A quick google on 'uav helicopter' reveals some weird shit, how about this one;
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cl-327.htm
Yeah, like you said, without something to give it context, these things would look quite alien in the air.
The Thing about UFOs...
- Thread starter EndLightEnd
- Start date
A quick google on 'uav helicopter' reveals some weird shit, how about this one;
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/cl-327.htm
Yeah, like you said, without something to give it context, these things would look quite alien in the air.
Right. You're the winner.
Sure. If it feeds your psychological need of self-aggrandization, you're the winner.
Those critical of the "non human intelligent design" argument had no burden of proof. The rational participants in this discussion were not making a positive claim nor were we advocating that anything was happening that didn't already have very prosaic and mundane explanations that introduce no new assumptions about the universe as we know it.
I realize you won and all (congratualations), but I'm hoping in your acceptance of that win, you'll summarize by backing your claims. Which of the many sightings do you find that defy any explanation other than the "non-human intelligence" one? I don't think you or anyone else here showed evidence of a single UFO event that didn't have a mundane and/or prosaic explanation that already fits what we know about the universe.
A true winner would be able to answer this. Is it safe to conclude the lack of an appropriate answer to this question as a concession that you did not, in fact, win anything then?
You've already conceded that you know of no scientist or research (which you initially claimed existed):
True, you don't need one now that you resind your claim that there are scientists/research which show UFOs to be anything other than natural or man-made phenomena.
Whew. For a minute there, I was afraid you were just pulling claims out of your ass. I'm so glad to here there is some evidence we can discuss after all.
Please: cite the most compelling 1 or 2 examples of evidence from this "plethora" which exists in the "orchard." I realize this is pure laziness on my part, but I'm not sure which peach in the orchard you feel to be the juiciest. I'm only interested in the peaches you find juiciest, so share with us the most compelling examples of evidence.
Can we accept your failure (FAILURE) to do so as a concession that there is no actual evidence which is compelling or convincing?
Hey! What do you know! This is a start. Please point us to the journal that published the proceedings that we might review these for discussion. I have access to JSTOR, Blackwell Synergy, Science Direct, EBSCO, PUBMED, etc. I'm happy to obtain the PDF files of the proceedings and even email them to you if you can't access them.
Oops. You've just notched yourself down a rung or two. Hoagland has long been debunked and demonstrated willing to outright lie for attention. He's the nutter that thinks an advanced civilization existed on the moon and Mars and mistook the hill or volcano for a face and a monument. Ouch. I wouldn't go around claiming a nut that isn't even a scientist.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I should just like to add my congratulations to those of Skin for the magnificent job you, electrafixtion, have done in defeating us. Your unswwerving attention to detail, your devastating use of logic, your insistence upon the application of solid scientific principle, your demand for corroborated testimony, your remarkable understanding of human psychology, all these and many other exceptional attributes have left us speechless, bereft of words, silenced, struck dumb and eternally embarrassed.
I am, and shall remain, in awe of you and all you stand for.
I am, and shall remain, in awe of you and all you stand for.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Ah, if ONLY SkinWalker could make the rules up in life as he goes along the way he so gracefully makes them here as he plods forward. Just think, you could win the lottery anytime you felt like it old boy. You must do things "this way", you must do things "that way". Oh, you are a joy.
However, I will say that you are extremely adept at being smug, but you could use a little work on that sense of humor. Ophelia has that humor stuff down.
I am starting to like that guy despite his preference for tooty fruity. Good show! BTW, could you please show me evidence of this "debunking" of Hoagland. Slander is one thing but reality is quite another. ANYONE that cares to look up Richard Hoagland in the slightest context whatsoever will know he is a RENOWN scientist retired from being a NASA consultant. He was possibly the youngest national space science museum curator in history and he was the chief science adviser to Walter Cronkite. SkinWalker, I am starting to wonder about you.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
We as humans could go around with the highest impunity for the rest of our lives against the need of rational thought. The argument is that rationality is what keeps us from believing the fantastic as some kind of plausibility. But where is the rational in keeping our heads in the ground on such a subject? How many people need to come forward to admit they have seen something strange in the skies that seems to defy all current explanatory technologies?
With hundreds of sightings in one year, from one country alone, should be sufficient to be believed as a real thing. A thing, that for whatever origin, seems to be wanting itself known.
Hoax? Perhaps. But its much easier to create a hoax photograph than it is to fake the eyes of tens and hundreds, who witness these estranged lights in the flesh and blood. How many scientists have to publish in astrophysical journals that we shouldn't be alone, and in fact the entire universe should be absolutely teeming with life? Why should we remain ignorant of these things, selfish to the notion that we are somehow unique, powerful and lone in this infinitely vast universe?
Now let us believe, for a second, that we can release ourselves from this dogmatism, and say, ''well, it's being witnessed everyday, by respectable people, who gain absolutely nothing for reporting a sighting in the police records... they are seeing something, which has intelligence and intention, they are certainly observing something... what is it?''
So what is it? This shouldn't any longer be about, ''if they are real...'' but instead, our time to try and come together with some outsanding theory that explains their ellusive, and yet real existence.
With hundreds of sightings in one year, from one country alone, should be sufficient to be believed as a real thing. A thing, that for whatever origin, seems to be wanting itself known.
Hoax? Perhaps. But its much easier to create a hoax photograph than it is to fake the eyes of tens and hundreds, who witness these estranged lights in the flesh and blood. How many scientists have to publish in astrophysical journals that we shouldn't be alone, and in fact the entire universe should be absolutely teeming with life? Why should we remain ignorant of these things, selfish to the notion that we are somehow unique, powerful and lone in this infinitely vast universe?
Now let us believe, for a second, that we can release ourselves from this dogmatism, and say, ''well, it's being witnessed everyday, by respectable people, who gain absolutely nothing for reporting a sighting in the police records... they are seeing something, which has intelligence and intention, they are certainly observing something... what is it?''
So what is it? This shouldn't any longer be about, ''if they are real...'' but instead, our time to try and come together with some outsanding theory that explains their ellusive, and yet real existence.
Evidence of Hoagland debunked as the pseudoscientist he is: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/index.html
More evidence of Hoagland debunked as the pseudoscientist he is: http://members.aol.com/garypos2/Hoagland.html
Still more evidence of Hoagland debunked as the pseudoscientist he is: http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html
Guess what? MORE evidence of Hoagland debunked -this time showing that he very likely lied by manipulating images!: http://www.irupert.com/mars/hoaxland.html
Truly? A "RENOWN scientist" (sic)? Tell us: what was his degree and what was it's discipline?
Wow. You have kewl wikipediaz skillz.
Also, could you cite the most compelling 1 or 2 examples from your "plethora" of evidence which exists in the "orchard" of non-human UFO evidence?
You truly are a winner. As a prize, you can join this new club we started.
Oh, and one more thing....
.... MORE EVIDENCE of Hoagland's being a nut, a crank, a crackpot, and a dumbass: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1043/1
Although, he would definitely fit in with the fucktard club.
.... MORE EVIDENCE of Hoagland's being a nut, a crank, a crackpot, and a dumbass: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1043/1
Although, he would definitely fit in with the fucktard club.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I must apologise to you. Abjectly. I had not realised you were a creationist. I now fully understand your skills in self deception, your rejection of logic, your distortion of evidence, and your adherence to rigid thinking.
Sit down, have a cup of tea. You know the nasty scientists are wrong and that's all that matters. They may not go away today or tomorrow, but they will burn in hell for all eternity.
I must apologise to you. Abjectly. I had not realised you were a creationist. I now fully understand your skills in self deception, your rejection of logic, your distortion of evidence, and your adherence to rigid thinking.
Sit down, have a cup of tea. You know the nasty scientists are wrong and that's all that matters. They may not go away today or tomorrow, but they will burn in hell for all eternity.
Hi, Oph,
There is one inescapable fact of life that is forever being displayed in various parts of these forums.
It's very sad but it's also very true. And that is that an idiot lacks the intelligence to recognize that he/she is an idiot.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Excellent! Thank you very much. Unlike yourself, I REALLY do appreciate links to information. I will objectively check that information and get back once I do. Thanks Again!
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Yes.... he is progressively worse recently.
He's one of those types, you want to give a good bitch slap to, and then tell him to come back to Earth.
But i get the impression he's a bit of a relic, so i probably wouldn't slap him, in case i broke a hip or something.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The pot calls the polar bear black.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Read-Only was agreeing with my sarcastic address to electrafixtion. RO also thinks electrafixtion is an idiot. Did you truly think he was calling me an idiot? YIf so, you have some comprehension difficulties that may explain a lot of the weird positions you take in this forum.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
I must apologise to you. Abjectly. I had not realised you were a creationist. I now fully understand your skills in self deception, your rejection of logic, your distortion of evidence, and your adherence to rigid thinking.
Sit down, have a cup of tea. You know the nasty scientists are wrong and that's all that matters. They may not go away today or tomorrow, but they will burn in hell for all eternity.
I am not a creationist, nor am I someone that believes in unguided Evolution which requires just as much faith if not more. No wonder we are still barely outside the cave so to speak. The social clique of science. What next, the laws of the coffee clutch? Pass the ice cream.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
So what you are expressing is that you are an expert at being an idiot, correct?
What is it you said...
''i'm just a sales man... what would i know.''
I agree. What would you know?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
My apologies yet again. You are just deluded.
[IGNORE]