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 -
UM-Bot

Turkish airline pilot films UFO during flight

116 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
On 5/18/2019 at 9:17 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

They are that way to US, we don't know what ET knows.  What I know is... they're here. Don't really care in the end how they got here. They're here.

ET is bound by the same physics that we are. Pretending they circumvent those laws is not a sensible argument. It's just fan fiction. 

And no, 'they'are not here. That is your personal wild unsupported opinion. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
13 hours ago, TomHaider51 said:

I agree and not only that, but these skeptics seem to be the majority when commenting on these forums. Isn't it kind of weird that these skeptics lurk these unexplained mysteries forums more than the believers?

I can only speak for myself. I classify myself as a "cautious skeptic". I have been fortunate enough to witness some extraordinary things in this life which defy (immediate or otherwise) explanation. My personal journey is to find those explanations, but I think many would look at my (relatively few) posts here over the last 10+ years and immediately consider me an outright skeptic. That isn't the case at all, but I have spent decades looking at evidence and have heard a lot of fantastic 'theories' over the years that just don't hold water and are usually driven by a desperate desire to believe in something. I can't judge, because in my younger years I've been guilty of the same things, which is why I rarely chime in in those cases. I come here because it's fun and I don't feel the need to p*** on every comment I don't agree with. I'm thankful others have shown me the same courtesy over the years.

My number 1 rule today is to try my best to not 'believe' anything. I allow myself to have knowledge, theories, speculations, even a wild fantasy occasionally, but not a belief. And the reason is simple, knowledge and theories can change with new information, beliefs can't. A belief is emotional, it will defend itself in the face of contrary facts, even to the death in extreme cases. This is not the same as a 'dis-belief' (which in my mind is just as harmful), it is simply my best attempt to remain emotionally detached from the data. 

There are many here who have been worn down by the years of researching and listening to outlandish, wishful ideas and have become jaded to the point where they feel they have to hammer down on anything that is remotely speculative. I don't judge, that's just where they are today.

For me, the search for explanations is a journey. I think everyone here may be on the same path, we're just at different places along it. I enjoy coming out here because, for the most part, there is civil discourse which in the world today, is sometimes hard to find. Thanks for listening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
12 hours ago, Habitat said:

It's a psychological issue. It might stem from a desire for a universe that does not throw up wild cards that upset the " there is a mundane explanation for everything" world-view. I'm tipping these people have very tidy desks.false memories, legend-tripping, wishful thinking, exaggeration, fabrication

Interesting perspective.

I think the NeverUFOers  either can't stand the thought of humans not knowing everything or they can't stand not being the top species on the planet.

I have seen several UFO threads in here that I did not think that "UFO" was the case. But a NeverUFOer will ever concede that there is even an iota of evidence that an alien UFO is the solution.  That shows they are not unbiassed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

TomHaider51, science is all about examining the unknown and potentially unexplained. It would be odd for those interested in science to lurk around the explained.

If something turns up then it might lead to some new insight into how the world works.

Consider this event which might be a daylight visible fireball. Years back flight 800 crashed after a catastrophic failure. It had been suggested that an airliner should be taken down by an impacting meteorite about every century. Did that take out flight 800? Not clear. 

The estimate was based on the size of planes and the number of flights and the amount of incoming material from outer space. Does this incident suggest that the danger of meteorites knocking planes out of the air is real?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

ET is bound by the same physics that we are. Pretending they circumvent those laws is not a sensible argument. It's just fan fiction. 

They are bound by the same laws of physics, yes. But we may not know all the laws yet and they DO.

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And no, 'they'are not here. That is your personal wild unsupported opinion. 

So? Not sure they are Aliens as the possibility exists that they may be humans from the future. But it's some intelligent beings.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The idea that there are NeverUFOers in these forums is a joke. There are none. 

I don't know of a single poster here that denies there are unidentified objects in the sky. That's all a UFO is. There are plenty of UFOs. I see them every day. I have no idea what plane is flying overhead. I can't identify the bird that flew by. They remain unidentified. When the planes are unusually high I might not even be able to pick out more than the contrails.

There are many posters here that see no alien craft in any of the tales told.

There are many posters here that do not see UFOs in mundane tales such as the Phoenix Lights.

The issue is the evidence. There is plenty of evidence showing that the Phoenix Lights were planes and flares. There is plenty of evidence showing that the Roswell incident did not involve an alien craft crashing and that the stories are all made up tales. The more posters look into stories, even the celebrated ones, the more and more it appears that these are mundane incidents involving misidentification and often changes in people's memories.

There are plenty of tales told by eyewitnesses. They are even more unreliable when seeing lights in the night sky than they are in sending innocent people to jail as they have done many times.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

One of the big mistakes people make is their use of personal ignorance. This is used to make a proclamation which often turns out not to be correct.

Examples:

  • Civilian planes are not allowed to fly in formation. I have friends that fly into Oshkosh for the air show. They all fly in formation because of the crowded skies.
  • Eyewitnesses provide consistent reports. The Phoenix lights were reported 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 lights. Colors ranged from red to yellow to orange to green and probably other colors. The list goes on and on.
  • The reported duration can be counted on. The Wilmots reported an event of 40 to 50 seconds. The first one to research the ability of people to get duration right was Hynek. He found people did a very poor job. Drake, of the Drake equation, determined that after 5 days the witness reports became very poor. He called them more imagination than anything else after 5 days had elapsed.
  • Flares cannot be the cause of UFO sightings. In New Jersey that was put to the test and the only people identifying the flares were the state police because they carried binoculars. The so-called UFO researchers continued to insist they could NOT be flares.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

They are bound by the same laws of physics, yes. But we may not know all the laws yet and they DO.

That doesn't change the basic laws which prohibit the types of travel you are speculating. It can add to them but not change them.

11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

So? Not sure they are Aliens as the possibility exists that they may be humans from the future. But it's some intelligent beings.

Theres nothing to support the idea that UFOs are indeed intelligent piloted craft. The evidence would suggest that most UFOs are natural phenomena. The possibility of UFOs being piloted by human beings from the future is minuscule compared to the likelihood that UFOs are a mix of natural phenomena, misidentification and hoaxes. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 5/21/2019 at 11:17 AM, TomHaider51 said:

I agree and not only that, but these skeptics seem to be the majority when commenting on these forums. Isn't it kind of weird that these skeptics lurk these unexplained mysteries forums more than the believers?

Do you think only believers should post or something? Why should everyone dumb down to that level? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

That doesn't change the basic laws which prohibit the types of travel you are speculating. It can add to them but not change them.

Theres nothing to support the idea that UFOs are indeed intelligent piloted craft. The evidence would suggest that most UFOs are natural phenomena. The possibility of UFOs being piloted by human beings from the future is minuscule compared to the likelihood that UFOs are a mix of natural phenomena, misidentification and hoaxes. 

In some cases UFOs are aerial junk, yes.  In other cases, it is plain to see that they are intelligently designed and flown. Some are hoaxes others clearly are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Do you think only believers should post or something? Why should everyone dumb down to that level? 

The personal body slams from NeverUFOers in here is why I think you all should come in, say "I don't believe in Aliens/UFOs" and then SCREW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In some cases UFOs are aerial junk, yes.  In other cases, it is plain to see that they are intelligently designed and flown. Some are hoaxes others clearly are not. 

It is not plain to see that UFOs are intelligently controlled. They exhibit reactive movements which would not be unlikely at all with electrical phenomena. 

Hessdalen offers very good data to support the hypothesis that many UFOs are natural phenomena. Nothing has ever proven any UFO has come from space. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The personal body slams from NeverUFOers in here is why I think you all should come in, say "I don't believe in Aliens/UFOs" and then SCREW.

 

Just an opinion on the comment. Sure wasn't worse. At least its accurate. Few believers are thorough in research. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In some cases UFOs are aerial junk, yes.  In other cases, it is plain to see that they are intelligently designed and flown. Some are hoaxes others clearly are not. 

Fallacy: "it is plain to see that they are intelligently designed and flown."

There are two fallacies here. First, there is no evidence of anything being designed.  That's as ludicrous as the claims of intelligent design by creationists. There is no evidence for design.

The second fallacy is being flown. With no evidence of a craft or designed craft we can't have these objects containing systems flying them.

Fallacy: "Some are hoaxes others clearly are not. "

This is an instance of a false dichotomy. This pretends there are two choices. Some are hoaxes. Some are misidentifications. Some are confusions by the witness. Some are just bad memories. Some are natural phenomena. There are plenty of choices. Just because something is not a hoax does not mean it is something of interest.

Usually the proponents of fringe ideas demand that someone prove it is a hoax. No. The goal is to prove it is NOT a hoax.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The claim of " NeverUFOers in here " is a rather odd claim. It appears to be a straw man argument.

Please name who these posters are because this claim seems to be a frivolous label that applies to no one.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It is not plain to see that UFOs are intelligently controlled. They exhibit reactive movements which would not be unlikely at all with electrical phenomena. 

I started a thread in here - UFOs over Salem Coast Guard Station 1952 with a pick of the group of UFOs that suddenly appeared, hovered in one location for some time, and then all departed together. And there are MANY MANY other UFO cases that show that the aerial objects are intelligently flown.  

Psyche, I am not wasting my time *arguing* this point with you or with any other NeverUFOer. It's a done deal.

 

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Hessdalen offers very good data to support the hypothesis that many UFOs are natural phenomena. Nothing has ever proven any UFO has come from space. 

I never said they came "from space", only that they exist, that they are intelligently designed and flown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
5 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I never said they came "from space", only that they exist, that they are intelligently designed and flown.

So why not cut out the long talk and just say 'man made'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

So why not cut out the long talk and just say 'man made'.

Because beyond "intelligent design" I don't wish to make any claims as to who the designer is. If it is Alien design, one could argue that it came through space, yes, but one could also argue that they Aliens came here a billion yeas ago seeking refuge and that they built the craft we see now 10,000 years ago.  And yet another argument can be made that humans from the future built it and flew back in time

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

and dear true believers just crave to be something special, sort of like the kid who sent in box tops to get a little orphan annie decoder ring and club membership, for them things need to be paranormal, supernatural, otherworldly,  otherwise its boring and worse they are just another person on this earth,  not "special".

THECONFESSIONALS1.JPG.jpg.07914aa5ae40fbe479c02cca4ae9915c.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 21/05/2019 at 11:17 AM, TomHaider51 said:

I agree and not only that, but these skeptics seem to be the majority when commenting on these forums. Isn't it kind of weird that these skeptics lurk these unexplained mysteries forums more than the believers?

Mmmm.  Highly significant.  Let's face it, it couldn't possibly be that people with common sense and knowledge of photography and what's in the sky, outnumber the "Dunno-must-be-alienz" crew.   {/sarcasm}

 

FTR, I took a brief look at the video.  Apart from the typical god-awful potato camera quality, it is NOT consistent with the story in several places and shows no sign of movement apart from camera wobbling..  I knew I shouldn't have bothered...

Anyway, Tom, over to you for *your* analysis...?   Or do you only do complaints about bias?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

When will those claiming that UFOs exhibit intelligence in flight will put up the evidence.

Screaming, hand waving, and foot stomping are not evidence.

The claims of intelligence are as big a BS story as the lie that AA fire bounced off of a ship at the Battle of LA.

Lies do not serve as evidence.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I started a thread in here - UFOs over Salem Coast Guard Station 1952 with a pick of the group of UFOs that suddenly appeared, hovered in one location for some time, and then all departed together. And there are MANY MANY other UFO cases that show that the aerial objects are intelligently flown.  

Nobody except Tom Haider supported you in that thread. It's quite obvious that the so called craft are reflections on a window. 

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Psyche, I am not wasting my time *arguing* this point with you or with any other NeverUFOer. It's a done deal.

Your avoidance is duly noted. It seems to confirm the fact that all you have us an attitude to support your zealous approach. 

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I never said they came "from space", only that they exist, that they are intelligently designed and flown.

Oh come on, you said even in that thread that aliens are a possibility. You're just too scared to be straight forward as you know you got nothing but a bad attitude. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
On 5/22/2019 at 6:28 AM, stereologist said:

Fallacy: "it is plain to see that they are intelligently designed and flown."

There are two fallacies here. First, there is no evidence of anything being designed.  That's as ludicrous as the claims of intelligent design by creationists. There is no evidence for design.

The second fallacy is being flown. With no evidence of a craft or designed craft we can't have these objects containing systems flying them.

Fallacy: "Some are hoaxes others clearly are not. "

This is an instance of a false dichotomy. This pretends there are two choices. Some are hoaxes. Some are misidentifications. Some are confusions by the witness. Some are just bad memories. Some are natural phenomena. There are plenty of choices. Just because something is not a hoax does not mean it is something of interest.

Usually the proponents of fringe ideas demand that someone prove it is a hoax. No. The goal is to prove it is NOT a hoax.

 

@Saru  told you to knock it off.  If you want to discuss it with me, PM  it.   But I see you can't resist throwing the "Fallacy" out there on my every sentence.

It'll stop. So enjoy it while you can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Nobody except Tom Haider supported you in that thread. It's quite obvious that the so called craft are reflections on a window. 

I see. So reality depends on majority rule.   I *know* what happened and I know personally some of the witnesses that saw what the picture shows. It's a done deal.

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Your avoidance is duly noted. It seems to confirm the fact that all you have us an attitude to support your zealous approach. 

Oh come on, you said even in that thread that aliens are a possibility. You're just too scared to be straight forward as you know you got nothing but a bad attitude. 

too scared" lol,   Buzz of, Moe

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Because beyond "intelligent design" I don't wish to make any claims as to who the designer is. If it is Alien design, one could argue that it came through space, yes, but one could also argue that they Aliens came here a billion yeas ago seeking refuge and that they built the craft we see now 10,000 years ago.  And yet another argument can be made that humans from the future built it and flew back in time

That's a rather unorthodox use of the word argue.

Quote
argue
/ˈɑːɡjuː/
verb
  1. 1.
    give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.

Fantasize is more accurate.

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.