UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's MR's and Yazata's mantra. It's not penetrating the tinfoil.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some years ago you tried to pull off this same argument but claimed UFOs could be fairies. Why are you so obsessed with this point? What does it have to do with UFOs being technological or not?

 

There is as much evidence that they are angels as that they are advanced technology. Both can do things we cant.

The Navy agrees: speculating that it is technology is unwarranted, based on the available evidence.

 

LOL I don't think the Navy agrees that they could be angels.

 

The Navy is no more willing to say they are angels than they are willing to say they are craft.

 

Sorry. Edit:

The Navy is no more willing to hypothesize they are angels than they are willing to hypothesize they are craft.


(Which makes sense, since there is no more evidence that they are craft than that they are angels.)

 

I'm not sure that's quite correct: one is a matter of technology, the other is supernatural. Which do you honestly think the Navy would be more willing to hypothesize it to be?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They also have more evidence that it is a craft than it is an angel - as we build our own craft (and call them... aeroplanes - or drones, or other things). There's not such strong evidence for angels, though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now, whether the evidence they have of "craft" is sufficient to conclude that the object witnessed was such a craft rather than any other possible (rather than supernatural) phenomenon, no, I'm sure it isn't.
So the reason they're not hypothesizing that it is a craft is, imo, more likely because to do so might be to imply a likelihood over other possible explanations, a likelihood that they can't support and don't wish to imply. But I think they'd be comfortable in hypothesizing that it is not an angel!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The answer is what it is:

Neither.


She: "I said no."
He: "OK, but if you were to say yes, would it be a little yes or a big yes?"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"It would be a average size yes to another"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yep, a legit "invasive influence" prior in rank to the natural world (i.e., supernatural) would accordingly have to manifest or become publicly detectable by assuming the physical properties of that cosmological system -- extension, spatiotemporal locations, composed of particles, interactive capacity, etc.

If it could be "caught", that would include even sporting a history or causal sequence of events tracing back to a [parallel] natural origin -- even if at first it seemed an anomalously nutty entity or incident. Thus, in the end, making such an _X_ indiscernible from "natural" (or the same as debunked) -- except for those events that refused to be "captured" in any manner that permitted definitive examination. IOW, those that had simply materialized in a single moment like a Boltzmann Brain, deficient with regard to also editing in a consistent explanation unfolding through the past.

Thereby, a truly supernatural affair could still never be "proven" due to its conversion to physical characteristics (necessary to be perceivable in the first place) and its perpetual elusiveness if that conversion is incomplete (insufficient corresponding natural causes exhibited in the timeline). Arguably similar to metaphysics in general -- lots of rival conceptions, introduced by thinkers, which might be possible, but which cannot be culled if they're unassailable propositions, lacking vulnerability to either thought procedures or experiment.

One reason to avoid "angels and demons" as supernatural selections would be that they're weighed down by the contradictory baggage of already having their own native "forms", thanks to artistic depictions and literary descriptions of them over the centuries. Legit "immaterial generative principles" should by definition lack the material attribute of "shape". Albeit some Platonic meaning of "form" as an "intellectual configuration" would be applicable (whatever the heck that is when minus formulaic symbols or abstract technical language, that are merely artificial representations).

 

Surely you jest?
Irrespective of the phenomenon, surely you would be more willing to hypothesise something that is at least not supernatural over something that is? I'm not saying that you would hypothesise it, only that out of the two there is surely, just by Occam's razor alone, one that is a preferable explanation over the other. Why would you not favour something that is possible over the supernatural?? That seems... odd. The possible, no matter how unlikely, must surely always take preference as an explanation over the supernatural. And as such, one would surely be more willing, even if still not reaching the threshold to actually do so in practice, to hypothesise the possibly over the supernatural.
The possible and the supernatural are not equivalent explanations, even if both lack of evidence.

 

What I hypothesize is not the issue.

Back in post 5995, wegs said:

The Navy is not hypothesizing it's technology. They are not willing to speculate.

We can pretend we can read their minds and put words in their mouths and say "Well, they probably think technology is more likely than angels or magic or ghosts".

But the whole point of not speculating is that they are not saying what it "likely" is.

And that makes sense, because - whether or not we think angels or ghosts are highly implausible - the evidence we have points to nothing in particular.



It might be more accurate to say that, based on their (lack of) statements, the Navy thinks that advanced technology is just as implausible as angels or ghosts.

 

Ever heard of the "impersonal you"? Would you prefer I use "one"? I'll try. Can't always promise.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sure, but I'm responding to your post #6028. First you say that the Navy is "no more willing", and I disagree, as I think everyone is (or at least should be) more willing to hypothesise on the possible than the impossible/supernatural. Had you said "no more willing to hypothesise [insert not-impossible explanation] than ... they are craft" then no problem. But you are equating the impossible (zero chance) with something that has a non-zero chance.
That's the distinction.

No, I'm fairly sure the Navy officially do not consider angels, magic, or ghosts as possible. (You could always phone them up and ask?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) Technology, on the other hand....

That's an entirely different matter than being simply "no more willing..." between the possible and impossible. I get why they're not speculating, but that doesn't alter that a possible explanation is, and always should be, preferable to an impossible one, and thus one should always be "more willing" to hypothesie that over the impossible. Again, not reaching a threshold to actually hypothesise "as likely" doesn't change there being a scale of willing, albeit beneath the threshold of actually doing so. At zero on the Scale of Willing (TM) would be the impossible. At, say, 1 would be the possible but highly unlikely. At, say, 100 you get to the threshold at which you actually make the hypothesis that it is X rather than anything else. Would you therefore be "more willing" to hypothesise something at 1 rather than at 0? Sure. I play the lottery: can't win it if you're not in it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They are not merely "highly implausible". That's the point. They are impossible. We determine what is possible by whether or not it is allowed within the laws of nature. Supernatural is by definition outside of the laws of nature.

Nope, still wrong. Advanced technology, as a possibility, no matter how unlikely, should always be considered more plausible than the impossible (or supernatural). Always. Now, you could argue that the Navy don't think rationally, but that's not the point. The point is the principle: the implausible always trumps the impossible as an explanation, and one should therefore be "more willing" to hypothesise one over the other. Not that you ultimately should, but "more willing" is, to me at least, an indication of how plausible something is: I'd be "more willing" to hypothesise something I consider likely over something not likely etc. I don't need to hypothesise either, but I would be "more willing" to etc.

What would be more accurate to say is, "based on their (lack of) statements, the Navy has come to no conclusion as to the likely nature of the phenomenon." Simple as that. That doesn't mean that angels, demons, and ghosts are just as likely an explanation. But the Navy would certainly be "more willing" to give tech as an explanation over those. I.e. it is more likely to be tech than anything supernatural. "More likely" and "more willing" are relative measure. "Being likely" or "being willing" is reaching a threshold.

Anyhoo, I have no issue with the Navy not hypothesising, and do understand what you're trying to say, but the way you (this time it is the personal you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) equated the impossible with the merely implausible... sorry, that got my spidey-senses tingling

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

And I thought I'd bring some light relief to the highly intellectual nature of this thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On the UAP topic specifically, it is critical to be clear who exactly is being described doing what.

That works.

We can surmise - but the Navy's official position is binary: we won't speculate on any explanation for which we have insufficient evidence. They're not making any finer distinction within that.

And that is the point making to wegs: The Navy is pointedly not saying 'advanced technology' is any more plausible than any other explanation. (since that would be distilled down to "the Navy confirms it thinks it might be advanced technology!"

 

So what you’re saying is that they have no explanation at all.

They’re not pandering to UFO enthusiasts but they’re also not dismissing that what they saw and investigated, doesn’t have a mundane explanation - yet, that doesn’t mean we should leap to thinking “space aliens.”

So there’s simply no explanation. I’m fine with that answer.

 

From the NT News newspaper 29 April 2022 Page 4 comes a very short (seconds) showing a couple of flashing lights

Put out as a possible UFO text of article concludes with with

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I sent the newspaper a hint
If the lights had not been identified as being anything - safe to assume it remains a UFO

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I thought I had a weird unidentified creature in my shed because my camera in there showed a creature sitting on the steps. I couldn't figure out what it was. It wasn't a snake, or a mouse, or a raccoon, that was for sure.

It turned out to be my riding lawn mower's seat that the camera was showing just a corner at the top of the seat. It was closer than the steps to the camera, so it made it look like there was something on the steps.

Solved - The mysterious John Deere creature!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

After reading that I couldn't resist posting this:
Watch it loop the loop.