Quote:
Originally Posted by JayUtah
However a very unusual UFO...
Describe an "ordinary" UFO, as opposed to an "unusual" one. It was simply unidentified. No need to pile on the loaded language.
|
There was no real need for the sentence above, but you wrote it.
Quote:
...and they did not know what to do about it.
False. They executed a rehearsed plan to attempt to observe, characterize, and intercept a phenomenon they were duty-bound to suspect as a threat until they could identify it. That they ultimately failed to do so does not necessarily mean the phenomenon was supernatural or extraterrestrial. That would presume the military ordinarily never fails at what it attempts, so long as the circumstances are earthly.
|
FALSE. Your just wrong. The head flight controller said there was no written script to follow. He called it a "fly by the seat of your pants sorta deal". Furthermore, because the object did not fire on us it confused the situation because I believe the only aircraft they had available were Nuclear armed.
Quote:
It was later classified.
As a matter of routine.
|
Hogwash. Not everything is classified for 30 years as a matter of routine.
This was obviously classified because it illustrated a UFO penetrating our defenses and we could do nothing to stop it. The USAF lied in the official (Top Secret) report and called the objects weather balloons, EVEN THOUGH IN THE AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS THE WEATHER MAN IS HEARD ON THE UNOQUIVICALLY SAYING THESE ARE NOT WEATER BALLOONS AND THAT NONE HAD BEEN RELEASED. FURTHERMORE THE BALLOONS USED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIT. They just were not balloons.
Quote:
I don't know for sure if this was related to that, but I am open to that.
Of course it's related. It confirms the bias you've been exhibiting from the beginning: you consider only the alien-spacecraft hypothesis and reject all others by straw-man methods. Owning your bias is a good thing. It helps other people make sure you don't shoot yourself in the foot with it.
|
That's ironic, because you have not offered one opinion on what you think it was. You know why? Because you have no idea. You reject only the alien-only vehicle option, EVEN THOUGH I never once suggested it was alien. Nice try, but you lose here as well. Massive failure.
IF SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD, I would say it's merely an non-human created object/craft. Whatever that is.
Quote:
Weasel words. If you don't know yourself what you're proposing, then how can you expect someone else to accept it as a rational proposal? How do you propose to test such a hypothesis?
As near as I can tell, you're happy as long as there's something otherworldly attached to this incident -- it doesn't matter exactly what, as long as you get to keep believing that little green (or gray) men are visiting us. That's why UFO research doesn't get taken seriously. If otherworldly origin is a non-negotiable trait of the only explanations they'll consider, then they can't claim to be looking for what really happened.
|
[/quote]
I said, IF SOMEONE PUT A GUN TO MY HEAD. Not saying that's what the object is. You seriously do not know how to discuss something, without taking a position before you go into it, do you?
This is amazing. Here we have an amazing "UFO" case and the only thing you care about is getting me to say it's "alien" so you can win some pathetic debating points. Hey, let me clear what I think this is. A FREAKING UFO.
You've been on here too long. And after just a couple of days, so have I!
