UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Why are you under a oxygen tent?

Surely if you have a oxygen tent it must be for a reason

And I would guess that reason would be that you should be in the oxygen tent not under it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To be "in the tent" would be sharing space with the atoms of the tent, but I am not integral with the structure of the tent. Currently most of it is directly over me, so I'm under it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most people seem to understand that "beachfront" means "coastal."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Make sure to explicitly write that into the sale contract. Fine print matters.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But really, the 'deeper point' is - be careful about assuming things as a given.

 

The Wyoming property would be called "waterfront" not "beachfront."
Beaches abut seas, which are salt water. No need for fine print.
There are no givens in the null hypothesis.

 

Type 'lakes with beaches' into your search bar, and - Surprise!

?????

 

https://www.timeout.com/chicago/things-to-do/chicago-beaches-guide

http://columbiariverkeeper.org/blog/2016-picks-columbia-river-beaches/

http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/nevada/gorgeous-beaches-nv/

And last but not least:

http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/wyoming/beaches-in-wy/

 

Do a survey and likely less than one in a thousand would think that first pic was other than at an ocean beach-side.
And the best part - complete with an obvious sphere-type UFO hovering there in plain sight! See how the onlookers are all transfixed in shock and awe!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Beaches beaches and more beaches. But I like especially that first linked article.

 

Lots of pedantic ego displays. Oo, oo, oo!

 

No need to be a sore loser. You made a claim - it has been amply shown to be false. Why not graciously concede?
Anyway tracked down your use of null hypothesis applied here re UFO's:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-52#post-3504973
Sounds, well, sound. You would I assume have read my post #1034 and links & post# refs. therein. Take as example that single ref. in post #11 to Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident
Read it carefully all through? Compared:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident#Air_Force_explanation
To:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_...ident#Criticisms_of_the_Air_Force_explanation

Who do you honestly think was being honest? Think that was a one-off aberration? Official sources/pro debunkers are normally ultra reliable on this issue (or many others for that matter)?
You really think so?

 

There's no end of evidence for unidentified things in the sky. People have been reporting seeing them since ancient times. Their accounts are evidence. That can't be intelligently denied.

As to what those things seen in the sky are (and were), there are many hypotheses.

1. These range from simple fancy, suggestion, imagination and even lies, psychological causes which I personally think accounts for many of them, especially the more lurid 'contactee' accounts. (I think that it's important to note that this is itself an important class of phenomena, albeit psychological/sociological rather than physical. It still calls out for investigation and a lot might be learned from it.)

2. Through various conventional phenomena. I think that these kind of mis-identifications are common too. I've witnessed a couple of them myself. One was a strange bright light in the sky. I grabbed my binoculars (which I keep next to my window) and saw that it was a small general aviation aircraft making a turn, unpainted with a shiny aluminum surface that was reflecting the Sun. Another time I saw the outline of a cigar-shape behind a cloud. Grabbing my binoculars again, I saw a rigid airship emerge from behind the cloud. (The airship was frequenting the Silicon Valley area at the time and I had already seen it overhead on other occasions.)

3. Through a variety of more exotic phenomena consistent with current understanding.

4. To some sort of currently unknown phenomenon.

My view is that reports of inexplicable (to the observer) things in the sky is a large and heterogeneous set. It includes lots of different things with lots of different potential explanations. But importantly, I want to say that I think that the last category (currently unknown phenomena) very well might not be an empty set. It's important that we leave open that possibility. We can't just rule it out a priori as so many self-styled "skeptics" seemingly want to do.

As to what the currently unknown phenomenon is (assuming it does exist), I have to take an agnostic position. Ex hypothesi, it's an unknown phenomenon after all. Insisting that it's space aliens is getting way out in front of the evidence that we can't explain, which only justifies the existence of a set of phenomena that we can't currently explain.

It's important to note that the "skeptics" rarely provide explanations for the reports they try to debunk. What they typically do (when they aren't hurling abuse) is speculate that it might have been this, it could have been that... They rarely close the deal by providing convincing evidence and argument that it was in fact this or that.

So regarding the "null hypothesis" idea, the null hypothesis would seem to me to be that reports exist that have yet to be fully explained. In other words, the agnostic view would seem to be the default, not the 'it's all idiotic bullshit' view so popular on Sciforums.

Here's a definition of scientific anomaly: "In science, an observation that differs from the expectations generated by an established scientific idea. Anomalous observations may inspire scientists to reconsider, modify, or come up with alternatives to an accepted theory or hypothesis."

There's a danger when people rule out the possibility of anomalies simply because anomalous observations by definition contradict their own expectations or worldview. That kind of "skepticism" would halt a great deal of scientific progress.

It remains conceivable that some subset (however small) of UFO reports do in fact result from phenomena that are currently unknown. If so, it might be very valuable to know more about that.

 

In my study of the most compelling ufo cases, we come away with a grasp of several basic characteristics of ufos. The "unknown phenomenon" exhibits identifying traits, behaviors, and effects that enlighten us in further investigations and allow us to say either: "This case bears all the signs of being an authentic ufo" or "This case does not bear the signs of being an authentic ufo."


"Common characteristics of UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) can be described in terms of their appearance, their behavior, and their unusual effects.

1. UFOs generally appear in four main shapes: the disc (or saucer), the enormous triangle, the cylinder, and the sphere. They often exhibit brilliant luminosity, illuminating the terrain beneath, and shooting out beams of light. These beams are sometimes truncated. There is often a pulsation of a full spectrum of colors. Frequently, they are surrounded by vapor, sometimes appearing in cloud-like lenticular forms. Often the objects are domed, have portholes, and have a metallic-looking, shiny, lightly-colored surface.

2. The behavior patterns of UFOs varies. Often there is a prolonged hovering, which is almost motionless, followed by an extreme acceleration which is frequently straight upwards. Another familiar flight pattern is an erratic, non-linear, non-smooth, zigzagging, darting motion. Sometimes the vehicles seem to flip end over end, or to stand upright in flight, or to fall like leaves. They are able to make very sudden right angle turns at enormous velocities. They exhibit super-sonic speed with no sonic boom. In fact, there is rarely any sound, sometimes just a high frequency, low volume humming sound.

3. UFOs have unusual effects upon their immediate surroundings. Animals may behave strangely, often panicking, cows' milk production ceases, etc. Electromagnetic effects cause electrical malfunction to occur - car engines stop running, as well as car radios, headlights, etc. - as soon as the UFO is in close proximity. Upon departure of the UFO, all systems often start up again on their own. Furthermore, there may be signs of radiation effects on humans, animal and plant life in the immediate area as well as feelings of cold or heat.

4. UFOs leave after-effects on the ground. Impressions are often left forming a geometric design. Soil and vegetation in the affected area is dehydrated and will not absorb water. Affected vegetation will not seminate, or regrow for a long time."

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1982.htm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't care about pedantry. It seems silly to me. I don't believe anyone is dumb enough to have missed the point I made. Everything else is just people interested in proving they're right. I'm happy you think you're right. It's just irrelevant. But here's a banana for your efforts.

Third option. A mixture of meteors, erroneous radar readings, unreliable eyewitnesses, and/or experimental aircraft. Seeing as the purpose of the official explanation was to allay possible public panic, and couldn't divulge any potentially classified info, it likely wasn't the whole story. That doesn't mean it was space aliens. The null hypothesis stands until substantially shown otherwise.

 

That's quite a mix of natural/man-made/human & hardware-error phenomena - that repeated over a ~ 2-week period. So easy to just claim - so hard to actually make plausible.
And btw that's not a third option - it's almost verbatim the first option i.e official 'explanation'.

That in red fairly obviously true, the remainder BS. Buzzing Washington DC repeatedly with a host of real strange 'classified technology' is good for a laugh.

The same old tired canard - 'space aliens'. Broaden your horizons.

To repeat yet again: rigid ideological commitment = no amount of evidence contrary to one's rigid worldview will ever be sufficient.

 

Four pilots and five air traffic controllers are all "unreliable eyewitnesses"? I think not. These are trained and experienced observers of aerial objects. They would know a meteor if they saw one, which only last at most about 3 seconds.

 

And they saw an alien space craft?

 

The null hypothesis is not a rigid ideological commitment. Just the default in the lack of compelling evidence.

 

And what is your definition of compelling evidence? What assumptions are implied by any such definition?

 

You came to rescue me from the mud and now you are up to your neck.☺
Long live mud wrestling.
Alex

 

Hi again Alex. Live well!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!