Who said anything about taking anyone at their word? Where did I indicate that I that I had a problem with requiring irrefutable proof? In fact, I’ve indicated that irrefutable proof should be goal regarding UFOs. What I’ve been stating is that EVIDENCE of the craft does exist. While proof is built on examined and tested evidence, untested evidence is still, evidence.
oh no.... chatGPT ! Is that artisanal craft ? I do not rule englishh as you know, but does an evidence needs a proof if it is evident or does it mean in english : a phenomen or an event ? So an evidence is an evidence whether tested or untested because it i an evidence ?🤔
well if drones, ligth need a craft to do things in the sky, so craft it should be, but are there really unknown (for all) ?
There are also a lot of things now all around the sea, the near space (pollution of orbital wastes) and even more in the sky... But why should that "evidence" be :
1) true because it is said by an authority, uniform, etc
2) Of an beyond the planet origin
3) Of any interest as stated already as far it is blah for the masses or be of an utility if someone behind if we can not know but loosing ourselves in conjectures and loops of blah. (sorry my english). till we see the flying bush only that could hide the forest !
well if drones, ligth need a craft to do things in the sky, so craft it should be, but are there really unknown (for all) ?
There are also a lot of things now all around the sea, the near space (pollution of orbital wastes) and even more in the sky... But why should that "evidence" be :
1) true because it is said by an authority, uniform, etc
2) Of an beyond the planet origin
3) Of any interest as stated already as far it is blah for the masses or be of an utility if someone behind if we can not know but loosing ourselves in conjectures and loops of blah. (sorry my english). till we see the flying bush only that could hide the forest !
Last edited:
George, the U.S. Navy videos are not assertions, they are instrumented evidence. The instruments being, military IR-imaging sensors. You can legitimately have questions about those videos. You may reasonably distrust their context, but they are evidence none the less. What the videos are not is, irrefutable proof, as Trileru terms it. I do not understand why the difference between evidence and proof is controversial.
Did anyone check if the swiss guy with his reactor flying wing had not a turist visa for USA the day the naval pilots were fooled ?
It reminds me a Marvel 's iron man scene...
Maybe the first parachut jump of Lady Gaga...go figure!
I also know US army has contracted with the french guy and is reactor feet platform... Maybe they dramatically improved his skate board like the green bufon vilain in spider man ?
The sky is full of things nowadays and troubles are flying in squadron.
It reminds me a Marvel 's iron man scene...
Maybe the first parachut jump of Lady Gaga...go figure!
I also know US army has contracted with the french guy and is reactor feet platform... Maybe they dramatically improved his skate board like the green bufon vilain in spider man ?
The sky is full of things nowadays and troubles are flying in squadron.
Last edited:
You don't have to call them craft, but they also couldn't literally be anything. They are an object which flies without wings, and without a heat producing engine, and can outmaneuver and out velocity fighter jets while lacking such.
Most of the US military videos have been debunked and the objects are either military jets or other commercial aircraft. What hasn't been identified has been down to lack of data since essentially the objects are only a few pixels on a targeting display.
Provide links to that de-bunking. Perhaps, you seen much more credible de-bunking than have I. The supposed de-bunking which I watched was akin to the famous and lame "swamp gas" explanations of Project Blue Book reports. Coming across as a weak attempt to provide a mundane explanation to hang one's hat on, if one is so inclined. Such as one where they attempt to de-bunk the so-called, "Gimbal" IR-video of a craft which rolls counter-clockwise almost 90 degrees while maneuvering.
The suggestion is that the craft doesn't actually roll, but that it's simply an optical illusion as a result of the interceptor-mounted IR-imaging lens assembly rotating to maintain lock on the craft. Which is obviously wrong, because the clouds in the background do not change in attitude in-sync with the craft. Both the craft AND the clouds would remain at the same relative attitude if the rolling were an effect of the camera assembly moving. The entire imaged scene would move singularly. Instead, the craft dramatically changes attitude with respect to the clouds. The main problem for those proposing an alternative to the Navy's IR-video interpretation, however, is that the images are fully corroborated by multiple (not merely one) flight officer eyewitness public accounts - across multiple interceptor flights.
Well said, you’ve got it. For example, in a court of law, evidence exists in many forms. Physical, eyewitness, photographic etc., but it then undergoes the trial process, where it is examined and tested before it is accepted toward building proof. In science, evidence often exists as a physical phenomena, but also includes other forms, such as photographic/imaged. Which is examined and tested via instruments before it is accepted toward building proof. Einstein’s theory of relativity is still considered, a theory. Evidence for it is still gathered, examined and tested before it is accepted toward building proof. Also, as the Einstein example shows, proof typically requires more than a single piece of evidence, even though that single piece has been examined and tested.
We seem to be trying hard to make this much more difficult than it actually is.
You use the verb, “solid”, not I. Examples of evidence are clearly presented on this thread. Nothing productive could come from my repeating what is plainly obvious. You disagree that that evidence, which I’ve clearly defined, that’s fine. That’s your prerogative. So, let’s leave it at that.
Louis CK crashed an interview with Donald Rumsfeld, and it made for some of the strangest radio ever. Louie kept asking him if he was "a lizard person" and Rumsfeld refused to discuss it. Very odd (and funny)
UFOs are so common out here (Vegas) it's basically a nothingburger now
Saw them myself, two years ago
1) nearly all the reputable sightings have occurred near two locations: the US Navy Space Warfare facilities in San Diego and Charleston
2) sightings happen all the time near Area 51
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots
At Ken, I know very well about epistimology already. Thanks.
For me it is a translation thing. Let take away the tribunal thing.
In my language, evidence word means nothing in science...not really. It just stays a common word. The dogs can beat for instance.
Einstein is not only a theory...parts have been tested. Untill better as you know it is a paradigm.
In science, at least in my native language a theory is tested withc expeiences. Basicly If you can repeat it you have your PoC. Ixam not aware of proof of evidence in my language. In french an evidence is evident (the dog) so surely has not to be tested.
For me it is a translation thing. Let take away the tribunal thing.
In my language, evidence word means nothing in science...not really. It just stays a common word. The dogs can beat for instance.
Einstein is not only a theory...parts have been tested. Untill better as you know it is a paradigm.
In science, at least in my native language a theory is tested withc expeiences. Basicly If you can repeat it you have your PoC. Ixam not aware of proof of evidence in my language. In french an evidence is evident (the dog) so surely has not to be tested.
I think we do not share the same definition of UFO. In french this word does not refer to the Unknown but culturaly refer to extra terestrial origin of the object (UFO tv serie, pop culture about flying saucers).
what is that hotel in Vegas that look like a round platform on a feet ? Typically what an ufo looks like for people.