UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Nonsense. You are trolling and you know you've lost the plot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One can totally rely on, hence making totally reliable, something without it being infallible. You don't only half rely on your car or your heart because it isn't infallible. They are totally reliable to the extent that you can totally rely on them at any time. Same with our perceptions of our environment. Like I said, know your word distinctions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What????

 

This is false and dishonest. Like most of the other unfounded claims you've made in this thread.

 

Question - are these accounts going up in number? I suspect yes but not seen any stats

Note no mention of new flying / landing / probing / abducting aliens in newspapers

Here is a thought bubble for 2022

Someone with a deep interest in Ufology collects a weekly bunch of 2022 flying / landing / probing / abducting aliens reports (with links if possible), picks one for a weekly dissection

Bring thread up to the present

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think enough accounts have been posted in this thread already to prove the existence of ufos. At this point it seems little more than quibbling over semantics, recycling debates, flaming and trolling, and coming up with excuses to infract me.

 

That's some Trump-level trolling right there.

I think enough votes have been tallied already to prove I won the Presidency. We should stop the count. At this point, it seems little more than sore loser Libs whining.


And similarly, Trump lives in his own world - population: 1 - where he won. So I concur. Your bar for believability has been met. You can run along now. The rest of us will continue with rational analysis if anything new hits the news.

 

Can anyone clarify what version of ufo is being used in the above↑ two quotes?

ufo = unidentified flying object.
Or, Magical Realist's ufo = '' ufos ARE craft ''.

 

Extremely doubtful

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos

Some extracts - my bolds

From 1947 to 1969, a total of 12, 618 sightings were reported to Project BLUE BOOK. Of these 701 remain "Unidentified."

* MY ADDED - JUST UNDER 6% *

The records include approximately 2 cubic feet of unarranged project or administrative files, 37 cubic feet of case files in which individual sightings are arranged chronologically, and 3 cubic feet of records relating to the Office of Special Investigations

A cubic foot of records comprises about 2,000 pages

Also

https://www.britannica.com/topic/unidentified-flying-object

Their bold - my italic

unidentified flying object (UFO), also called flying saucer, any aerial object or optical phenomenon not readily identifiable to the observer.

Folks we have a winner here who has beaten both the Blue Book ie This thread proves the existence of UFOs

Wait wait wait perhaps not. Blue Book identified 701 of them

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

YouTube

Well at least someone has identified more than 5% and labelled them craft

Wait wait wait, wouldn't that make all those (craft) UFOs IFOs?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

YouTube

To much - my body needs coffee

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It only takes a few very credible and compelling ufo sightings to prove they exist. I have posted dozens of these here in this thread. People can make up their own minds, if they want to go thru this longass thread themselves. The tic tac account, along with accompanying military encounters, certainly qualifies as one of the most convincing due to it being confirmed by diverse modes of detection (sighted by multiple eyewitnesses, infrared camera, radar). I believe it is the one that finally convinced Yazata among many others. The Pentagon report that was recently released said there were 141 other cases they couldn't explain. That's pretty amazing.

 

7mmmmm we KNOW UFOs exist (I bet some of the sightings are not flying through)

What else do you have?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And they have.

 

[My last post] I don't think that all UAPs/UFOs have a single kind of explanation.[/me]

You seem to be agreeing with me in a combative fashion. That's good, I'll accept your agreement.

The post you are replying to was made in reply to MR saying "How do you know they aren't craft?". My intention was to highlight the diversity within the class.

[My last post] "Craft", "vehicles", "UAVs" or whatever, is still very much a viable option for some of the cases, such as the 'tic-tacs'.[/me]

Why does it have to be compared to anything? What I meant was that it remains a viable possiblility that the hypothesis that some of them are "craft" is in fact true. I'll note that the UAP Preliminary Assessment acknowledges that possibility, even if some here on Sciforums refuse to.

They propose five possible explanatory categories and two of them are indeed "craft", either US government or private industry craft, or else foreign craft. A third category, the rather open-ended "other" category doesn't exclude craft either, though it leaves open the problem of where they would come from.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

No, no, no! I never said anything about "extraterrestrial spacecraft", that's your idee fixe.

As for birds, birds don't behave on radar like the tic-tacs reportedly behaved. They don't appear to highly experienced fighter pilots the way these things reportedly appeared. They don't photograph like the targeting pod imagery. It's pretty clear that whatever unknown something was there, it wasn't birds.

[My last post] That's probably my personal favored hypothesis at this point for those sightings.[/me]

Because in my estimation, the most plausible explanation for these particular sightings (the tic tacs and their kin) is that they were vehicles of some sort. "Craft" in other words.

[My last post] Like I've argued all along, I think that a terrestrial origin is most likely. By no means certain though.[/me]

Yes, my favored hypothesis at this point is that the tic-tacs were some sort of unmanned combat air vehicle test prototypes being tested in near combat conditions, against a carrier battle group during pre-deployment exercises, with its radar active, aircraft in the air and so on. And that isn't really a "conclusion", it's more along the lines of a proposed explanatory hypothesis.

A far more advanced follow on to something like this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course the obvious counter argument is that according to what has been made public, these things displayed performance far in excess of the current aeronautical engineering state of the art. I'm not sure what to make of that. Maybe some breakthrough technology. Maybe mistakes in characterizing the performance. Maybe something else.

[My last post] Extraterrestrial less likely (but not zero probability either). I don't give very much weight to the 'temporal', 'supernatural' or 'extradimensional' hypotheses at this point, but I wouldn't rule them out entirely either. They could rise in the charts as more information becomes available.[/me]

You are agreeing with me again. As for me I don't assign these kind of hypotheses a very high likelihood, but their probability of being true seems to be higher than zero. I have no way of knowing how much higher, so I don't want to flatly dismiss them with ridicule.

I don't know. I was talking to MR in the post you are quoting. (You are welcome to reply though, since all my posts are made for purposes of discussion.) It was a reference to some of the things that he's said in the past.

Time I guess, but that would be what I meant by 'temporal'. Alternate realities in a many-worlds ontology or a modal realism sense, perhaps. Basically, it would seem to include any sort of elsewhere in a non-spatial sense. Translating from there to here would seem to involve movement through some sort of unfamiliar dimension.

Well, if it is currently unknown, then it would be unconfirmed by definition, wouldn't it? I was responding to whatever MR meant when he was using the words. He will have to explain what he meant for himself.

As for me, the spin that I'm putting on it is merely that things (and hypothetical sources of things) might exist about which we currently know nothing. That possibility can't simply be eliminated by fiat, based solely on somebody's current worldview and mental picture of reality. My point is that it's possible that things might come from totally unexpected directions to surprise us.

[My last post] It's certainly possible that we are facing something new here, something unexpected that we've never encountered before. Something that might not have a comfortable place all prepared for it in our current ontology and worldview.[/me]

If they are totally unknown to us, then we would seem to be in no position to assign them a likelihood. Imagine asking a medieval scholar about prevalence of dna transcription or neutrinos. He would not only have no way of answering, he would have no idea what you are talking about. But ignorance and incredulity aren't arguments against the reality of dna or neutrinos.

I already wrote that I don't personally assign these kind of hypotheses a very high subjective likelihood. (And subjective likelihood is all that it can be at present.) They don't form part of my current world view. A sense of the ever-present possibility of the unknown most definitely is, but being unknown I can't say anything specific about what the unknown may or may not hold. But I can't totally dismiss the idea either. I'm reasonably well convinced (again subjectively) that there are realities out there about which I know nothing and that would surprise me. (I see myself as analogous to that medieval scholar.) Unknown emergents could conceivably rise dramatically up the charts if we obtain more information. That's part of the task of science, as I see it. To shine its feeble little flashlight into the fog of the unknown that surrounds us on all sides. To discover what the unknown holds.

What I meant was 'nothing interesting to see here'. The tic-tacs being explained away as birds or whales or who knows what else all combined somehow into some totally speculative "comedy of errors" theory. The knee-jerk dismissive impulse. Inspector Drebin of Police Squad announcing 'Move on, nothing to see here!' as all hell breaks loose behind him.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fair enough, those are definitely cognitive faults to be aware of and to avoid if possible.

There seem to me to be two opposing "skeptical" leaps that are just as unjustified: Opposing Leap #1 is 'We can't identify this, but it nevertheless can't be anything unfamiliar to us' (and we'll go through any intellectual contortion to argue that it isn't). And Opposing Leap #2 is 'aliens, God, ghosts or time travelers (or an unbounded set of possibilities I haven't even thought of) can't exist and must be fantastical and imaginary because I don't happen to believe in them'.

[My last post] But I don't want to prematurely dismiss the best sightings (such as the tic-tacs) that way. Sightings reportedly seen by multiple observers visually, on infrared and on radar, captured in photographs --- and by so doing close my mind to what appears to be a fascinating mystery that may well turn out to be important.[/me]

 

"best sightings (such as the tic-tacs) (playful whale) that way. Sightings reportedly seen by multiple observers (saw playful whale) visually, on infrared (playful whale warmer than water) and on radar (glitch and linked to playful whale) captured in photographs (photographs? Or radar readouts?)

Do not think I have seen a CAMERA shot of the ocean

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If anyone is curious, here's some background on the interdimensional theory of ufos. I personally first learned of it from ufologist Jacques Vallee who argued for it to explain why UFO's often do not behave like extraterrestrial craft. For instance often UFOs will disappear and reappear somewhere else. Other times they have been observed to morph in shape. They also are seen to split off from and remerge into a single larger craft. Anyway, here's some info on that:

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

 

There is also a free internet book about UFOs being linked to the destruction of Earth in the next coming

Just as plausible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reality is under no obligation to conform to what seems "plausible" to us. See quantum entanglement.

 

So true

When scientists work out quantum entanglement and it becomes reality will you have worked out

Ummmm NEGATIVE plausible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Who says anyone will "work it out"? I'm content to live in the mystery.