What implies that an average human would start shooting more than 14,000 rounds at nothing for more than an hour. Seriously.

Years ago it was discovered that the Spanish government was making up explanations of the UFO cases. What they basically did was, they hired scientists to make it look like there was a serious UFO investigation going on. In the end It turned out they were just cheating and inventing the explanations for each case and then they released it to make the appearance like government had disclosure the UFO phenomenon. It happened during the 1990s.
I remember the guy in charge was busted during an interview on an very important news network

I thought that jtmedina had said that he didn't believe in God, and it was j0KeR that was critical of it? I didn't really know who was saying what so I may be mistaken.

Do you believe in god?. Because I don't.

That's what you think. For not believing I don't even believe in god.

Well, we live in a very crazy, insane world specially many fanatic religious people who firmly believe in an invisible god.

Why should I feel alone for not believing in god?. I don't see any proof of even the slightest evidence of the existence of god.

What implies that an average human would start shooting more than 14,000 rounds at nothing for more than an hour?. Seriously.

And that happened in Spain so imagine what can happen in a country like the US....Sooo, believe me we will never get to the truth.

How can you possibly proof they were actually shooting at nothing less than air?. Using their search lights and pointing at that "object".

Honestly i didn't understand anything while they were arguing. I think J0Ker needs to (and i don't mean to be offensive.) improve his English. And i really don't mean to be offensive. I probably make a lot of typos too since English is not my native language

In response to many of my comments and a few other users I saw him bring up his lack of belief as a defense and then ending in something like this

The fact that similar incidents have happened many times throughout history, as I have stated three times now. It is an understandable - even likely - reaction under such circumstances. You are presupposing that humans are infallible, which we all know is not true.

And your English has actually been very good! I keep having to check to see that you live in Finland and not an English-speaking country

The fact that similar incidents have happened many times throughout history, as I have stated three times now. It is an understandable - even likely - reaction under such circumstances. You are presupposing that humans are infallible, which we all know is not true.

In response to many of my comments and a few other users I saw him bring up his lack of belief as a defense and then ending in something like this
Quote (jtmedina)

Do you believe in god?. Because I don't.

Quote (jtmedina)
That's what you think. For not believing I don't even believe in god.

Quote (jtmedina)
Well, we live in a very crazy, insane world specially many fanatic religious people who firmly believe in an invisible god.

Quote (jtmedina)
Why should I feel alone for not believing in god?. I don't see any proof of even the slightest evidence of the existence of god.

The military was under stress from the war, they thought there was a UFO in a general direction. One soldier starts firing, another starts, and you end up with a snowball effect of them firing at something that may or may not be there.

There may be no truth. Governments are meant to give the average individual some sort of final statement. If a government doesn't know something then the average person loses trust in their system. To maintain stability and control over a society a government will give a statement, believable or not.

You actually don't know the actually state of readiness of these people.

Likely reaction under these circumstances" is not good enough to proof they shoot at nothing for more than an hour.

Think about what it means shooting 14,000 rounds for more than an hour.

Are these people so incompetent that even the superiors in command of these troops couldn't notice they were just shooting at nothing?

If you can sleep well, then you can keep believing that beautiful story.

Again the burden of proof falls on you. You need to prove that there was an object, and if you can't prove that there was an object then the most logical argument wins. It's like seeing a tree that fell down and guessing whether a UFO knocked it down or that the wind knocked it down. since there is no proof of the more implausible event, the more plausible wins. (this might not be the best example.)

There are pictures of what happened. Watch them again.

Are you actually aware what it means shooting 14,000 round of ammunition at nothing. Why were these search lights pointing at a specific point in the sky?. Are these people so incompetent that even the superiors in command of these troops couldn't notice they were just shooting at nothing?.

Again the burden of proof falls on you. You need to prove that there was an object, and if you can't prove that there was an object then the most logical argument wins. It's like seeing a tree that fell down and guessing whether a UFO knocked it down or that the wind knocked it down. since there is no proof of the more implausible event, the more plausible wins. (this might not be the best example.)

is it logical keep shooting at nothing for so long?. Not for me. It's totally nuts.

The military was under stress from the war, they thought there was a UFO in a general direction. One soldier starts firing, another starts, and you end up with a snowball effect of them firing at something that may or may not be there.

For you? is it logical keep shooting at nothing for so long?. Not for me. It's totally nuts.

The don't get to the truth but just accepting "them most logical argument".

Neither do you.

I have been a student of military history for most of my life, and I love firearms. I know very well what it means to shoot 14k rounds for more than an hour. All things considered, I would have expected MANY more rounds than that to be fired if they were actually shooting at a well-defined target.

This is in the days before radar. It is hard to verify whether you are shooting at something or not, and to identify what you are shooting at.

In what way is that story beautiful? It seems pretty jaded and cynical to me (and justifiably so).

Aviation, Astronomy andddd military history too. These are my hobbies too!!!. If you were a beutiful blond I'd invite you to a dinner.

It is nuts, assuming that you actually know that you're shooting at nothing. Which they most likely did not.

In the absence of evidence, the simplest, most reasonable, and most logical argument should be considered the more likely one. There is no hard evidence to support anyone's claim in this case. So the most logical argument should be said to be the most likely. Not accepted as fact, just considered the best candidate.

Stop speaking in absolutes when - by all of our admissions - we don't know what happened that night