all those involved police officers agreeing to collude in performing a well rehearsed, carefully detailed hoax. But then you just look at the subsequent sad personal histories and realize even that hugely unlikely scenario is not credible at all. No-one 'owned up' despite the subsequent career destruction(s), marital breakup(s) etc.
Occam's razor says: it is more likely one thing is causing all these sightings of glowing discs and spheres in the sky. And we call it a UFO.
Click to expand...
Well I personally would just say there are quite a number of well examined cases that defy any explanation based on known phenomena. So, yes, generically - such cases qualify as 'genuine UFO' events.
 
That what I would like to see something recent, credible witnesses, good photos and happened some place I know and has you saying well I can't explain that at all.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
That what I would like to see something recent, credible witnesses, good photos and happened some place I know and has you saying well I can't explain that at all.
Alex
Click to expand...
Like I said Alex, it's the earlier events that often have the higher credence. One in particular comes to mind. As a kind of parody to those who say "I'll believe it when one lands on the White House lawn". Almost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident

My 'gut feeling' for a long time has been these entities, whoever/whatever they are, like to play with us. Which is why one will very likely never have that 'landing on the White House lawn' event.
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
That what I would like to see something recent, credible witnesses, good photos and happened some place I know and has you saying well I can't explain that at all.
Alex
Click to expand...

I posted about the Stephenville TX ufo of 2008 already. Wasn't that a good one? No photos, but excellent radar data with jets in pursuit and many totally credible eyewitnesses..
 
Magical Realist said:
I posted about the Stephenville TX ufo of 2008 already. Wasn't that a good one? No photos, but excellent radar data with jets in pursuit and many totally credible eyewitnesses..
Click to expand...
MR - when a firm ideological position is embraced, mere contrary evidence will always be dismissed. I posted a link elsewhere to where a high level KGB defector detailed how it works - as an applied subversion strategy in that case.
 
Q-reeus said:
No, I'd say you do.
Click to expand...
No, It's your misunderstanding I'm sure. And probably for a couple of reasons.
The inferences made in all UFO propaganda from MR and of course river, is that these things are either inter-dimensional time travellers and/or Alien controlled: Every other possibility is cunningly and unjustifiably ruled out by them, so as the focus is on their own supernatural/paranormal nonsense.
That unscientific approach deserves all the derision one can muster.
But hey, if you believe they are alien controlled or inter-dimensional time travellers, then tell us all why and the extra ordinary evidence that points to your reasoning.
Perhaps as you accept ID, another supernatural unscientific ploy, may explain your sudden "Knight in shining armour" backing of MR?


Q-reeus said:
The last part is typical of you and others unjustly projecting that inference onto certain folks. One in particular who made it clear he was not positing any particular explanation as to identity of a given UFO. Merely that none of the multiple credible witness accounts and known then extant astronomical etc. data could possibly be fitted to a mundane explanation.
Click to expand...
No one can really rule out totally all meteorological or astronomical possibility of events, and those that do so are merely, as you suggest, trying to infer their faulty logic and supernatural/paranormal beliefs on others.
Of course as we all know, such unscientific beliefs are just that. :)
Plus of course while most do readily accept for many reasons the existence of ETL, they also realise that time and distance play a huge part in keeping species separated, and that we still have no hard evidence for any ETL....Naturally then of course such a world shattering confirmation of ETL or contact requires extraordinary evidence.
Oh and q-reeus, ask yourself, of all these thousands and thousands of sightings of what MR claims as evidence, have we not as yet seen any contact made official, or through some government: Why are they just continually flittering in and flittering out? :)
 
paddoboy said:
No, It's your misunderstanding I'm sure. And probably for a couple of reasons.
The inferences made in all UFO propaganda from MR and of course river, is that these things are either inter-dimensional time travellers and/or Alien controlled: Every other possibility is cunningly and unjustifiably ruled out by them, so as the focus is on their own supernatural/paranormal nonsense.
That unscientific approach deserves all the derision one can muster.
Click to expand...
I have neither the time or patience or motivation to have tracked through more than a relative hand-full of postings in this subforum by either gent mentioned. But could quote some instances where MR declared he doesn't put a particular label to any given UFO event/phenomena. Why bother though.
But hey, if you believe they are alien controlled or inter-dimensional time travellers, then tell us all why and the extra ordinary evidence that points to your reasoning.
Perhaps as you accept ID, another supernatural unscientific ploy, may explain your sudden "Knight in shining armour" backing of MR?
Click to expand...
Purely on physics/logical grounds I would rule out 'time-travellers'. And given all that's known of many credible UFO eyewitness accounts, consider the 'craft piloted by aliens' angle as hugely unlikely. 'Interdimensional' is a catchy pseudo-intellectual term, but probably the nearest to my own opinion that we are dealing with intelligent entities having extraordinary powers to manifest whatever they like wherever and whenever. That as Arthur C. Clarke might say 'appear to us as magic'. Yet hopefully no worse than a whimsical agenda in dealing with homo-sapiens.
No one can really rule out totally all meteorological or astronomical possibility of events, and those that do so are merely, as you suggest, trying to infer their faulty logic and supernatural/paranormal beliefs on others.
Of course as we all know, such unscientific beliefs are just that.
Click to expand...
First part moot since all parties agree there is only ~ 5% of cases that warrant closer scrutiny. And actually it's the cautious approach that doesn't a priori exclude everything outside the ordinary that imo and of others represents the actual scientific spirit of openness. Just not so open the brains fall out. Which is why I could so easily and quickly deal with the OP posting case.
Plus of course while most do readily accept for many reasons the existence of ETL, they also realise that time and distance play a huge part in keeping species separated, and that we still have no hard evidence for any ETL....Naturally then of course such a world shattering confirmation of ETL or contact requires extraordinary evidence.
Oh and q-reeus, ask yourself, of all these thousands and thousands of sightings of what MR claims as evidence, have we not as yet seen any contact made official, or through some government: Why are they just continually flittering in and flittering out?
Click to expand...
See my above, and last part of my #11. It's foolish to demand that more advanced entities should conform to our idea of 'proper alien decorum' or such.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top