Best ufo photo ever taken?

[Zinjanthropos]

Going back to lighting adjustments of the image made by photo editor, the inner bulge of lights and the outer ring of lights don't seem to be part of a single object or structure which integrates both. 

You're right CC. Outside the ring and inside the inside the ring seem to be of the same material, like some type of vinyl covering with holes in it, and a light underneath.

[Syne]

No..it is not trivial that flying objects exist in our atmosphere that defy anything made by man or by nature. In fact it's rather extraordinary. Until we make contact with the intelligences behind them, we have to suspend judgment as to their origins.

Do you accept that "the intelligences" behind them may be human? O_o

No...these objects are beyond anything humans can create.

So, you lied here:

Sooooo...you're not claiming they're extraterrestrial spacecraft?

No..that would be an IFO, just like saying it is a drone. A true ufo is unidentified and displays characteristics beyond any manmade or natural object. We just don't know what they are, but we definitely know they exist and have been witnessed thousands of times since the 1940's.

If you don't accept that they may be human in origin, the only other option is extraterrestrial. That quite literally means you have not suspended judgement, as you presume to rule out human and natural origin, leaving only extraterrestrial, e.g. alien spacecraft. OTHO, I am not making any judgement at all. I am merely accepting the rational default of the null hypothesis, that there is no relationship between the extraordinary and anything until evidence indicates otherwise.

Still pictures of a pattern of lights or something over the water are not extraordinary nor defy anything man-made or natural. They are all easily replicated by people. Thus they are not evidence of a relationship to the extraordinary.

Since you presume them alien, you are making a dogmatic judgement.

[Magical Realist]

If you don't accept that they may be human in origin, the only other option is extraterrestrial.

No it isn't. They could be interdimensionals. They could be time travelers. They could be a race beings living underneath our oceans. Many possibilities, but none certain at this point.

Still pictures of a pattern of lights or something over the water are not extraordinary nor defy anything man-made or natural. They are all easily replicated by people. Thus they are not evidence of a relationship to the extraordinary.

Thousands of photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts provide extraordinary evidence for ufos. This is just a plain fact. Anyone can look them up.

[Syne]

If you don't accept that they may be human in origin, the only other option is extraterrestrial.

No it isn't. They could be interdimensionals. They could be time travelers. They could be a race beings living underneath our oceans. Many possibilities, but none certain at this point.

A semantic distinction without any practical difference, as anything non-human and unknown is alien. And since we have the zero evidence for any of them, their presumption has zero rational basis.

Still pictures of a pattern of lights or something over the water are not extraordinary nor defy anything man-made or natural. They are all easily replicated by people. Thus they are not evidence of a relationship to the extraordinary.

Thousands of photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts provide extraordinary evidence for ufos. This is just a plain fact. Anyone can look them up.

No, they don't. Any picture or video can be replicated by humans and are not the thing itself, and any eyewitness account can be mistaken.

Studies by Scheck, Neufel, and Dwyer showed that many DNA-based exonerations involved eyewitness evidence.

In the 1970s and '80s, Bob Buckhout showed inter alia that eyewitness conditions can, at least within ethical and other constraints, be simulated on university campuses, and that large numbers of people can be mistaken: "Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong" was the title of one paper. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness...eliability

But keep preachin', brother.

[Magical Realist]

A semantic distinction without any practical difference, as anything non-human and unknown is alien

Alien = extraterrestrial..a being from another planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien

And since we have the zero evidence for any of them, their presumption has zero rational basis.

The existence of ufos is abundant evidence for the existence of non-human intelligences..

No, they don't. Any picture or video can be replicated by humans and are not the thing itself, and any eyewitness account can be mistaken.

LOL! Hence your skeptical agenda of denying the existence of ufos.

[Syne]

A semantic distinction without any practical difference, as anything non-human and unknown is alien

Alien = extraterrestrial..a being from another planet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien

Alien, as in unfamiliar or unknown (synonyms).
You're kidding yourself if you think any of the supposed beings you mentioned differ from extraterrestrials in any practice way prior to having any definitive evidence for any of them. They're all unicorns.

And since we have the zero evidence for any of them, their presumption has zero rational basis.

The existence of ufos is abundant evidence for the existence of non-human intelligences..

No, it's not, as already copiously explained to you.

No, they don't. Any picture or video can be replicated by humans and are not the thing itself, and any eyewitness account can be mistaken.

LOL! Hence your skeptical agenda of denying the existence of ufos.

Nope, just the default null hypothesis of any rational and sane person. Again, I haven't denied the existence of unidentified flying objects. But it's telling that your dogmatic faith requires you to repeatedly make that same straw man.

[Magical Realist]

Alien, as in unfamiliar or unknown (synonyms).

No..alien as in creature from another planet as used all thuout modern culture and entertainment media..

"alien
noun [ C ] US ​ /ˈeɪ·li·ən/
​
1) a person who lives in a country but is not a citizen (= member of a country with specific rights)

2) An alien is also a creature from a planet other than Earth."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict...lish/alien

Nope, just the default null hypothesis of any rational and sane person. Again, I haven't denied the existence of unidentified flying objects.

Yes you have..Saying all ufos are either fake photos or mistaken perceptions is denying their existence as already defined for you.

A ufo is"the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." (The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.)

[Syne]

Alien, as in unfamiliar or unknown (synonyms).

No..alien as in creature from another planet as used all thuout modern culture and entertainment media..

"alien
noun [ C ] US  /ˈeɪ·li·ən/

1) a person who lives in a country but is not a citizen (= member of a country with specific rights)

2) An alien is also a creature from a planet other than Earth."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict...lish/alien

So you're honestly trying to claim that "interdimensionals...time travelers...a race beings living underneath our oceans" would be any less alien to us than extraterrestrials? O_o

Apparently you've never heard/read anyone refer to anything outside of our normal experience as alien.
Earth's Own Aliens: They Light Up & Live in the Deep
Drifting Aliens of Inner Space

Nor anything but the most naive comprehension of almost any give word.

extra
adjective
beyond or more than what is usual, expected, or necessary

terrestrial
noun
an inhabitant of the earth, especially a human being.
- https://www.dictionary.com

IOW, anything unusual and beyond a human being.

Nope, just the default null hypothesis of any rational and sane person. Again, I haven't denied the existence of unidentified flying objects.

Yes you have..Saying all ufos are either fake photos or mistaken perceptions is denying their existence as already defined for you.

And where, pray tell, have I said "all ufos are either fake photos or mistaken perceptions"? O_o
Just another straw man from a true believer desperate to justify his dogmatic beliefs.

A ufo is"the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." (The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.)

The operative words there being "reported perception", and again, a definition that does not rule out human origins nor presume extra-human ones.

[Magical Realist]

So you're honestly trying to claim that "interdimensionals...time travelers...a race beings living underneath our oceans" would be any less alien to us than extraterrestrials? O_o

I'll just keep repeating the definition till you get it.

"alien
noun [ C ] US /ˈeɪ·li·ən/

1) a person who lives in a country but is not a citizen (= member of a country with specific rights)

2) An alien is also a creature from a planet other than Earth."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict...lish/alien

And where, pray tell, have I said "all ufos are either fake photos or mistaken perceptions"? O_o
Just another straw man from a true believer desperate to justify his dogmatic beliefs.

It's your skeptical agenda. Own it.

The operative words there being "reported perception", and again, a definition that does not rule out human origins nor presume extra-human ones.

The ufo is defined as defying any conventional explanation and remaining unexplained. That excludes craft of human origins.

[Syne]

So you're honestly trying to claim that "interdimensionals...time travelers...a race beings living underneath our oceans" would be any less alien to us than extraterrestrials? O_o

I'll just keep repeating the definition till you get it.

"alien
noun [ C ] US  /ˈeɪ·li·ən/

1) a person who lives in a country but is not a citizen (= member of a country with specific rights)

2) An alien is also a creature from a planet other than Earth."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict...lish/alien

Yeah, dogmatic people often do feel the need to repeat whatever little bit of justification they think they can muster.

While ignoring arguments like witness unreliability.

And where, pray tell, have I said "all ufos are either fake photos or mistaken perceptions"? O_o
Just another straw man from a true believer desperate to justify his dogmatic beliefs.

It's your skeptical agenda. Own it.

That's a big "I can't support my own straw man". Thanks for that.

The operative words there being "reported perception", and again, a definition that does not rule out human origins nor presume extra-human ones.

The ufo is defined as defying any conventional explanation and remaining unexplained. That excludes craft of human origins.

No, they're defined as being perceived to defy conventional explanation or not being identified as a familiar object. That does not exclude man-made objects.

These still pictures definitely don't defy conventional explanation...unless you think Christmas lights and drones are unconventional or unfamiliar.