UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    (continued...)

    It would be a case of confirmation bias if I selectively cherry-picked only the evidence that tends to support the conclusion that a UFO is mundane, for example, while ignoring the rest. It would also be a case of confirmation bias if MR selectively cherry-picked only the evidence that tends to support his conclusion that a UFO is little green men (/interdimensional fairies/etc.).

    Now, what you need to do, Yazata, is to compare our posts (i.e. mine and MR's). Look at which of us ignores evidence and possible explanations. Look at which of us makes ludicrous claims about what evidence is reliable and why. Look at which of us has only one working hypothesis in mind when evaluating evidence and which of us keeps an open mind.

    After you've done all that, then you might be in a position to judge who has the confirmation bias.

    Remember: all I'm asking is that the True Believers produce credible evidence in support of their alien/fairy claims.

    Also bear in mind that, most of the time, I make no claim that I have solved a particular UFO case. I often claim that conventional explanations can't be discounted, because it's true. Every now and then, it turns out that the evidence is sufficiently persuasive to make it far more likely than not that a suggested mundane explanation is the solution to the mystery, but that's often not the case because we most often end up debating that 5% of UFO cases that are troublesome, rather than the 95% that are solved fairly easily.

    I think that you'll be hard pressed to find any skeptic saying that "it must be something familiar" or similar. Can you find any instances where I've said anything of that kind - especially before I've examined the available evidence?

    I think that, for whatever reason, you're biased against skeptics. You - like the True Believers - believe they (we) are closed minded cynics.

    Maybe you should take care that you're defending somebody who deserves to be defended, or else you might find yourself siding with a troll.

    Sure. Your view on the "tic tacs" is that you suspect they might be something truly "new". I have argued strenously that there's no good reason to think they are something "new".

    I agree with you that we don't know what "it" was - if there even was an "it".

    I think that your conclusion that there actually were one or more physical objects is premature. But we need to be careful as to which particular sighting we're talking about. One problem that I have noted before is that throughout this discussion people have tended to conflate multiple sightings that happened at different times and places. In fact, in some cases separate sightings years apart have been assumed - with no evidence at all - to be the same thing.

    The other strand of the argument is that even if one or more of these sightings was of something "physically there", the identity of the physically-there thing that was sighted remains undetermined.

    I care very much about what is true, not so much about things not being true.

    If you have good arguments that (a) something was physically there (in one or more of the sightings) and (b) it was/they were something "new", then by all means bring them.

    If I believe that you have not made a good case for "physically there", or perhaps for "something new", that is hardly equivalent to my "caring very much about it not being true".

    Yes, based on the available evidence.

    Bear in mind that we're dealing with a number of different "sightings" by different people in different places using different modalities. It is human nature to try to link them together into one coherent narrative, but it could well be the case that there are quite separate explanations for different parts of the narrative. This is something that is very often ignored by those who start with a preferred story in mind in the first place.

    On the contrary, there is evidence that the radar might have been glitchy. There is evidence that people misidentify things regularly. There is evidence that people often embellish memories with imagination. There is a lot of specific, technical evidence regarding gimbal cameras and how they operate. I discussed all these things in the thread. Maybe you missed those discussions.

    It may be unlikely, but remember that this is one of those 5% cases, not one of the 95%. The fact is, unlikely events and extraordinary coincidences happen regularly. Your chance of winning the lottery in any given week might be 1 in 40 million, but most weeks somebody wins the lottery. Why? Because lots of people play the lottery.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Reading back, I notice, Yazata, that you only addressed one of the three posts I made you previously. Why is that? Didn't you read the other two? My posts immediately above might seem a little repetitive in the light of what I wrote in those previous two posts that you seem to have ignored for some reason.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    ''hundreds of cases of them landing and having beings exit them.''
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Oh my Load, he actually said that?

    Yep, He did.

    Here's something spotted flying. Does MR categorize these black shapes as windows too?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    (Seriously: how does one determine unequivocally* that a shape on a unknown object serves the function of a window?)

    *unequivocally enough to use it as a premise for the next conclusion: that the object must be a craft.


    OK, one might assume it's a window if one assumes it's on a craft. Likewise, one might assume it's a craft if one assumes those are windows.

    But that's typical MR circular logic - wishful thinking.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
    foghorn likes this.
  8. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    Snap:
     
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Weather balloon, or a doctored video, most likely.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    • No visible wings.
    • No visible propulsion.
    • And yet look how fast it moves past the plane! Gone in a matter of seconds.
    • And reported by a trained professional pilot, whose job it is to spot and observe phenomena in his skies.


    There was some discussion about it over on CosmoQuest.

    Hot air balloons come in all shapes ans sizes. And some have almost indiscernible payloads.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    IT moves past the plane

    OR

    The plane moves past IT

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Both.
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    So speed wise

    Which has the greatest ground speed?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    So now you have introduced a third reference point, from which you compare both objects.

    That's a different problem. In the air, without that third reference, either one is moving past the other. It merely depends on your preferred reference frame.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    True. Ground speed 3rd point

    Since it should be possible to find out ground speed of aircraft

    From the video showing the ? it should be possible to calculate the passing speed

    Take one from the other to get speed of ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    There's no indication that the unidentified craft is powered or not simply moving with the wind.

    Even with the most imaginatively optimistic assessment of movement, the craft is not doing anything outside mundane parameters.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
    Michael 345 likes this.
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Agree

    It does look like it is zipping along though

    Any info from any investigation re speed or even what ? is?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Well, assuming it is at cruising altitude we know the plane is passing it at 500mph.

    Not sure if you watched the whole video but there's some analysis and enhancment of the image at the end.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,608
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2020
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    - bright elongated featureless shape (actual shape ambiguous - only one angle of view)
    - no visible wings (doesn't exclude lifting body or lighter-than-air)
    - propulsion ambiguous (may not have any)

    - direction of motion of observer unknown (might be deducible with further analysis) - and thus
    - direction and speed of motion of object unknown (could be stationary for all we know)

    Definitely unidentified.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    How do you deduce what shape it is in 3 dimensions from just one view angle?

    How do you know it's moving at all?
    In order to deduce that you'd need to know the direction and speed of the observer and the distance to the object.
    How did you deduce these?
     

Share This Page