UFO's and why they blink out.

[DaveC426913]

That would only be true if this was the first and only ufo ever sighted. Fortunately everybody knows that they are seen and photographed with such regularity as to become plausible explanations for the sighting.

No. Not at all.

More sightings of misidentified things does not, in any way, increase the plausibility of it being of exotic origin. Your logic is flawed.

We can rule out hoax or mundane object by the properties of the object. Does it float like a balloon? Then it's probably a hoax. Does it hum like an aircraft? Then it's probably an aircraft. Does it otoh speed off quickly and make no noise. Then it's most likely a ufo.

How many of your photographs show things taking off quickly and making no noise?

 

[Magical Realist]

And despite our newfound ability to get that extraordinary evidence...

it simply hasn't panned out.

Consult the hundreds of photos of ufos since 1998. I already posted excellent websites on this.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then don't attribute the statement to me.

I replied to your post. I didn't attribute anything to you that you did not say, only your response.

 

[Magical Realist]

No. Not at all.

More sightings of misidentified things does not, in any way, increase the plausibility of it being of exotic origin. Your logic is flawed.




How many of your photographs show things taking off quickly and making no noise?

Eyewitness testimony..as in the person taking the picture. Do I need to start posting hundreds of accounts of ufo sightings now? Or would that too be considered trolling?

 

[Magical Realist]

I replied to your post. I didn't attribute anything to you that you did not say, only your response.

You disagreed with Russ's post, and then agreed Russ was right when I told you it was his statement. Make up your mind.

 

[Russ_Watters]

OK, I can see how the interpretation can go either way. You're right, it doesn't actually mention lights.

But that's kind of my point. MR and Russ are addressing two different kinds of sightings.

River's description was indeed far too vague to analyze specifically, so I focused on a specific and substantial class of UFOs: lights. Presumably, what he describes should be a significant class of UFOs too, otherwise it would be far too vague/random to be worth such an analysis, regardless of quality. I daresay that mis-identified point sources of light are likely the largest single class of UFOs and they do indeed tend to "blink out".

Lights in the night are often unidentified aircraft or satellites.
On the other hand, photos tell you virtually nothing about objects winking out, since they're, well, photos. They also, often tell you little about distance (no parallax and you have to make assumptions about the size of the object)

Exactly correct, but just to expand; point sources of light are also impossible to tell distance to (much worse than extended objects). Point source UFOs of poorly judged distance cover about 10 orders of magnitude, from a few inches or feet away ("rods"...er, insects.) to a hundred million miles away (Venus).

 

[Magical Realist]

More sightings of misidentified things does not, in any way, increase the plausibility of it being of exotic origin. Your logic is flawed

Sorry..a saucer shaped or cylindrical craft in the sky is not a misidentified object. Consult the 1000's of photos and accounts we have on record for clarity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Consult the hundreds of photos of ufos since 1998. I already posted excellent websites on this.

Show me a couple of good ones that are significantly better in opportunity and detail than what we have seen over the last century.

If one in a thousand people had an opportunity to take a pic a half century ago, but 999 in 1000 have that opportunity today. I expect to see evidence on the order of 1000 times better.

Eyewitness testimony..as in the person taking the picture. Do I need to start posting hundreds of accounts of ufo sightings now?

Precisely. People describing what they think they saw.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry..a saucer shaped or cylindrical craft in the sky is not a misidentified object. Consult the 1000's of photos and accounts we have on record for clarity.

It is an object. No more. Everything else is speculation.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Right..So I'm still the ignorant one who offers real tangible evidence of ufos and their properties...

By all means, please do. I'll wait for you to describe them to me.

...and you get to retain this secret fact that would somehow totally "fix my ignorance" should you ever deign to reveal it to me.

Science is not a secret. This is not the Dark Ages, where the Catholic Priests kept the Bible in Latin instead of translating it into English in order to deny their subjects the ability to read it. Science is open to all who choose to learn about it. Yes, even you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Heck, even secret experimental military craft is orders of magnitude more probable than visitations.

Again, think horses first.

 

[Russ_Watters]

"Unless the UFO is in orbit! Then it:
1. Doesn't need propulsion.
2. Would be too far away to hear it even if it did."

Yes, you in the back - question?

 

[Magical Realist]

By all means, please do. I'll wait for you to describe them to me.

Science is not a secret. This is not the Dark Ages, where the Catholic Priests kept the Bible in Latin instead of translating it into English in order to deny their subjects the ability to read it. Science is open to all who choose to learn about it. Yes, even you.

In other words, you got nothing to tell me that would "fix my ignorance." This is called "calling your bluff."

 

[Magical Realist]

Heck, even secret experimental military craft is orders of magnitude more probable than visitations.

Again, think horses first.

No..we have no science that can produce craft that appear and disappear, hover without making a sound, or take off suddenly at 1000-3000 mph. We just don't. When it comes to ufos, think Pegasus not horses.

For instance explain THIS famous sighting in 2008:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting

 

[Russ_Watters]

In other words, you got nothing to tell me that would "fix my ignorance."

MR, you of course know that your ignorance is your choice. There isn't anything I or anyone else can really do to help you until you decide you want to fix it.

 

[DaveC426913]

In other words, you got nothing to tell me that would "fix my ignorance." This is called "calling your bluff."

Not necessarily ignorant, but these are naive:


"..a saucer shaped or cylindrical craft in the sky is not a misidentified object. "

"We can rule out hoax or mundane object by the properties of the object. "

"Does it otoh speed off quickly and make no noise. Then it's most likely a ufo."

 

[DaveC426913]

No..we have no science that can produce craft that appear and disappear, hover without making a sound, or take off suddenly at 1000-3000 mph. We just don't.

You put far too much faith in eyewitness accounts. Those are all hasty conclusions.

It is fact that people do make these mistakes.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No..we have no science that can produce craft that appear and disappear, hover without making a sound, or take off suddenly at 1000-3000 mph. We just don't.

That's fine, no need. No reasonable evidence of such craft: if there was, you'd post it.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's fine, no need. No reasonable evidence of such craft: if there was, you'd post it.

That's kind of where I was going too.

MR, you don't need to argue, or get upset.

Some incontrovertible pics would speak for themselves.

 

[Magical Realist]

That's fine, no need. No reasonable evidence of such craft: if there was, you'd post it.

Consult the some 30 threads I've posted on UFOs in this forum for evidence.