UFO in plane video from 2010 (LaGuardia Airport)

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


No, I have seen all kinds of blimps in this area and none turn like that.

The ones that I have seen all move while turning. And I saw the blimp in full screen, it took half a minute for it to turn, while the blimps I've seen, would already be on the other side of the other side of the sky.

And how exactly does it make it a blimp for turning? Did aliens tell you that none of their ships rotate?

Blimps may be the only logical conclusion, but without complete proof, you can't prove that it is a blimp.

Same goes to Phage and other debunkers; if there is evidence that some UFO is a conventional aircraft, they will accept it as a fact, but if there is evidence that suggests that the object could be extraterrestrial, they will immediately try to debunk.

And because Phage and a few other members might state some facts or provide helpful links, everyone on this site now believes every word they say, which shows that some people here, don't deny ignorance very well.




posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
No, I have seen all kinds of blimps in this area and none turn like that.

But you stated twice that the object wasn't turning, and that it was "clear" to you that it wasn't turning. You were proven wrong, which means your credibility is zero, zip, zilch.



Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
And how exactly does it make it a blimp for turning?

I never said it was a blimp. But, it could be a blimp-type balloon attached to a cable or wire for an advertisement. That's likely why it's turning in the wind but not moving.



Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Did aliens tell you that none of their ships rotate?

100% of all rotating UFO's have been either:

- Balloons

- Toys

- CGI


An occupant isn't going to be able to observe very well in a craft that's constantly rotating. Not to mention being sucked to the sides of the craft due to the extra gravity being created by the rotation. So remember, if you see something rotating in the sky, it's almost assuredly not an alien craft.



Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Blimps may be the only logical conclusion, but without complete proof, you can't prove that it is a blimp.

And likewise, without complete proof, you can't prove it is an alien craft, even though that is what you would like to default to first over any terrestrial explanation.



Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
if there is evidence that suggests that the object could be extraterrestrial, they will immediately try to debunk.

99.9% of all images and videos of UFO's posted on the internet are terrestrial or fake. There are very few, if any, cases where there's actual "evidence" to suggest that any object in our skies is extraterrestrial.



Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
And because Phage and a few other members might state some facts or provide helpful links, everyone on this site now believes every word they say

Well, people most certainly aren't going to believe anything you say since you can't see something so elementarily simple as an object rotating instead of trying to argue that it wasn't rotating. And add on top of that, you and several others try to default to the alien / extraterrestrial camp when you see an object, instead of trying to figure out if an object can match any terrestrial solution first.

Real researchers look for a terrestrial explanation first. Then you can start entertaining extraterrestrial theories after all terrestrial explanations have been exhausted.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Please don't put words in my mouth, I was not hinting that the object was some kind an alien spaceship, so don't make up lies.

And how exactly did the 100% of all UFOs be proven to be of terrestrial origin? By evidence? Well I'm sorry, but evidence is not proof, but when you have proof that "all rotating UFO's" were terrestrial objects, you can make a thread and we'll discuss it, but until then, what you have for most cases, is just evidence.

And if Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein didn't see very well, and saw what one of them thought was a stationary UFO, should we forget about all their theories and formulas because they couldn't see "something so elementarily simple as an object rotating"?

And I have tried to look for terrestrial explanations, but planes and helicopters just don't fit, and something turning in mid-air does not mean it is a blimp or balloon, so you explained nothing.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
evidence is not proof

And that's why you're one of the least credible people to discuss the topic of UFO's with:

Definition of "proof":

Convincing or persuasive evidence.


Evidence proves something. Therefore, evidence of something is proof of something.


So, with your claim that "evidence is not proof", and your claim that the object clearly "isn't turning" when it actually is, I think we're done here. There isn't anything else to say.



edit on 10-2-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


If you had a larger intellect, you would understand that by evidence, I mean things like characteristics or shapes, which is barely evidence, it is definitely not proof.

Definition of evidence:

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


I'm sorry, but something turning in the sky doesn't indicate whether or not it is a blimp or "blimp-type balloon", and just the fact that it does not indicate that, means that it is not evidence of the object being a blimp.

Is there evidence that there is a possibility that it is blimp? Yes. Evidence of it actually being a blimp? No.

You are the one that is not a credible researcher if you accept things as facts, just because of very weak evidence, or even just evidence that there is a possibility of it's existence.





new topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join