Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
nopeda

How many of you can get to the starting line?

355 posts in this topic

This is it, it starts at 15.00 and it most certainly isnt a ballon if it were it would fly high to the sky since it would follow the steam of warm air, but this object just hovers there.

You can watch entire thing, some really good footage in there even if something else was hoaxed i don't think the object in question was...

Link

This guy Dennis has more similar videos on hes channel, i liked maybe 2 or 3 everything else is not in my interest.

The object could be a balloon. At one point you can see the ground is moving at the bottom of the view indicating the camera is moving to keep the object centered. So the object is moving, probably with the wind. If it is a hot air balloon, it won't shoot up into the sky but will reach a certain height and stay there moving with the wind until the hot air cools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For them, yes, but only for them. But where ET's are concerned we're not talking about what 'may' be factual for a person or persons who've allegedly seen ET's. But what they are attempting to present as fact to others without evidence. These are two separate issues.

And all this is assuming that these individuals saw what they claimed they saw, which could be explained by any number of things other than actual extraterrestrials.

cormac

My hypothetical was to be taken as fact that this occured as told. I am asking if this did happen then how could these people present any evidence, they cant. Does this make it just fact to them? no, the fact is is that it happened, they fact also is they cannot prove this, but it doesnt limit it being a fact to just them....a fact is a fact..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The object could be a balloon. At one point you can see the ground is moving at the bottom of the view indicating the camera is moving to keep the object centered. So the object is moving, probably with the wind. If it is a hot air balloon, it won't shoot up into the sky but will reach a certain height and stay there moving with the wind until the hot air cools.

Could be but then it would still fly alot faster especially out in the see where winds are powerfull and it would be shaken left and right where ever winds would blow slightly ...it would have a reckless pattern if ballon this thing just hovers... even thou why would someone record a ballon at such a clear distance?

Edit: A similar event is in the footage but in London at night, pretty interesting stuff.

Edited by Nuke_em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hypothetical was to be taken as fact that this occured as told. I am asking if this did happen then how could these people present any evidence, they cant. Does this make it just fact to them? no, the fact is is that it happened, they fact also is they cannot prove this, but it doesnt limit it being a fact to just them....a fact is a fact..

Whether we're talking about ET's here or alleged ancient advanced civilizations or similar claim in the "Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History" forum I usually post in, I don't take anything as fact without evidence to support it. Otherwise it's just assuming a conclusion.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether we're talking about ET's here or alleged ancient advanced civilizations or similar claim in the "Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History" forum I usually post in, I don't take anything as fact without evidence to support it. Otherwise it's just assuming a conclusion.

cormac

ok I think you misunderstood my point, I was giving a hypothetical scenario explaining what happened (as fact) i..e aliens came down etc to show a situation where even when the situation/event happened and it is a fact, then this doesnt get reduced to belief because there is no hard evidence to support what actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I think you misunderstood my point, I was giving a hypothetical scenario explaining what happened (as fact) i..e aliens came down etc to show a situation where even when the situation/event happened and it is a fact, then this doesnt get reduced to belief because there is no hard evidence to support what actually happened.

You get the basic paradox here people will claim it happened to them and they believe it, while others who weren't present at the event will need proof of such a event .

And that is the problem of ufology... people don't believe other people...

But lets say "president" would witness this hypothetical event ( a good honest president ) and he would make a press conference and said " This happened " with no proof at all and the nation will believe as it would happen to them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But lets say "president" would witness this hypothetical event ( a good honest president )

it would be far more likely that they'd find an alien civilisation on the Moon.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man after reading the last dozen or so post I need a Conac` or Strong Margarita !

:alien::tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get the basic paradox here people will claim it happened to them and they believe it, while others who weren't present at the event will need proof of such a event .

And that is the problem of ufology... people don't believe other people...

But lets say "president" would witness this hypothetical event ( a good honest president ) and he would make a press conference and said " This happened " with no proof at all and the nation will believe as it would happen to them!

its no small thing so I dont think we should just believe what anyone says no matter who they are, especially as they could be tellign the truth about their experience but hallucinations etc etc could be the real cause.

This is basically what Cormac was driving at before, which I agree with.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and at the end you either show a proof of some kind ( firm evidence ) or it is your own silent belief ( well not so silent on forums ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and at the end you either show a proof of some kind ( firm evidence ) or it is your own silent belief ( well not so silent on forums ).

yes, but not having teh proof doesnt stop it from being a fact (assuming it really happened as told)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but not having teh proof doesnt stop it from being a fact (assuming it really happened as told)

"Assuming" it happened, I could see your point. But I think you realize my problem is with "assuming" to begin with. That wouldn't be working from a position of strength, but of weakness in a claim.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Quill, I see what you are saying about a personal fact still being a fact. I'll just fail to mention things like confirmation bias, fluid memory, less than ideal sensory organs, psychological/physiological disorders and other things of that nature that can have a negative impact on a human's ability to objectively appraise the physical world around them, as that would just be opening an existential can o' worms. (crap, I guess I failed at failing to mention them)

All that aside however, in order to relay a fact from one person to another it still becomes a claim and as such still falls under the same rules as any other claim that is made. It has to be verified. It sucks to be the one to make the claim and not be able to verify it but that's the world we live in I'm afraid. Without all of those things I (failed to) mention along with human's penchant for mischief and fabrication we wouldn't need to verify every little fact. Sadly, in order to account for every instance of lies or misidentification or what have you, we must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Soc professor in college made crop circles when she was in her 20's to mess with people. Her and her freind just used cardboard i think on there feet so they could walk and flatten the feild. so needless to say iv never taken crop circles as a creditabel thing. Why would aliens use them in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Soc professor in college made crop circles when she was in her 20's to mess with people. Her and her freind just used cardboard i think on there feet so they could walk and flatten the feild. so needless to say iv never taken crop circles as a creditabel thing. Why would aliens use them in the first place?

What she did is a bad, bad thing. She is a devious person that take pleasures in messing with people.For such a behavior she deserves to be spank real hard. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its about winnning the argument rather than getting to the truth....

look how many pages I argued with Ryleh as to whether Santa is claimed to be seen more than Aliens, these discussions wouldnt happen if its progress we are looking for. Pride has such a big part to play on this forum (probably others too), once we type something out we feel like we must defend it come hell or high water......

I think we are all guilty of this at some point or another, myself included.

I guess its caused by the extremes, skeptics who wont even admit to some UFOs being an unknown and cannot be explained by what we know today, to the other extreme of if its in the air its a UFO (UFO=alien).

keep dropping those hints though I am sure that many of us are following your trail :tu:

If I thought it was all just false, bogus, misinterpreted conventional objects, etc, etc, I wouldn't be spending any of my time on it.

If the military really thought that, they wouldn't have had these organizations like the Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, Project UFO, Project Moon Dust and so on. These organizations were real, and probably still continue under various names, so the military did NOT believe the version of the UFO story it was handing out to the public. Anyone who looks at the records objectively knows that, and if they have not looked at all these records then they are definitely not arguing from all the facts and evidence that is available.

No one simply has to take my word for this because I "feel" it is correct, since they are quite capable of doing their own research and thinking, just as I have over many decades.

I wouldn't have been doing that if I had not seen a UFO myself and then been given more information when I was in the military. Frankly, though, most of the people who keep insisting there's 'nothing to it' are not very well-informed about all these things. This has been my experience anyway.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And not always realistically about that either. For example I've never heard or read a good explanation about how people could microwave the stems of plants making them lay down and form complex designs in fields using no light and making no sound in about 3 hours time, but some just seem to take it for granted that people are doing it. How to produce the microwave energy without a generator people could hear? How to control and direct the energy if they could? How to control the fall of so many plants so they lay in the correct way while the microwave energy is somehow being created and applied?

Look into UFO landing trace cases = Ted Phillips

Physical Trace cases:

www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Assuming" it happened, I could see your point. But I think you realize my problem is with "assuming" to begin with. That wouldn't be working from a position of strength, but of weakness in a claim.

cormac

'assuming' was a bad choice of words by me....I meant in this hypothetical lets 'pretend' that its all factual, this would then show a situation where a fact cannot be proven but the claim is still accurate (and a fact).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I thought it was all just false, bogus, misinterpreted conventional objects, etc, etc, I wouldn't be spending any of my time on it.

If the military really thought that, they wouldn't have had these organizations like the Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, Project UFO, Project Moon Dust and so on. These organizations were real, and probably still continue under various names, so the military did NOT believe the version of the UFO story it was handing out to the public. Anyone who looks at the records objectively knows that, and if they have not looked at all these records then they are definitely not arguing from all the facts and evidence that is available.

No one simply has to take my word for this because I "feel" it is correct, since they are quite capable of doing their own research and thinking, just as I have over many decades.

I wouldn't have been doing that if I had not seen a UFO myself and then been given more information when I was in the military. Frankly, though, most of the people who keep insisting there's 'nothing to it' are not very well-informed about all these things. This has been my experience anyway.

hello McG. I dont think for one minute you would have seen a light in the sky and then started spouting 'aliens'. I also dont think someone would show you a picture and from this you then suddenly went from no interest in UFOs to believing we are/have been visited by ET......therefore there must more to it to have convinced you, of course I dont know 'whole' picture but as I said keep dropping hints and I can build my own picture, and maybe one day if the 'pressure' put on you by some is eased and decent conversation can be had we may just find out a lot more from you than has been given already....

:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Quill, I see what you are saying about a personal fact still being a fact. I'll just fail to mention things like confirmation bias, fluid memory, less than ideal sensory organs, psychological/physiological disorders and other things of that nature that can have a negative impact on a human's ability to objectively appraise the physical world around them, as that would just be opening an existential can o' worms. (crap, I guess I failed at failing to mention them)

All that aside however, in order to relay a fact from one person to another it still becomes a claim and as such still falls under the same rules as any other claim that is made. It has to be verified. It sucks to be the one to make the claim and not be able to verify it but that's the world we live in I'm afraid. Without all of those things I (failed to) mention along with human's penchant for mischief and fabrication we wouldn't need to verify every little fact. Sadly, in order to account for every instance of lies or misidentification or what have you, we must.

Hey S2F, yes I agree there are a number of factors that can affect the perception of individuals. I did try to elliminate these by suggesting in the hypothetical that 20 people all saw and described the same thing without any influence from eachother or news and so on...The odds of a multiple (of 20) people having identical hallucinations goes beyond astronomical, again on the premise that we have elimanated any bias from before or after the event that may have influenced memory/perception of event......

On one point though about a fact reducing to a claim when relayed to others- I dont fully agree with....a fact is a fact and it cannot change or be reduced because it cannot be proven. The claimee cannot prove it a fact, but if that is what it is then it remains a fact but one that cannot be accepted by some without proof so for them it remains just a story/a claim.....however it is still a fact.

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider it critical thinking to put your faith in the one possibility that no xts have ever been to this planet. To me that's as shallow thinking as a person could have. To accept the very real possibility that they have been here is a starting line from my pov, and would be a huge step up for anyone who can't consider it in a realistic way. They may not have ever been here. That's easy and another very real possibility. Since we could never know that they have never been here, putting faith in that possibility being the correct one seems pretty absurd from my pov.

why are you trying to enforce a 'false dichotomy'? is critical thinking synonymous with having an opposite belief? i don't think so... simply entertaining possibilities doesn't make them factual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a "surprise", your question left unanswered... You are definitely on McG's ignore list.

that's what he claims sometimes... but he very well reads everything, it's just an easy way out.... to leave misinterpretations, over-interpretations, beliefs, etc... unchallenged... not even laughable anymore, meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look into UFO landing trace cases

i think 'ufo trace cases' would be more fitting without "landing" in there... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'assuming' was a bad choice of words by me....I meant in this hypothetical lets 'pretend' that its all factual, this would then show a situation where a fact cannot be proven but the claim is still accurate (and a fact).

The claim can only be taken as a fact that your hypothetical 20 people saw "something". Not that that "something" automatically equates to extraterrestrials just because they say so. One doesn't, or at least shouldn't, assume that everything claimed is automatically the truth. Although, obviously, if any or all of your 20 people specialized in the areas of biology, medicine or forensic pathology (as an example) the level of credibility ascribed to their account would be greater than, say, that of a group of construction workers.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim can only be taken as a fact that your hypothetical 20 people saw "something". Not that that "something" automatically equates to extraterrestrials just because they say so. One doesn't, or at least shouldn't, assume that everything claimed is automatically the truth. Although, obviously, if any or all of your 20 people specialized in the areas of biology, medicine or forensic pathology (as an example) the level of credibility ascribed to their account would be greater than, say, that of a group of construction workers.

cormac

I still dont think I have put my point across it seems. My point is simply that if aliens DID come down in a craft, and DID say hello to 20 people then vanished, with no evidence left to the witnesses to be able to prove aliens came down. Then their claim is a FACT. To you the claim without proof cannot be accepted as fact, however it DOES remain a FACT.

The points you raise above are on any sighting/claim are when we are not using the hypothetical of knowing teh event is a FACT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.