Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Fila

The true story of flying saucers (1956)

89 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Fila
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, stereologist said:

There is an inherent bias in the scoffer, such as Fila, to be dismissive about anything that interferes with their close minded approach to the UFO studies. They make pretentious claims about how poor a stud is done even pretend to have read the reports.

They attempt to support their position by mixing in real world events being studied by science to feign some legitimacy to their nonsense, The simple fact of the matter is they have zero substance to post.

Hi Stereologist. I have having trouble understanding the majority of your posts.

I am asking other forum members and your peers to help decipher and explain some of the points you raise.

My issue is that I have successfully explained and debunked everything you accuse me of.., yet you continually post the same spiel.., BUT.., without actually providing any details.

If you want to make a "claim".., then provide a rationale or examples. Otherwise.., its just an unsubstantiated claim.

If no one else is able to decipher your points or provide further details.., then at least I'll know its not just me  :wacko:

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stereologist

The problem with scoffers is that they are quite clueless. They pretend to have debunked things when in fact they have done nothing more than scoff and continue their personal ignorance.

In this thread we see the typical scoffing and ignorance of the real world.

  1. Merc14 attempts to explain how the military works. Imaginary arguments are put forward by the scoffer. It's all made up fantasies by the scoffer. Do they pay attention to someone that was actually ther? Of course not. Scoffers are dismissive close minded people that desire to remain ignorant.
  2. They are dismissive of the Condon report which they falsely claimed to have read. It's the same lame prattle extracted from some dubious UFO site that is written here. No examples, just lame regurgitation by people that don't like the outcome off the report.
  3. What is heralded is an old report which is shown to have been an incomplete study that had a very different in its final form. The response. More scoffing of the final report since it does not support whatever notion the scoffer supports.

Being dismissive and close minded and pretending that they are not is the way of the scoffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)

lol, what are you, the narrator?

I like reading these posts in a David Attenborough voice.

"And here we see the sceptic Fila in his natural environment. Oh.., look. Here comes another male. His rival. Its looks like he is being challenged for the right to use these prime grazing fields. The new rival makes a claim by stamping his feet and snorting loudly.., but can he provide a rationale or evidence? It looks like he will try... the new rival seems to have all the other animals scared.

But wait.., Fila is not backing down. He see's the rival male is only bluffing, acting big to scare of any alpha males and predators. In a display of animal empathy, we see the alpha male feels sorry for the new rival.., as he rolls his eyes and walks away back to doing his own thing." :rolleyes:

1) Feel free to counter anything I've posted. 2) I don't lie. 3) Show me. I like stuff.

Why won't you quote me directly anymore? Are you hoping I won't receive a notification of your post.., and perhaps may overlook it?

Or you just don't want to pick any specific points.., because you cannot counter them. Or both?

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

In the past we have seen that scoffers pretend to have done things they have not. Examples are numerous

  1. Scoffers pretend about consensus as if they have looked at the actual evidence. In the case of the Phoenix Lights the scoffer pretended that consensus was one thing. When that was pointed out as being false and based on a single CGI image used on the front cover of a newspaper the scoffer changed their story to another mistake. In both cases they claimed that this was the consensus. They claimed that they reached this from an examination of the reports. All non-truths.
  2. Here is the claim that they read the Condon Report. A laughable story and their bluff was called

Are more examples required? No. Just one example would have been sufficient.

It should also be readily apparent that all of the statements in post #77 are not challenged. Why? Because they are true. Anyone can read the thread and see that this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

In the past we have seen that scoffers pretend to have done things they have not. Examples are numerous

It should also be readily apparent that all of the statements in post #77 are not challenged. Why? Because they are true. Anyone can read the thread and see that this is the case.

I am having trouble comprehending your replies Stereologist. I think we have a communication barrier. Its not a bad thing...

I am asking anyone who may be following for help. If anyone can comprehend Stereologists points.., please explain them to me.

For some reason he is not understanding my points.., and continually posts baseless claims without actually countering anything or providing any details (I.e. if I don't understand article 'X'.., explain why)

If no one else can decipher these posts.., all G. At least I know its not just me. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

It seems no challenge was made to the facts listed in post #79. I suppose that means a silent agreement.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)

Here is a news article talking with Ruppelt, back when the UFO phenomenon started.

"FLYING SAUCERS" STILL A MYSTERY

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/18273897

NEW YORK, July l8 (A.A.P.).-About 15 per cent, of about 1,000 reports of "flying i saucers" received in the past four years cannot be explained, a U.S. Air Force spokesman  Captain E. J. Ruppelt, ot the Air Technical Intelligence Centre at the Wright-Patter-son Air Base, Ohio. Captain Ruppelt heads a team investigating "flying saucer" reports.

He said that ground radar had tracked some unexplainable aerial objects, believed to have been travelling at speeds of from 1,500 to 2,000 miles an hour, but no one had reported seeing these. None of the sightings, mostly reported around atomic bomb centres, had resulted from atomic bomb blasts, or cosmic ray and guided missile research.

Captain Ruppelt has spent thousands of hours tracking down the reports, which have been increasing in the last few weeks, and has found that many have natural explanations. Of the 1,000 "saucers reported, 38 per cent, .were meteors or other heavenly bodies, 13 per cent, balloons. 22.per cent, birds and aircraft. 2 per cent, hoaxes, 10 percent, too nebulous to classify as actual sightings, and 15 per cent, remain unexplained.

 

NO PHYSICAL TRACE
He said that no physical evidence, such as a piece of wreckage, ever had been found. The investigation started in 1948, but was dropped for a short period the following year. It was revived late in 1949. "We are firmly convinced that persons making these reports actually see something in the sky," said Captain Ruppelt.

 

(For those who haven't watched the film at the beginning of this thread.., I strongly urge you to. Its an authentic recount of events as they unfold, substantiated by documentation, eye-witness accounts supported by affidavits and official government reports)

Link: https://youtu.be/4bGTLtdwPHM?t=5339

battleoflosangeles.jpg

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Fila but just because something can't be explained does not mean you accept that the most unlikely explanation is of equal probability as something more "down to earth".   I saw your post on confirmation bias and while I agree with it I think you may be pointing it at the wrong folks.   I don't need confirmation bias, I need evidence and not just any evidence, extraordinary evidence because the claim that a light in the sky is actually a star ship from another star system is, by anyone's standards, an extraordinary claim.  That is the standard you should live by

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Fila but just because something can't be explained does not mean you accept that the most unlikely explanation is of equal probability as something more "down to earth".

I don't think people are choosing a "less likely" explanation..., JUST because its unexplained.
Something is unexplained.., and people have varying ideas as to what it could be.

In order for someone to form a theory.., they need to produce an hypothesis. In order to do that.., they would first need to ask a question.
If you are setting laws and rules that people CANNOT ask this question.., or look into it.., then that is your bias. Not theirs.

String theory was considered "most likely" for a while.., but not anymore. Many theories about the universe's "cold spot" are out there also.., the main being we bumped into another universe. That's considered "more likely" than other theories (i.e. a formation of cold gases or something in between).

Considering the past.., and what history has proven about "most likely" being wrong (astronomy, chemistry, navigation, etc etc).., this sentence has zero weight as an argument. If anything.., it would merely give weight to "less likely" hypothesis eventually being the correct one.

"Most likely" is relative to the individual.., time and location. Its not a fixed variable nor a standard, nor a rule. In fact.., "most likely" has done more damage to science (and the planet) than people questioning and testing multiple alternate hypotheses.

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

I saw your post on confirmation bias and while I agree with it I think you may be pointing it at the wrong folks.

At the wrong folks? The post suggests everyone is the same.

Why? Who here is infallible / immune to this?

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

I don't need confirmation bias, I need evidence and not just any evidence, extraordinary evidence

No one needs confirmation bias. Its the opposite.

Extraordinary evidence. I have posted about this twice now.., I would give your peers a chance to explain this but from experience team mates do NOT question anything from each other.

"In 1979 astronomer Carl Sagan popularized the aphorism “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). But Sagan never defined the term “extraordinary.” Ambiguity in what constitutes “extraordinary” has led to misuse of the aphorism. The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge.  

The statement is usually made without justification or explanation, as if the mere invocation were enough to stifle debate and disqualify any legitimate opposition. Yet the consideration of alternative theories is not only allowed in science, but integral to the scientific process itself. 

It is clearly impossible to base all rational thought and scientific methodology on an aphorism whose meaning is entirely subjective.

What qualifies as extraordinary evidence? Should there be two standards of evidence in science? Is there any context in which ECREE can be invoked correctly?

In Thomas Kuhn’s words, “discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly”. The history of astronomy offers one example. The retrograde motion of Mars and changes in its apparent diameter were, at one time, challenges to the Ptolemaic System. A consideration of these anomalies was one factor that led to the eventual adoption of the heliocentric model."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Carl Sagan is credited with popularizing the dictum “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” during an episode of his TV series Cosmos. While it is a nice dictum in principle, it does not work in practice.

The problem with the dictum is that there are no absolute criteria for what counts as “extraordinary claims.”  In particular, what counts as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know and believe.  In the extreme case, if you know nothing, then everything is an extraordinary claim. The required level of evidentiary standards cannot depend on the conclusion or the contents of the claims.

The biggest problem with the dictum “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is that it is often used to silence and censor."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201103/do-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence

 

The post above yours states there is no physical evidence of these craft. I have discussed the evidence paradox many times.., even started a thread about it only to be ignored. The fact that people ignore this paradox.., is a huge indicator of bias that simply cannot be refuted. Its obvious.., but not to those it affects.

The fact that people ignore the big questions I ask.., and resort to name calling and simple blanket statements that I should stop looking into it.., merely confirms I am correct. And you can't blame me. If you post information.., and no one can refute it.., you too would assume that its correct. Yea?

I am not going to stop looking into something.., simply because people are annoyed or angry. That's really not my problem.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Once again we have someone pulling a single opinion from a single source and pretending that single opinion is worth more than other opinions on the subject. 

That's a failure.

The simple fact is that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, or even evidence - none of which exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, stereologist said:

Once again we have someone pulling a single opinion from a single source and pretending that single opinion is worth more than other opinions on the subject. 

That's a failure.

The simple fact is that extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, or even evidence - none of which exists.

LOLOL, this coming from the guy who believes Mitch.., over thousand of others. 

Feel free to counter any points raised from both sources provided...

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
15 hours ago, Fila said:

I don't think people are choosing a "less likely" explanation..., JUST because its unexplained.
Something is unexplained.., and people have varying ideas as to what it could be.

In order for someone to form a theory.., they need to produce an hypothesis. In order to do that.., they would first need to ask a question.
If you are setting laws and rules that people CANNOT ask this question.., or look into it.., then that is your bias. Not theirs.

String theory was considered "most likely" for a while.., but not anymore. Many theories about the universe's "cold spot" are out there also.., the main being we bumped into another universe. That's considered "more likely" than other theories (i.e. a formation of cold gases or something in between).

Considering the past.., and what history has proven about "most likely" being wrong (astronomy, chemistry, navigation, etc etc).., this sentence has zero weight as an argument. If anything.., it would merely give weight to "less likely" hypothesis eventually being the correct one.

A hypothesis, by its very nature, is designed to be vigorously challenged and if shown to be indefensible then it is shoveled off to the failed hypothesis dump.  Some unknown lights in the sky can be one of many things, a weather phenomenon, a natural phenomenon, a made made phenomenon, a celestial phenomenon etc.   None of these require extraordinary evidence but since we don't have any evidence then the unknown lights in the sky remain just that.  

Later, when we find out that the unknown lights in the sky outside Phoenix are nothing more than flares from military aircraft we don't require extraordinary proof because, while it is surprising and very unusual, it is not extraordinary.  When we claim it is an interstellar space craft, however, that is an entirely different matter is it not?   Now we are claiming that we saw something never seen before and mathematically improbable.  It is a hypothesis very unlike the others in that it would be a first for mankind and historically significant, it is not the same as hypothesizing it was a weather phenomenon or a man made one.

15 hours ago, Fila said:

"Most likely" is relative to the individual.., time and location. Its not a fixed variable nor a standard, nor a rule. In fact..,

Most likely is relative to the situation, not the individual.  What you accept as probable is relative to the individual.  

Quote

"most likely" has done more damage to science (and the planet) than people questioning and testing multiple alternate hypotheses.

"most likely" never hurt anything, I don't know what you are on about.  We all look at was was most likely was  the cause of something many times a day.  Only a truly disturbed individual would consider any possible scenario just as likely as any other.

15 hours ago, Fila said:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The post above yours states there is no physical evidence of these craft. I have discussed the evidence paradox many times.., even started a thread about it only to be ignored. The fact that people ignore this paradox.., is a huge indicator of bias that simply cannot be refuted. Its obvious.., but not to those it affects.

Must have missed that but generally these long "complex" explanations are nothing more than a long complex excuse for the total lack of physical evidence.  Bigfootery has the same problem

15 hours ago, Fila said:

The fact that people ignore the big questions I ask.., and resort to name calling and simple blanket statements that I should stop looking into it.., merely confirms I am correct. And you can't blame me. If you post information.., and no one can refute it.., you too would assume that its correct. Yea?

What big question?

15 hours ago, Fila said:

I am not going to stop looking into something.., simply because people are annoyed or angry. That's really not my problem.

You are free to look into anything you wan just don't be surprised if you post it in public and are challenged

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

A hypothesis, by its very nature, is designed to be vigorously challenged and if shown to be indefensible then it is shoveled off to the failed hypothesis dump.  Some unknown lights in the sky can be one of many things, a weather phenomenon, a natural phenomenon, a made made phenomenon, a celestial phenomenon etc.   None of these require extraordinary evidence but since we don't have any evidence then the unknown lights in the sky remain just that.  

I agree. Unknown lights are just that. Unknown. If someone claims to know.., then we require proof.

For someone to claim they know.., without proof is incorrect (I.e. Stereologist knows the outcome regardless of proof).
However.., people are entitled to their own opinion as to what they could be. If this opinion cannot be sufficiently refuted.., then its acceptable for someone to follow or research that idea. It is not illegal, morally wrong, or against the law providing they are not harming others.

As far as extraordinary evidence is concerned.., it would be quite interesting to make a list of things like Ball Lightning, Blue Streaks, Elves, Sprites, and others.., to see what forms of evidence they currently have (i.e. radar returns, images) then compare that to the evidence regarding UFOs.., and compare why some are considered more feasible than others. How much evidence was attained before being accepted? How does this compare to UFO evidence?

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Later, when we find out that the unknown lights in the sky outside Phoenix are nothing more than flares from military aircraft we don't require extraordinary proof because, while it is surprising and very unusual, it is not extraordinary.  When we claim it is an interstellar space craft, however, that is an entirely different matter is it not?   Now we are claiming that we saw something never seen before and mathematically improbable.  It is a hypothesis very unlike the others in that it would be a first for mankind and historically significant, it is not the same as hypothesizing it was a weather phenomenon or a man made one.

A conclusion is subject the individuals ability to look into information objectively and thoroughly. You can reach your conclusion by ignoring witness reports from earlier in the night.., in different locations.., however this is not the final answer as a more capable researcher would take all accounts into consideration..,rather than dismissing them to suit their opinion.

Not requiring proof to back up your opinion is the incorrect procedure. If you don't see this.., then we are on completely different levels.., and the main reason you are not a scientist.., or in charge of making decisions that affect others. I have no choice but to place you in the same category as Stereologist. Its just not the correct procedure.., sorry.

Overconfidence effect:  the tendency for someone to believe subjectively that his or her judgement is better or more reliable than it objectively is.

Bias: a tendency to favor or disfavor that prevents neutral consideration.

Anchoring: the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered when making decisions.

Defense-attribution bias (for failing to recognize failures in UFOlogy research techniques inhibits research)

Dunning-Kruger effect (for failing to see their roles in making that ship sink),

Status-quo bias (for refusing to acknowledge that change was needed).

 

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Most likely is relative to the situation, not the individual.  What you accept as probable is relative to the individual.  

I disagree. Every individual is different. Even if the situation is the same.

20 people can witness an incident.., (i.e. the situation is the same).., but can return varying results. (P.S. Varying results don't negate the event)

This is also relative to the time period.., and country. Based on human history.., what is considered "most likely" at the time is not always the correct answer.., therefore this statement has no real weight or influence.

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

"most likely" never hurt anything, I don't know what you are on about.  We all look at was was most likely was  the cause of something many times a day.  Only a truly disturbed individual would consider any possible scenario just as likely as any other.

That's fine.., I am just into history. There have been many occurrences where ideas where suppressed.., books burnt, and people threatened.., just for going against what was "most likely" at the time. I can provide a huuuuuge list of human follies over history.., that are caused by ignorance and lack of intelligence / imagination to look beyond what they assumed the outcome would "most likely" be.

Would you like me to do this? I can create a new thread. It would actually be a great thread.., and would finally squash this sentence as something people use to say UFOs fit their opinion.., and nothing new is possible. Ever.

(Please don't come back saying Yes.., but there is no evidence saying they are ET or whatever.., we have already been thru this. Lets end the loop. If this is your reply.., I would really appreciate you posting it in the thread "How to document UFO sightings")

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Must have missed that but generally these long "complex" explanations are nothing more than a long complex excuse for the total lack of physical evidence.  Bigfootery has the same problem

I have sufficiently refuted the bigfoot link 3 times now. This is an example of where I post valid information which no one can counter.., only to have those posts ignored.., and lost in a sea of false accusations from other users. Obviously their tactic is working well.., or people here have really bad memories. The FACT that I constantly need to resurrect old posts for the same daily users is strong evidence I can use to show the affect trolling has on the forum.

I will give one of your peers a chance to explain the difference between the two.., and the only similarity is its unknown. Using this logic one could compare bigfoot to global warming.., yet the reasons for doing this are obviously an attempt to belittle the subject by comparing it to something even more outlandish.

 

I don't understand what you mean about the article being "complex". Please don't be vague or broad. Specifically referring to the article in  #82.., what do you mean? Why is this? And what is the alternative? How SHOULD it be written instead of long and complex? Will you then complain about a lack of detail? Can you provide any details, advice or corrections?
Or is this just another blanket statement about "UFO reports" in general with no substance.

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

What big question?

Questions... plural.

Many.., so many posts to quickly list here off the top of my head. But I will provide a few here.., then in the future.., PM you anything that gets overlooked so you can keep in touch. Surely you would have seen these threads however. No one is interested in moving forward. No one can see the investigative patterns for the pat 80 years.., and how this formula can NEVER produce sufficient information. But as you said.., it doesn't bother you. Which I need to understand. Most people are not problem solvers like myself.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314169-how-to-deal-with-gullible-believers/

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314079-how-to-solve-the-ufo-mystery/

And many many other posts that cannot be refuted, i.e. bigfoot comparison, my Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebuttal.., my posts about radar, satellites, camera / image pixel size formula, the extraordinary evidence response etc etc etc.....

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

You are free to look into anything you wan just don't be surprised if you post it in public and are challenged

Mate.., I'd be surprised if someone did challenge me.

 

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
20 hours ago, Fila said:

I agree. Unknown lights are just that. Unknown. If someone claims to know.., then we require proof.

For someone to claim they know.., without proof is incorrect (I.e. Stereologist knows the outcome regardless of proof).
However.., people are entitled to their own opinion as to what they could be. If this opinion cannot be sufficiently refuted.., then its acceptable for someone to follow or research that idea. It is not illegal, morally wrong, or against the law providing they are not harming others.

As far as extraordinary evidence is concerned.., it would be quite interesting to make a list of things like Ball Lightning, Blue Streaks, Elves, Sprites, and others.., to see what forms of evidence they currently have (i.e. radar returns, images) then compare that to the evidence regarding UFOs.., and compare why some are considered more feasible than others. How much evidence was attained before being accepted? How does this compare to UFO evidence?

A conclusion is subject the individuals ability to look into information objectively and thoroughly. You can reach your conclusion by ignoring witness reports from earlier in the night.., in different locations.., however this is not the final answer as a more capable researcher would take all accounts into consideration..,rather than dismissing them to suit their opinion.

Not requiring proof to back up your opinion is the incorrect procedure. If you don't see this.., then we are on completely different levels.., and the main reason you are not a scientist.., or in charge of making decisions that affect others. I have no choice but to place you in the same category as Stereologist. Its just not the correct procedure.., sorry.

Overconfidence effect:  the tendency for someone to believe subjectively that his or her judgement is better or more reliable than it objectively is.

Bias: a tendency to favor or disfavor that prevents neutral consideration.

Anchoring: the tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered when making decisions.

Defense-attribution bias (for failing to recognize failures in UFOlogy research techniques inhibits research)

Dunning-Kruger effect (for failing to see their roles in making that ship sink),

Status-quo bias (for refusing to acknowledge that change was needed).

 

I disagree. Every individual is different. Even if the situation is the same.

20 people can witness an incident.., (i.e. the situation is the same).., but can return varying results. (P.S. Varying results don't negate the event)

This is also relative to the time period.., and country. Based on human history.., what is considered "most likely" at the time is not always the correct answer.., therefore this statement has no real weight or influence.

That's fine.., I am just into history. There have been many occurrences where ideas where suppressed.., books burnt, and people threatened.., just for going against what was "most likely" at the time. I can provide a huuuuuge list of human follies over history.., that are caused by ignorance and lack of intelligence / imagination to look beyond what they assumed the outcome would "most likely" be.

Would you like me to do this? I can create a new thread. It would actually be a great thread.., and would finally squash this sentence as something people use to say UFOs fit their opinion.., and nothing new is possible. Ever.

(Please don't come back saying Yes.., but there is no evidence saying they are ET or whatever.., we have already been thru this. Lets end the loop. If this is your reply.., I would really appreciate you posting it in the thread "How to document UFO sightings")

I have sufficiently refuted the bigfoot link 3 times now. This is an example of where I post valid information which no one can counter.., only to have those posts ignored.., and lost in a sea of false accusations from other users. Obviously their tactic is working well.., or people here have really bad memories. The FACT that I constantly need to resurrect old posts for the same daily users is strong evidence I can use to show the affect trolling has on the forum.

I will give one of your peers a chance to explain the difference between the two.., and the only similarity is its unknown. Using this logic one could compare bigfoot to global warming.., yet the reasons for doing this are obviously an attempt to belittle the subject by comparing it to something even more outlandish.

 

I don't understand what you mean about the article being "complex". Please don't be vague or broad. Specifically referring to the article in  #82.., what do you mean? Why is this? And what is the alternative? How SHOULD it be written instead of long and complex? Will you then complain about a lack of detail? Can you provide any details, advice or corrections?
Or is this just another blanket statement about "UFO reports" in general with no substance.

Questions... plural.

Many.., so many posts to quickly list here off the top of my head. But I will provide a few here.., then in the future.., PM you anything that gets overlooked so you can keep in touch. Surely you would have seen these threads however. No one is interested in moving forward. No one can see the investigative patterns for the pat 80 years.., and how this formula can NEVER produce sufficient information. But as you said.., it doesn't bother you. Which I need to understand. Most people are not problem solvers like myself.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314169-how-to-deal-with-gullible-believers/

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318431-how-to-document-ufo-sightings/

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/318447-the-inherit-bias-regarding-ufos/

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314079-how-to-solve-the-ufo-mystery/

And many many other posts that cannot be refuted, i.e. bigfoot comparison, my Neil DeGrasse Tyson rebuttal.., my posts about radar, satellites, camera / image pixel size formula, the extraordinary evidence response etc etc etc.....

Mate.., I'd be surprised if someone did challenge me.

 

This is now wandering all over the place and frankly is getting kind of boring so I'll leave your post as the last word.

  • Thanks 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.