UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

But if they're explained, then they are no longer UAPs. They are IAPs--indentified aerial phenomena. Each case must be taken individually, no matter how many others have been explained.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly what we skeptics have been saying all along.


That's a door that swings both ways.

It also means - until accounts are actually conclusively resolved - this type of induction is invalid:

No. Each case must be taken individually, no matter how many others are unexplained.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think this is worth highlighting as a milestone.

Let it be known to all that - here on this day, and in perpetuity - Magical Realist has finally acknowledged that

... or unexplained.

This is real progress.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It also, incidentally, negates this:

The merits of case A pointing to cause X must not be considered as part of the merits of case B pointing to cause Y.

If two accounts point to two different causes then they point to two different causes. There are, after all, multiple causes.

 

In the interest of not convoluting my meaning here, I only meant that if a skeptic comes up with numerous possibilities that a UAP could be, then they've not really explained anything. It still remains unexplained. Possibilities are not the object of explaining.

 

This is true.
But we have to acknowledge that, for some fraction of cases, that may be the best we can ever expect.
Some cases will never have a compelling explanation, since we will never have more evidence from that case than we do now.

 

But, if something is truly unexplained, we should be careful not to “force” an explanation that could fit because that may close cases too quickly, and the general public will be none the wiser.

 

In particular, we should be careful not to force the "alien spaceships" explanation.

 

Agree. It should go both ways.

 

A teachable moment for the recent renewed interest in investigating ufos/uaps. Hopefully the same mistakes that plagued Project Bluebook will not be repeated with these new investigations. Again, investigation not debunkery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which recommended that UFOs needed debunking. A few years later, however, Hynek's opinions about UFOs changed, and he thought they represented an unsolved mystery deserving scientific scrutiny. As the only scientist involved with US Government UFO studies from the beginning to the end, he could offer a unique perspective on Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book.

After what he described as a promising beginning with a potential for scientific research, Hynek grew increasingly disenchanted with Blue Book during his tenure with the project, leveling accusations of indifference, incompetence, and of shoddy research on the part of Air Force personnel. Hynek notes that during its existence, critics dubbed Blue Book "The Society for the Explanation of the Uninvestigated."[37]

Blue Book was headed by Ruppelt, then Captain Hardin, Captain Gregory, Major Friend, and finally Major Hector Quintanilla. Hynek had kind words only for Ruppelt and Friend. Of Ruppelt, he wrote, "In my contacts with him I found him to be honest and seriously puzzled about the whole phenomenon."[38] Of Friend, he wrote "Of all the officers I worked with in Blue Book, Colonel Friend earned my respect. Whatever private views he may have held, he was a total and practical realist, and sitting where he could see the scoreboard, he recognized the limitations of his office but conducted himself with dignity and a total lack of the bombast that characterized several of the other Blue Book heads."[39]

He held Quintanilla in especially low regard: "Quintanilla's method was simple: disregard any evidence that was counter to his hypothesis."[40] Hynek wrote that during Air Force Major Hector Quintanilla's tenure as Blue Book's director, "the flag of the utter nonsense school was flying at its highest on the mast." Hynek reported that Sergeant David Moody, one of Quintanilla's subordinates, "epitomized the conviction-before-trial method. Anything that he didn't understand or didn't like was immediately put into the psychological category, which meant 'crackpot'."

Hynek reported bitter exchanges with Moody when the latter refused to research UFO sightings thoroughly, describing Moody as "the master of the possible: possible balloon, possible aircraft, possible birds, which then became, by his own hand (and I argued with him violently at times) the probable."---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book

 

Completely agree. It’s the difference between a discussion and a debate, and we need more of that. Of course, investigations may lead to debunking the claims as being unidentified, but debunking wouldn’t be the default position.

There really should be no default position. Everyone leaves their biases at the door and approaches UAP’s with no agenda, simply interested in examining the claims as individual cases, to see where the evidence leads.

 

Well, for starters, he writes books on “debunking,” so likely he earns some income from that. I don’t care honestly that he authors books and spends his time as a skeptical investigator when it comes to UAP’s, but it would be naive to think he’s not somewhat biased because of it. If you made a living selling cigarettes, you would probably tune out the reasonable arguments as to why cigarettes are harmful. That said, my knowledge of Mick West is surface level, so…I may be entirely wrong about him. *shrug*

Yes, I’m equally skeptical of those who have YouTube channels with large followings for example or series on Netflix etc …pushing the idea that space aliens exist and they’re visiting our planet.

The pilots who witnessed the tic tac video and the Pentagon’s investigation of their claims, seem genuine to me. No agenda. They may be making money off media interviews after the fact but that doesn’t seem to be what drove them to wanting their claims to be examined.

Hmm.

I never stated that I’m assuming it’s not mundane. I’m taking the position that “unidentified” may mean mundane or otherwise, until we learn more. It may be mundane but we haven’t discovered what that mundane explanation might be, yet.

As an aside, some of the questions you’re responding to, have been addressed in posts further along in the thread (by me). I know we all reply at our own convenience, but it might be helpful to read past where we left off to see if your questions have been answered. I feel like we’re time traveling back to the past lol, but that’s the nature of forums.

 

"Top Pentagon officials told a House panel on Tuesday that there are now close to 400 reports from military personnel of possible encounters with UFOs -- a significant increase from the 144 tracked in a major report released last year by the U.S. intelligence community."--- https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pen...-theyre-investigating-video/story?id=84753756

 

Source?

 

I don't know of any extraterrestrial claims that the pilots made about uaps. You have otoh consistently doubted their claims of uap's unusual maneuvers and flight behavior based on no evidence whatsoever. As if you know what they saw better than what they say they saw.