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

stereologist
46 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

@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

Please provide evidence that anything I point out as a fallacy is correct.

Please support any of these statements that so far are nothing more than wishful thinking.

It should be pointed out that other posters have also called you out on many of these very same issues.

ChrLzs and psyche101 are two.

The only things I mark as fallacies are in fact fallacies. That sounds so much nicer than what they really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ChrLzs

FTR, here's that thread to which Earl 'proudly' refers:

A few notes, as Earl seems to want to misrepresent the content of that other thread:

Here, I pointed out that the US Coast Guard's report stated, CORRECTLY, that the lighting in the photo does not correlate to the story and it appears to have been faked and/or deliberately exposed to a light source (eg small torch) when processed/printed.  There are several tells in the image for fakery - I elaborate on the thread.

Earl then falsely claimed there was another photo.  In the very same post, he hilariously and hypocritically says "And you always make it sound like you have PROOF  lol".  LOL indeed, but Earl was unable to cite the alleged second image, and it doesn't seem to exist.

Here, Earl attacks an article on the topic, denying content that is common to all the articles (as proven here), and yet he used said articles as the basis for his claims..  ?

On this page, note the language used by Earl.  I suspect Saru's decision may have been based on that, and Earl's demand that people with differing views leave the thread..., and comments like this one: "And I could be looking at yet another idjut trying to tell me he knows more than I do about what I know... your genius is astounding. so is your foolhardy ego"....
That's EoT's MO... use ad hominems and then whine about others allegedly doing the same... :D

Here, Tom Haider (Earl's only supporter on that thread) answers a request for evidence to support his claims, says "I'm not here to prove anything."

Finally, here on this thread, Earl has again shown that he will continue to misuse (or simply doesn't understand) the term UFO...

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

@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

i recall both you told to chill, yet you keep on trolling away...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

FTR, here's that thread to which Earl 'proudly' refers:

A few notes, as Earl seems to want to misrepresent the content of that other thread:

Here, I pointed out that the US Coast Guard's report stated, CORRECTLY, that the lighting in the photo does not correlate to the story and it appears to have been faked and/or deliberately exposed to a light source (eg small torch) when processed/printed.  There are several tells in the image for fakery - I elaborate on the thread.

Earl then falsely claimed there was another photo.  In the very same post, he hilariously and hypocritically says "And you always make it sound like you have PROOF  lol".  LOL indeed, but Earl was unable to cite the alleged second image, and it doesn't seem to exist.

Here, Earl attacks an article on the topic, denying content that is common to all the articles (as proven here), and yet he used said articles as the basis for his claims..  ?

On this page, note the language used by Earl.  I suspect Saru's decision may have been based on that, and Earl's demand that people with differing views leave the thread..., and comments like this one: "And I could be looking at yet another idjut trying to tell me he knows more than I do about what I know... your genius is astounding. so is your foolhardy ego"....
That's EoT's MO... use ad hominems and then whine about others allegedly doing the same... :D

Here, Tom Haider (Earl's only supporter on that thread) answers a request for evidence to support his claims, says "I'm not here to prove anything."

Finally, here on this thread, Earl has again shown that he will continue to misuse (or simply doesn't understand) the term UFO...

 i take the time and effort to type out my opinion, in that case in brief how that is light reflection, lenes flares or outright photo fake, then it gets deleted a couple times because it was my opinion and different to someone elses, at some point people will give up posting altogether if it just keeps getting deleted because someone gets upset its a different opinion to theirs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomHaider51
On 5/22/2019 at 9:07 PM, ChrLzs said:

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?

Do you see hordes of vegans on hunting forums commenting?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomHaider51
On 5/21/2019 at 11:33 AM, stereologist said:

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?

I understand this, but examing physical evidence, photos/videos is one thing and undermining an individual's personal experience is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
12 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

Do you see hordes of vegans on hunting forums commenting?

I don't see them there at all..............................  :)

And to prove how consistent I am........ *I'm* not an expert in brain surgery, so you won't see me EVER at a neurosurgery forum...

I am however {modesty off} very good at photography (lots of experience in both film and digital), amateur astronomy, aeronautics and identifying aerial 'anomalies'. {modesty on}  That's why I am *here*, instead.

7 minutes ago, TomHaider51 said:

I understand this, but examing physical evidence, photos/videos is one thing and undermining an individual's personal experience is another.

Problem is, even the most basic questioning of an experience, or (heaven forbid) discussion about how memories work and why anecdotes cannot be accepted as evidence without at least significant corroboration, is immediately regarded as an attack by some of the more 'delicate' members..

Me, I don't trust my, or my Grandpa's, or my friend's OR MY OWN memories.  That is based (correctly) on my own experience and also psychology/psychiatry/sociology.  So you *can* have a go at any of my stories, if they are not supported by evidence.  I'm a big boy, all grownsed-up, quite tough, and I don't mind criticism at all.

But some here take any comment that isn't glowing acceptance of their tale, as a personal insult.

If you see a personal attack, REPORT THE DAM POST.  Otherwise, let the debate continue.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TomHaider51 said:

I understand this, but examing physical evidence, photos/videos is one thing and undermining an individual's personal experience is another.

"undermining" on two different occasions here people told their story and they were pretty extraordinary,

i asked well an event like that had to have other witnesses, perhaps reports have you gone online tried to track down any collaboration, the reply i got was an ad hominem attack, a big tantrum and lots of insults, a simple yes or no, perhaps a bit of elaborating about it but no, they wanted to be taken souly on their word.

i have seen people on here tell wild tales and when questioned i have actually seen people threatened,

i have seen people say they are hunting an explanation but if that explanation isnt supernatural, otherwordly , paranormal they get all bent out of shape,

i dont undermine, but i will question and if their skin is that thin ego that huge yet fragile that questions set them off perhaps public forums arent for them

edit:

adding, i have seen people post well debunked hoax pictures to prove their case and again go on tantrams and ad hominem attacks when they are shown they were mistaken, to do so repeatedly is trolling a waste of forums time,

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, TomHaider51 said:

I understand this, but examing physical evidence, photos/videos is one thing and undermining an individual's personal experience is another.

You should look at the problems with eyewitnesses. They are highly unreliable. This is true  of all sorts of eyewitness reports from crimes to UFOs. Events such as this that are short lived and unexpected are especially troublesome.

See the thread on the excitedness effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

Let's remember what the "U" in UFO stands for folks....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
6 hours ago, TomHaider51 said:

I understand this, but examing physical evidence, photos/videos is one thing and undermining an individual's personal experience is another.

Can you point us to this physical evidence you made reference to here....? There are thousands of photo's and video's out there..I would not be surprised if the current version of Photoshop does not have a UFO button somewhere in the software....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

FTR, here's that thread to which Earl 'proudly' refers:

A few notes, as Earl seems to want to misrepresent the content of that other thread:

Here, I pointed out that the US Coast Guard's report stated, CORRECTLY, that the lighting in the photo does not correlate to the story and it appears to have been faked and/or deliberately exposed to a light source (eg small torch) when processed/printed.  There are several tells in the image for fakery - I elaborate on the thread.

Bunch of crap. there were 40+ witnesses to this event in the power plant alone.  It ain't fake.   Project Bluebook never had a problem with the photo's genuineness. If you think it's fake PROVE IT

15 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Earl then falsely claimed there was another photo.  In the very same post, he hilariously and hypocritically says "And you always make it sound like you have PROOF  lol".  LOL indeed, but Earl was unable to cite the alleged second image, and it doesn't seem to exist.

You're lying again., I did NOT falsely claim that. It's true. There is another photo that was taken that day. If you say I falsely claimed that,,,  PROVE it is falsely claimed.

15 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Here, Earl attacks an article on the topic, denying content that is common to all the articles (as proven here), and yet he used said articles as the basis for his claims..  ?

On this page, note the language used by Earl.  I suspect Saru's decision may have been based on that, and Earl's demand that people with differing views leave the thread..., and comments like this one: "And I could be looking at yet another idjut trying to tell me he knows more than I do about what I know... your genius is astounding. so is your foolhardy ego"....
That's EoT's MO... use ad hominems and then whine about others allegedly doing the same... :D

Here, Tom Haider (Earl's only supporter on that thread) answers a request for evidence to support his claims, says "I'm not here to prove anything."

Finally, here on this thread, Earl has again shown that he will continue to misuse (or simply doesn't understand) the term UFO...

You're lying again. I know what the term UFO means. You like my term idjut, eh?  Look in the mirror when you read it

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I don't see them there at all..............................  :)

And to prove how consistent I am........ *I'm* not an expert in brain surgery, so you won't see me EVER at a neurosurgery forum...

I am however {modesty off} very good at photography (lots of experience in both film and digital), amateur astronomy, aeronautics and identifying aerial 'anomalies'. {modesty on}  That's why I am *here*, instead.

Problem is, even the most basic questioning of an experience, or (heaven forbid) discussion about how memories work and why anecdotes cannot be accepted as evidence without at least significant corroboration, is immediately regarded as an attack by some of the more 'delicate' members..

Me, I don't trust my, or my Grandpa's, or my friend's OR MY OWN memories.  That is based (correctly) on my own experience and also psychology/psychiatry/sociology.  So you *can* have a go at any of my stories, if they are not supported by evidence.  I'm a big boy, all grownsed-up, quite tough, and I don't mind criticism at all.

But some here take any comment that isn't glowing acceptance of their tale, as a personal insult.

If you see a personal attack, REPORT THE DAM POST.  Otherwise, let the debate continue.

You mean like this, ChrLzs:     "A few notes, as Earl seems to want to misrepresent the content of that other thread: "

So I want to misrepresent...???   Is that the kind of personal attack you refer to, fibber?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
On 5/22/2019 at 7:03 PM, 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

I've never seen any footage that would lead me to believe a UFO is CLEARLY intelligently being controlled.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Bunch of crap. there were 40+ witnesses to this event in the power plant alone.  It ain't fake.   Project Bluebook never had a problem with the photo's genuineness. If you think it's fake PROVE IT

You're lying again., I did NOT falsely claim that. It's true. There is another photo that was taken that day. If you say I falsely claimed that,,,  PROVE it is falsely claimed.

You're lying again. I know what the term UFO means. You like my term idjut, eh?  Look in the mirror when you read it

There is no need for anyone to prove it is a fake since it has been established as a fake. The clear and strong evidence has already been provided.

Were there 40+ witnesses in the power plant? No evidence provided so far.

And yes you falsely claimed the existence of another photo. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Thread closed.

  • Thanks 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.