UFO Spotted in China! Airport Shut Down!

[Limbo]

Okay...

...now the Chinese news reports are saying that there wasn't anything spotted on radar...and "reflection off a high-flying plane" seems to be the prevalent explanation...

This came out only minutes ago...

'UFO' that disrupted air traffic in East China remains a mystery

 

[jakesteele]

Radar often contacts things that aren't actually there, though.

A radar contact doesn't necessarily mean anything one way or the other.

Then why do they even use radar? It seems like every time someone sees a blip on the screen that debunkers go right into the minimize and diminish mode and try to act like it was nothing that carries any weight. Tell that to the FAA.

Also, I have seen 2 pics of airplanes related to this story, which will show up on radar, and a video of a light, which is probably also attached to an airplane.

You just poo hooed radar and now you're using it? What's up with that?

A skeptic objectively weighs and assesses the evidence and then reaches a conclusion. A debunker reaches a conclusion and then goes in with an agenda to disprove what, to them, is already a foregone conclusion. confirmation bias undergirds the whole process.

Government officials are human beings who are also subject to being fooled and reacting.

They are also subject to not being fooled and not reacting

I see no reason to suspect anything here but the connection of events that aren't really connected, plus the possible flight of a military aircraft near an airport.

What the hell does that mean?

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

No I gathered that. It was an 'unidentified flying object' near the sun, as opposed to a "typical" unidentified flying object moving through the atmosphere. That's lucky for him, because he can use that irrelevant distinction to avoid the stigma of being associated with UFOs. Maybe he is a coward for trying to avoid the stigma...for choosing status over taking a stand for whats right. Or maybe I am too harsh. Just sayin'. Status-seekers don't make good truth-seekers.

I like how you call someone a coward straight off the bat with out knowing almost anything about the story. Did you even think that maybe English isn't his first language? Or that the Daily Mail makes **** up? Since it's pretty clear that Journalists love creating stories out of stories. Or that Unidentified Object was a mis-translation? Or would that have stopped you from getting to the truth that he's a coward that knows no one cares about UO's and that he's more interested in being a Status-seeker in bed with the government(Chinese) cover up?
I would of have thought that a truth seeker would have looked objectively at the first story and not have jumped on a conclusion that suited his belief system.

 

[Limbo]

I like how you call someone a coward straight off the bat with out knowing almost anything about the story. Did you even think that maybe English isn't his first language?

Did you even think that maybe that's why I used the word maybe not once but twice? Did you think that that's why I said MAYBE I was too harsh?

Keep frying, Dutchmen.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Did you even think that maybe that's why I used the word maybe not once but twice? Did you think that that's why I said MAYBE I was too harsh?

Keep frying, Dutchmen.

No Glenn Beck, I didn't because strangely I was addressing your point you made the pointing out of your Ad hominem attack was just the cherry on top. Nice if you had addressed those too instead of trying to truth seek your behind from an Ad hominem attack. I would love to have seen your pre-edit of the post was. Probably not so maybes in it.

 

[Limbo]

No Glenn Beck, I didn't because strangely I was addressing your point you made the pointing out of your Ad hominem attack was just the cherry on top. Nice if you had addressed those too instead of trying to truth seek your behind from an Ad hominem attack. I would love to have seen your pre-edit of the post was. Probably not so maybes in it.

Your Glenn Beck reference is lost on me because I don't watch him but I gather it's not a compliment. I can't sift through your wording, is English your first language? I think you just want to be a pain in the butt because you just don't like me, so I'm not going to bother with you any more than I already have. See ya later.

 

[Limbo]

This article has several photos that are allegedly of the UFO that allegedly closed the Chinese airport:

http://today24news.com/breaking/ufo-closes-airport-in-shanghai-china-101760

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Your Glenn Beck reference is lost on me because I don't watch him but I gather it's not a compliment. I can't sift through your wording, is English your first language? I think you just want to be a pain in the butt because you just don't like me, so I'm not going to bother with you any more than I already have. See ya later.

I know you "won't" read this but I'll just post on this thread for other people to read.

I can't sift through your wording, is English your first language?

Yes and that's a poor excuse, You haven't addressed anything from my post. Which are

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source for a "UFO" sighting in China?

How well do the Chinese languages' translate into English?

Was UO as you coined it a miss translation?

Your Glenn Beck reference is lost on me because I don't watch him but I gather it's not a compliment.

Glenn Beck calls people names and then says I'm just asking questions. A lot like how you used maybe in the post.

I think you just want to be a pain in the butt because you just don't like me,

Is this more of you reading my mind? Because I don't know you at all. The only thing I have an issue with is that you can't answer my questions.

so I'm not going to bother with you any more than I already have. See ya later.

That's not very Truth-seeker like, shouldn't you be opened to all ideas and thoughts? Ignoring people isn't going to get you far in your quest for knowledge.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This article has several photos that are allegedly of the UFO that allegedly closed the Chinese airport:

http://today24news.com/breaking/ufo-closes-airport-in-shanghai-china-101760

Do you think any of those pictures really are of the UFO they are alledged to be? Frankly I don't. The second video is the only thing there that's even remotely credible and that shows something in the distance beyond an airliner. Could be a balloon, I suppose.

With all those stranded passengers with nothing better to do, I'd be surprised if there weren't lots of video recordings of whatever it was, just waiting to find their way onto the internet.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Have you seen this?

Podesta’s reversal on UFOs is mystifying

I am trying to figure out your point. If it is the part about Webre and his "source", you really are stretching things. He has made all sorts of claims that are false (like the US was bombing the moon with the LCROSS satellite to interfere with ET bases). He is out of touch with reality. As for trusting people who claim various things, I think you need to read the story about Richard Theilmann (AKA source A) at Reality Uncovered.

http://www.realityuncovered.net/index.php

No they aren't tainted but how, pray tell, do you expect me to demonstrate that????

How do you know they aren't? You state that you have empirical observations that prove your beliefs/claims. Perhaps you can present evidence that confirms your observations. Otherwise, they are not empirical but simple observations, which can be tainted by your own preconceptions.

 

[Astrophotographer]

"Eyewitness perception issues." Ha ha ha

My friend Rick and I didn't have any 'issues' perceiving the large UFO that flew right over our fracking heads. We perceived it just fine, thank you very much. I don't care if you believe that or not.

Without any evidence, you could have seen anything that you misperceived. I am not going to argue with you about your claim because you have no evidence to back it up other than your say so. It is a known FACT that 75-95% (it depends on who you quote on this which is why I give the range) of all UFO reports can be explained, which means that these people misperceived something mundane as something exotic. What makes you any better than those 75-95%?

 

[Limbo]

I am trying to figure out your point. If it is the part about Webre and his "source", you really are stretching things. He has made all sorts of claims that are false (like the US was bombing the moon with the LCROSS satellite to interfere with ET bases). He is out of touch with reality. As for trusting people who claim various things, I think you need to read the story about Richard Theilmann (AKA source A) at Reality Uncovered.

http://www.realityuncovered.net/index.php

I don't think I am stretching things. Why do I think that? Because I've seen more than one UFO, and so I know the phenomenon is legit. If I know that, the government does too. If the government knows that and is not telling us then it has reasons. The most logical reason is fear of social instability. If that's the case then a gradual social engineering program is a course of action that governments might take. Have you noticed anything that could be large-scale social engineering? Things that might be designed to prepare us for the shock and confusion of UFO disclosure? A trend, things like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKiHhfPz0yc
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jun/08/hawkings-warning-opens-debate/

How do you know they aren't? You state that you have empirical observations that prove your beliefs/claims. Perhaps you can present evidence that confirms your observations. Otherwise, they are not empirical but simple observations, which can be tainted by your own preconceptions.

Sorry we didn't happen to have a camera handy. I would have been able to take several pictures. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I could use a thousand words to describe the experience and it still wouldn't be enough to convince you.

Without any evidence, you could have seen anything that you misperceived. I am not going to argue with you about your claim because you have no evidence to back it up other than your say so. It is a known FACT that 75-95% (it depends on who you quote on this which is why I give the range) of all UFO reports can be explained, which means that these people misperceived something mundane as something exotic. What makes you any better than those 75-95%?

If 5% are unexplained then that is more than enough...the phenomenon is legit. As I said earlier, the sort of mundane explanations skeptics put forward do not explain 100% of reports. Only 95%, tops. Take that 5% that remains, stick it in your pipe, and smoke it. Draw deep. Rinse and repeat until that 5% is no longer in your mental blind spot.

Mundane explanations do not apply to my sighting with my friend Rick, because it FLEW RIGHT OVER OUR FRACKING HEADS, sort of like how they do in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. We got a very good look at it. We continued to watch it as it maneuvered, utterly astounded. A short time later it flew off into outer space. So yeah, it was one of the 5%.

 

[Limbo]

Here is a vid of the Chinese news report with some english translation:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdzanq_ufo-china-airport-closure_news

 

[Sledge]

Limbo, all those people who saw a mundane object and thought it was a UFO were sure that they were in the 5%. What makes you so sure that you're different from them?

 

[Marduk]

Maybe its not a UFO, maybe its a jungian archetype

 

[Lucian]

Limbo, all those people who saw a mundane object and thought it was a UFO were sure that they were in the 5%. What makes you so sure that you're different from them?

Well, it seems to me that it is among the percentage of sightings that are unexplained, but I don't mean that quite the way Limbo does. It's unexplained simply because there isn't enough information to explain it. The same is true, I assume, of the rest of the 5-25%. That's why the phenomena are labeled "unexplained" or "unidentified." It would be an appeal to ignorance to leap to the conclusion that, because they are unexplained, they must be aliens or space shamans or a manifestation of the collective unconscious.

 

[Sledge]

Heh, there's a certain thread where I think that point has been posted almost once per page since last November. It's truly amazing how many people are willing to leap from "I don't know what that was" to "ALIENS!!!" without thinking "Do I actually know what every single aircraft and natural phenomenon on Earth looks like under these conditions?"

 

[I Ratant]

...

Mundane explanations do not apply to my sighting with my friend Rick, because it FLEW RIGHT OVER OUR FRACKING HEADS, ....

.
I'm wagering most of the comic effects in the 3 Stooges movies do the same.

 

[I Ratant]

Shuttle, Space Station, Moon.
Shuttle, Space Station, Venus.
Airplane at altitude.
Airplane at night.

 

[dudalb]

Without any evidence, you could have seen anything that you misperceived. I am not going to argue with you about your claim because you have no evidence to back it up other than your say so. It is a known FACT that 75-95% (it depends on who you quote on this which is why I give the range) of all UFO reports can be explained, which means that these people misperceived something mundane as something exotic. What makes you any better than those 75-95%?

Welcome to the wonderful world of UFO crackpots.