Scientific Explanation of UFOs

The only true information you offer is the last line of that post. None of the rest can be substantiated by any test. Indeed, there are several who have attempted to do so without success, demonstrating that it is all bullshit (Alcock, Hines, & Park citations in my post above yours).

You are simply regurgitating the same tired mantra of believers in all sorts of paranormal poppycock and not actually providing any clear citations, other than Ostrander and Schroeder, which has been demonstrated to be poppycock.

Give sources to each of the silly claims you stated in that post, then we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, you're only saying you have a pink, invisible, non-corporeal dragon in your garage and I can't prove it.
 
SkinWalker said:
The only true information you offer is the last line of that post. None of the rest can be substantiated by any test. Indeed, there are several who have attempted to do so without success, demonstrating that it is all bullshit (Alcock, Hines, & Park citations in my post above yours).

You are simply regurgitating the same tired mantra of believers in all sorts of paranormal poppycock and not actually providing any clear citations, other than Ostrander and Schroeder, which has been demonstrated to be poppycock.

Give sources to each of the silly claims you stated in that post, then we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise, you're only saying you have a pink, invisible, non-corporeal dragon in your garage and I can't prove it.
Click to expand...

A team of scientists and a photographer aboard a Brazillian Navy vessel took photographs of a real UFO, behaving like an intelligently controlled space craft.
http://ufologie.net/htm/brazil58.htm
Note: Seen by several scientist, photographed by a man with them.
Now, why does science accept photographic proof as evidence in other disciplines and not in ufology?! Take a photograph off of an atom smasher or from someon's X-rays and science will accept it right away. Science already knows that photos are reliable. The science of photography is well known. However, you get a photograph, submitted by real scientists who also witnessed the event, of a ufo like the one near Trinidad, in 1958, and some other scientists will not believe it because they don't like what it took a picture of. - to deny that photo, on that basis, is not being scientific.
Now if you really believe that anything that cannot be reproduced over and over again should not be believed:- Then suppose you come home one day and your neighbor took a photograph of someone trying to break in your house. To be true to your own beliefs, then don't call the police. Tell your neighbor to go and take another photograph of the thief and prove to you that it is reproduceable before you believe it. -of course he can't do that because the thief has gone away.
That is the same kind of silly attitude that some skeptics (whether they pretend to be scientific or not) have toward reliable ufo photo evidence.
 
Yep... a picture of an "unidentified flying object." Could be a bird, plane, the iris reflection of a video camera, optical illusion, etc., etc.

Or it could simply be a cheap hoax. People like to do that sort of thing. Let me see the close up image of the craft that shows the alien script denoting the UFO's planet of origin, or the smiling happy faces of the occupants looking out of their portholes.

And atom smashers and x-ray machines can be verified on demand by anyone using them. Show me the UFO that will stop and act on demand, slowly rotating in pitch and yaw so we can get a good, hard look at it. Better yet, have it land and offer a tour. Hell, shoot one down and lets get a good look at it. If we can see it, we can shoot it. Unless its an optical illusion combined with mass hysteria, "Look! A UFO!" Everyone looks up at the big bird/Venus/cloud/light reflecting off of a plane and agrees, "My goodness! I see it! An alien spacecraft!"

Meh. Woo-woo nonsense. Go get a real education.
 
SkinWalker said:
Yep... a picture of an "unidentified flying object." Could be a bird, plane, the iris reflection of a video camera, optical illusion, etc., etc.

Or it could simply be a cheap hoax. People like to do that sort of thing. Let me see the close up image of the craft that shows the alien script denoting the UFO's planet of origin, or the smiling happy faces of the occupants looking out of their portholes.

And atom smashers and x-ray machines can be verified on demand by anyone using them. Show me the UFO that will stop and act on demand, slowly rotating in pitch and yaw so we can get a good, hard look at it. Better yet, have it land and offer a tour. Hell, shoot one down and lets get a good look at it. If we can see it, we can shoot it. Unless its an optical illusion combined with mass hysteria, "Look! A UFO!" Everyone looks up at the big bird/Venus/cloud/light reflecting off of a plane and agrees, "My goodness! I see it! An alien spacecraft!"
Click to expand...

Those particular photos in trinidad were examined by experts and proven not to be a hoax. Also seen by over 40 witnesses when the photos were taken.
OK. Now I see your problem.
You seem to think that if it can't be reproduced on demand then it can't be real. Real events happen all the time that are real and can't be reproduced on demand.
The way you think, if someone told you he saw a shooting star or meteor and he could not reproduce it on demand, then you will think it didn't exist.
You seem to have pushed skepticism to such an extreme, it will impair your
judgement from determining what is true or false.
 
Sure... it might be an actual alien spacecraft. It just isn't nearly as likely as other, more prosaic explanations.
 
SkinWalker said:
Sure... it might be an actual alien spacecraft. It just isn't nearly as likely as other, more prosaic explanations.
Click to expand...

Well that is an interesting statement.
Those photos look like a structured craft, shaped like a flattened globe with a ring around it like satturn. It also glowed like the moon seen with the naked eye. It flew at around 550 miles per hour. It traveled around the island as if observing it, and then it flew out to sea. WHAT MORE PROSAIC EXPLANATION, do you propose that is more likely than alien spacecraft?

http://ufologie.net/htm/brazil58.htm see photos

[It's just like what happened with project blue book. The airforce was left with 701 unexplainable ufos, no matter what prosaic explanation they tried to force on the ufo incidents, even if those explanations were unlikely. In those 701 events, alien space craft was the most likely explanation.]
 
ghost7584 said:
[It's just like what happened with project blue book. The airforce was left with 701 unexplainable ufos, no matter what prosaic explanation they tried to force on the ufo incidents, even if those explanations were unlikely. In those 701 events, alien space craft was the most likely explanation.]
Click to expand...
I disagree. If something is unexplained that does not mean that the most likely result is spacecraft. It is unexplained.

That is like saying that the Egyptians did not know what the sun was therefore the most likely explanation was that it was a god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top