Jetflag
Elite Member
- Jul 17, 2020
- 2,746 Posts
- 2,189 Thanked
k, this discussion is going in circles. So i'll make this my concluding statement regarding the matter.
1 The pieced of evidence provided in the Nimitz case. one of the best one's you can put forth, do not hold up to closer inspection and/or scrutiny, and can be explained away with far more mundaine, down to earth explanations.
2 testimonial evidence is weak evidence when in case of an extraordinairy claim. regardless of expertise/degrees, pretty blue eyes, tone sincerity, fortitude and trust in them as being infallible even though they're just human beings and one of them actually had his maiden flight that day. the "professional lived experience" argument is similar to the one's faith healers use.
3 the entire ufologist case hinges on the assumption that at every instance it MUST have been the same object, even though there is in some instances a 40 minute gap. which is in my estimation an intellectually dishonest assumption.
4, Correct. military weapon sensors (from the mid 80's) cannot do that.. since they're a dead piece of scanning equipment m8 , what do you think is inside a gimballcam or radar? a super AI who can tell the difference between a weather balloon blip and a bird? reality check: they can't..the best a plane can do in terms of identification is F O F. ..the distinction is made by people. which is precisely where the problem lies and who can't, as a matter of fact properly distinquish or zoom in on an object 40 miles away traveling at mach 0.8..its an estimated guess and they're a hell of lot more times wrong then you might think lol (a lot of syrian civilians would testify to that if they wheren't dead) which is why for instance a strange radar blip is never directly identified as "enemy plane spotted", but "boogie" Remember, you're talking about mass production militairy equipment being as light and crammed as possible, developed in the 80's here...this isn't CERN levels of tech m8..
5 in relation to the either/or hovering or standstill, or moving at mach 1000 of an object etc-> paralax paralax paralax,
6 Look. You want to believe, perfectly fine. So do I. but I can't why? because the evidence presented here to "prove" the claim that it MUST have been magic tech aliens is, and i'm genuinly sorry to conclude this...hogwash levels weak. and no amount of human post-hoc memory consolidation from eye witnesses is going to change that. I can give you a case of a whole small city who in unison claim they saw an angel. Are all those people liers and wrong and therefor it must have been an Angel? ofcourse not.
1 The pieced of evidence provided in the Nimitz case. one of the best one's you can put forth, do not hold up to closer inspection and/or scrutiny, and can be explained away with far more mundaine, down to earth explanations.
2 testimonial evidence is weak evidence when in case of an extraordinairy claim. regardless of expertise/degrees, pretty blue eyes, tone sincerity, fortitude and trust in them as being infallible even though they're just human beings and one of them actually had his maiden flight that day. the "professional lived experience" argument is similar to the one's faith healers use.
3 the entire ufologist case hinges on the assumption that at every instance it MUST have been the same object, even though there is in some instances a 40 minute gap. which is in my estimation an intellectually dishonest assumption.
4, Correct. military weapon sensors (from the mid 80's) cannot do that.. since they're a dead piece of scanning equipment m8 , what do you think is inside a gimballcam or radar? a super AI who can tell the difference between a weather balloon blip and a bird? reality check: they can't..the best a plane can do in terms of identification is F O F. ..the distinction is made by people. which is precisely where the problem lies and who can't, as a matter of fact properly distinquish or zoom in on an object 40 miles away traveling at mach 0.8..its an estimated guess and they're a hell of lot more times wrong then you might think lol (a lot of syrian civilians would testify to that if they wheren't dead) which is why for instance a strange radar blip is never directly identified as "enemy plane spotted", but "boogie" Remember, you're talking about mass production militairy equipment being as light and crammed as possible, developed in the 80's here...this isn't CERN levels of tech m8..
5 in relation to the either/or hovering or standstill, or moving at mach 1000 of an object etc-> paralax paralax paralax,
6 Look. You want to believe, perfectly fine. So do I. but I can't why? because the evidence presented here to "prove" the claim that it MUST have been magic tech aliens is, and i'm genuinly sorry to conclude this...hogwash levels weak. and no amount of human post-hoc memory consolidation from eye witnesses is going to change that. I can give you a case of a whole small city who in unison claim they saw an angel. Are all those people liers and wrong and therefor it must have been an Angel? ofcourse not.
Last edited: