• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like a moot point when we're discussing an "object" that "self illuminated." Or more likely, a made-up story.
 
Ahem.
"The altitude of the object when it departed appeared to be at around 4608ft. as drawn along the mountains behind it, but was probably lower due to the viewing angle and the object's distance away from the mountains in the background."

No mention of sea level there. That quote says that Ufology looked at the mountain, looked at the object, and somehow calculated the height of the object to be 4608ft.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Ahem.
"The altitude of the object when it departed appeared to be at around 4608ft. as drawn along the mountains behind it, but was probably lower due to the viewing angle and the object's distance away from the mountains in the background."

No mention of sea level there. That quote says that Ufology looked at the mountain, looked at the object, and somehow calculated the height of the object to be 4608ft.
Click to expand...


Go back and review the actual post in the context of the discussion. There is no way I had meant from ground level. We were using Google Earth to get values. The readings it gives are from sea level ( I presume ). And if you read the account, in the context of what I had said, it's the only context that makes any sense. Yet the skeptics here self-servingly ignore these things and present them out of context to obscure, rather than clarify the issue because that is what suits their bias. It's a really bad habit that should be put in check.
 
ufology said:
Go back and review the actual post in the context of the discussion. There is no way I had meant from ground level. We were using Google Earth to get values. The readings it gives are from sea level ( I presume ).
Click to expand...

You presume? You aren't sure? Riiiiiiiiiight... So it's not just that we can't trust your own figures, you aren't even sure if they are valid or how they were calculated. You have to presume!

Funny for other people the figures come up as from ground level.

The story changed. The story keeps changing. It is worthless as evidence because of this.
 
Daylightstar said:
That's likely your problem. You use so many 'phrases' adaptations which depart from your original story.
Click to expand...


Daylightstar,

Nothing about my original account has changed except for the precision of the measurements because I now have the aid of Google Earth. My distance estimates remain very close and my height estimate was off by about a hundred meters. That's all. So what? It doesn't change what I saw. I'm just able to describe it more accurately. How is that a bad thing? How does it in any way detract from the credibility of the story? If anything it should add to it.
 
ufology said:
What is the matter with you people?
Click to expand...

Well, we see that you are attempting (rather obviously) to change the meaning of the words "unidentified flying object" to mean "alien spaceship", and we have decided to not allow that.

In other words, there's nothing "wrong" with us, but there's certainly something wrong with you.
 
Tomtomkent said:
You presume? You aren't sure? Riiiiiiiiiight... So it's not just that we can't trust your own figures, you aren't even sure if they are valid or how they were calculated. You have to presume!

Funny for other people the figures come up as from ground level.

The story changed. The story keeps changing. It is worthless as evidence because of this.
Click to expand...


Dude ... Google Earth gives the lake an altitude of 2640ft. I suppose you'd say it was floating in the sky too.
 
Last edited:
Stray Cat said:
I think that which ever 'category' the several bits of it seem to fit in to, the prefix 'pseudo' seem apt.
As the subject of UFOlogy is always some pale imitation of religion, science, investigation or entertainment etc.
Click to expand...


I think UFO/alien visitation stories like War of the Worlds, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters, The X-Files, etc. can make for some damn fine entertainment.
 
ufology said:
Nothing about my original account has changed except for the precision of the measurements because I now have the aid of Google Earth. My distance estimates remain very close and my height estimate was off by about a hundred meters. That's all. So what? It doesn't change what I saw. I'm just able to describe it more accurately. How is that a bad thing? How does it in any way detract from the credibility of the story? If anything it should add to it.
Click to expand...

Your "credibility" is not in question...what you actually saw, "is".

Your "testimony" is simply not good enough evidence to overturn ideas regarding alien life. If it were, then anything would be "real" based solely on witness "testimony".

...and that's not how an actual scientific investigation "works".
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
Daylightstar,

Nothing about my original account has changed except for the precision of the measurements because I now have the aid of Google Earth. My distance estimates remain very close and my height estimate was off by about a hundred meters. That's all. So what? It doesn't change what I saw. I'm just able to describe it more accurately. How is that a bad thing? How does it in any way detract from the credibility of the story? If anything it should add to it.
Click to expand...

It isn't the precision of the measurements that has changed.

It is the measurements themselves.
 
ufology said:
Dude ... Google Earth gives the lake an altitude of 2640ft. I suppose you'd say it was floating in the sky too.
Click to expand...

ONLY if the readings were indeed set to sealevel. You have to PRESUME. Which means your "calculations" are flawed. Not to mention constantly changing format to suit your whim. How are you not getting that ANYTHING presumed or assumed has not been calculated?
 
R.A.F. said:
Well, we see that you are attempting (rather obviously) to change the meaning of the words "unidentified flying object" to mean "alien spaceship", and we have decided to not allow that.

In other words, there's nothing "wrong" with us, but there's certainly something wrong with you.
Click to expand...


More misrepresentation. I've not changed anything. My definition was simply a short form for the word UFO in the context of alien craft as is included in most dictionary definitions. The word UFO is a word separate from the individual words used to form the acronym. The individual words that form the acronym are part of the word origin not the defintion. See below:


UFO: noun (plural UFOs)
  • a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

    Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO


Consequently when I say UFO ( alien craft ), I am just giving the word context in keeping with it's common definition. So your personal attacks are not warranted and again reveal your self-serving, if not mean-spirited attitude with respect to anything that doesn't fit your bias.
 
Last edited:
ufology said:
I'm just able to describe it more accurately.
Click to expand...
You're able to embellish your story to answer the challenges to it as you go.

How is that a bad thing? How does it in any way detract from the credibility of the story? If anything it should add to it.
Click to expand...
Are you under the false apprehension that your unfalsifiable claim has any credibility whatsoever? I can assure you that it has none. The dishonesty that you've shown in this thread has guaranteed that your constantly changing story is thought of as being made up out of whole cloth.
 
ufology said:
Nothing about my original account has changed except for the precision of the measurements because I now have the aid of Google Earth.
Click to expand...


Did you forget that you confused north and south in your original account before the mistake was pointed out to you?
 
ufology said:
More misrepresentation. I've not changed anything. My definition was simply a short form for the word UFO in the context of alien craft as is included in most dictionary definitions. The word UFO is a word separate from the individual words used to form the acronym. The individual words that form the acronym are part of the word origin not the defintion. See below:

UFO: noun (plural UFOs)
  • a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

    Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO


Consequently when I say UFO ( alien craft ), I am just giving the word context in keeping with it's common definition.
Click to expand...

Right on cue, there's that blatant dishonesty that I was referring to.
 
ufology said:
More misrepresentation. I've not changed anything. My definition was simply a short form for the word UFO in the context of alien craft as is included in most dictionary definitions. The word UFO is a word separate from the individual words used to form the acronym. The individual words that form the acronym are part of the word origin not the defintion. See below:

UFO: noun (plural UFOs)
  • a mysterious object seen in the sky for which it is claimed no orthodox scientific explanation can be found, often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials.

    Origin: 1950s: acronym from unidentified flying object
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/UFO


Consequently when I say UFO ( alien craft ), I am just giving the word context in keeping with it's common definition.
Click to expand...


Give it up. You can't even convince other ufology nuts to use your redefinition--it's not going to fly here (no pun intended ;)).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom