UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Yazata,

I read through the supposedly-leaked report with its "Executive Summary", here:

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsgl...TIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

There's no way to know if this is genuine, of course, but let's take it at face value for the purposes of discussion.

I have also read the following report of an interview with one of the pilots (the only one?) who has gone public about this:

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-uss-nimitz-pilot-interview

There's also the following report, which seems a bit more likely to be reliable than the "Executive Report" linked above:

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report

In my opinion, all of this taken together doesn't add up to much.

Regarding the "Executive Summary", alarm bells started ringing with me from the first paragraph, which immediately classified these sightings as something to do with "Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs) operating in and around the vicinity of the CSG".

This is completely putting the cart before the horse. No "vehicles" are ever positively identified, and there is no identifiable "operation".

The summary claims the "AAV" took "evasive action", demonstrating an "advanced acceleration, aerodynamic, and propulsion capability". But there's no actual observation of acceleration, let alone measurement of it. Evasion is a conclusion, not an observation. There's an assumption that two things seen at vastly different altitudes are the same thing. There's an assumption that a disturbance in the water is related to the same "AAV", this time assumed to be actually invisible.

In short, that entire report reads like it was written by somebody who is leaping to conclusions on the basis of scanty evidence. It certainly doesn't read like a considered report written by a professional military officer who knows what he is doing. It could be written by an officer who is out of his comfort zone in being asked to investigate this, and not particular competent, possibly.

There's wide-eyed speculation galore in there that would make even Magical Realist proud. I mean, look at the last "key assessment", just to take one example:

"The AAV possibly demonstrated a highly advanced capability to operate undersea completely undetectable by our most advanced sensors."

Possibly?

And although this operation was completely undetectable by our most advanced sensors, it's still reasonable to have this as a Key Assessment in the investigation? I think not. This is pure speculation. There's actually zero evidence for any kind of "AAV" operating "undersea", based on what is reported in this document.

The entire document is full of this kind of speculation mixed in with observations that could well have other explanations. Notice also that, throughout, no other possible explanations are discussed. The assumption throughout is that we're dealing with an "AAV", propelled, intelligently controlled, with "advanced aerodynamic performance" etc. etc.

It's not fascinating. Similar documents have surfaced over the years from time to time. Like so much of this UFO stuff, the trail of evidence pretty much stops with the document itself. Here, of course, we also have a couple of youtube videos of doubtful provenance, and one guy giving a few interviews about his own account and interpretation of the events in question. We can't dismiss all of this out of hand, but in total there's not a lot here to take us any further in the investigation into any possible "AAVs".

Interestingly, seagulls are quite tic-tac like...

Who said they are anomalous?

From reading the various reports, I see that a lot of these systems have software that tends to eliminate spurious traces. In most of the cases here, these supposed "AAVs" were treated by the radar systems themselves as insignificant. A few human operators seem to have thought there was something out of the ordinary.

It's always interesting to speculate as to how these numbers are arrived at in these reports.

Reading that, it "sounds" like this SPY radar tracked an object from 80,000 feet to 50 feet, but I read the detail of the report, it seems that there was no continuous tracking of a single object by a single radar, like that.

Yes, and by a mysterious "unidentified female voice", no less! (Maybe it was a ghost.)

Could that be a return from a wavetop, then?

The reports seem to make a big deal about the ordnance thing. Makes the whole event sound more threatening and important, maybe.

Okay, here's an idea for you. This one is entirely my own.

What if the observed disturbance in the water was a whale, or a pod of dolphins fishing, perhaps? Quite often, when whales or dolphins feed, many birds fly overhead and take the opportunity to fish for themselves.

Has anybody even considered that the disturbance in the water might have a natural cause instead of being due to an invisible AAV/alien submarine?

Another number there. 40 feet. My questions: how far above the spot were they when this measurement was made? How was the "40 feet" figure obtained? Is it a guess?

One of the reports even has it as "46 feet". My question is: how did the pilots of the F/18s, or whoever supposedly made this assessment, go about measuring the length of this "tic tac" to an accuracy of 1 foot?

What does the inability to get a lock suggest to you?

So this pilot saw something in the water, but no AAV. Nothing too interesting here.

What does "multiple wavelengths" mean? This just doesn't sound like something written by somebody who is technically competent, does it?

This is fairly typical in these kinds of UFO reports. Try to draw spurious links to one or more completely different incidents that might be totally unrelated. That draws attention away from a careful consideration of the particular incident under consideration. It's also a safety net - if one incident is disproven, there's always another one. For UFO nuts, the onus is always on the skeptic to disprove their assumption that it's aliens.

 

I agree. But, as is so often the case with these things, we can't assume that all the observations were due to a single cause.

There's no reason at, for example, to assume that the disturbance in the water had anything to do with the things captured in the youtube videos.

It's really impossible to evaluate this, based on the available information. The best we can say is this is an interpretation by a pilot of what he saw.

No, but there can be a kind of group-think in such situations. One person puts a certain idea/interpretation into other people's heads, and they run with it. It's a kind of confirmation bias.

Lots of things are conceivable.

My question is: why jump to add a conspiracy theory to the mix, before we've even considered the mundane?

The visuals on this object/these objects all seem to be from very far away. Reading one of the reports, I now see that the aircraft observing the water disturbance was at an altitude of between 1000 and 3000 feet. And yet, somehow, a person in that aircraft could measure the length of the tic-tac to be 46 feet, and could somehow tell (with the naked eye) that it had no doors, windows or wings.

Notice also how this story is even growing in your own telling of it. Nothing I have read says this thing ascended "like a rocket". But here you've put that description into the mix. If the story were to be further quoted from here, it is quite possible that your evocative "like a rocket" description could become part of the folklore, even though nobody originally reported such a thing.

You have to be careful there.

Appreciate that this one pilot (Fravor) is only able to confirm what he saw (or thinks he saw). He is in no position to confirm anything that he did not witness or record. In particular, he is in no position to confirm the entire content of any of the reports on this matter.

Just because his own account is consistent with what's in the report, that does not mean the rest of the report is correct or verified.

Meh. There are so many thousands of UFO reports that, for any given one, it's always easy to find any number of similar ones. This is especially so because they are usually so vague.

I completely agree with you this was something. Maybe several different somethings.

I see no reason to assume that any of those somethings was any kind of "AAV", though.

No real investigation of this has been done, at least none that I am aware of that is publically available. So, in the end all we have is something unexplained (to our knowledge).

There are lots of ways this could be interesting. It could be interesting, for example, how so many people can jump to an unsound conclusion about some mundane observations.

It's not a matter of explaining it away. It's a matter of explaining it. An explanation is an explanation is an explanation.

Some UFO sightings turn out to be the planet Venus (quite a lot of them, as it happens). When the evidence is in that a particular sighting was Venus, it isn't that the sighting has been "explained away". Rather, the sighting has been explained. Sure, you might not find the explanation as exciting as you would have if the explanation had turned out to be the Russians or ET, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it's the explanation. Part of Magical Realist's pathology is that he is actually unwilling to accept any explanation of these things other than the fantastical. He can't abide his UFOs and ghosts being "explained away", as you put it. That's just so boring.

As for the "Multiple technically competent witnesses", who are these people? Nobody knows, in this case. At least, not you and me. See all those names that are redacted in the reports? We can't interview any of those people, because we don't know who any of them are. How are we to know if they are technically competent or not? Isn't that an assumption you're making, right there?

That is not necessarily a strength, in part because if one thing is seen on radar and another visually and another infrared, by different observers, often at different times, who's to say they are all the same thing?

Another assumption that those other occasions involved the same thing.

Here's the thing. It's okay not to know. I'll say it again. It's okay not to know.

If any of this is important, then sooner or later it will be worked out. More evidence will accumulate. Then we'll know.

In the meantime, this (whatever it was) was a one-off incident that we can't currently explain with the information that we are privy to. Which is not to say that the US Military hasn't come up with a perfectly satisfactory explanation on its own, by now, and they just haven't bothered to tell us for whatever reason (maybe it's boring).

Yazata, you ought to know better than to buy into that nonsense about UFO skeptics having a "belief system" that they want to defend at all costs. All the skeptics do, really, is to actually seek explanations based on evidence. If there's not enough evidence, that's okay. It's okay not to know. Annoyingly for the UFO nuts, skeptics also tend to point out where evidence is lacking, where reasoning breaks down, and where conclusions are unwarranted.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if aliens really were (are) visiting Earth, I'd be first in line to meet them and shake appendages. I'm not ideologically opposed to aliens, believe me. I even think that intelligent aliens most probably exist Out There somewhere (but I don't know and I could be wrong). I just see zero evidence that any of them are here now (or have ever been here).

 

No. From time to time I have also come up with Probably, Most Likely and Almost Certainly. Like in the Portage County case in which I showed that Almost Certainly the police officers were chasing the planet Venus, believing it to be an alien spaceship. Remember that conversation?

But you do have a point. Often, there's simply not enough data available to draw a certain conclusion. The best we can do, rationally, is to say it might be this or it might be that, or what if. It's okay not to know.

As I pointed out in my previous post, your own particular pathology is that there is no "might be", "could be" with you. You know it's aliens etc. from the start. It's like a magical sense you have - a special nose for sniffing out the aliens/ghosts/Bigfoot. In fact, there's no filter at all with you. Every UFO is aliens, except in the most extreme cases where the proof is so overwhelming that it's a fake or a hoax that even you can't quite keep a straight face while you insist it is aliens.

You missed the point. The problem with those military reports is found precisely where they speculate.

That's not at all what I wrote. Did you even bother to read my posts?

Sure, there are lots of unknowns here. That's kind of the point of this discussion isn't it? If everybody knew the answer already, there would be nothing left to discuss.

At least Yazata is making an effort. What have you contributed that is useful or helpful to the discussion of this case? Nothing. You're just cheer-leading for the UFO nuts, as usual. Ra ra ra! Go aliens!

 

Just to add...

It's okay not to know.

But there's also a point here to be made about burden of proof.

If I say the disturbance in the sea might have been a whale, for example, then that's uncontroversial, and possible, at least until some other evidence rules out the possibility.

If, on the other hand, Magical Realist says that the disturbance in the sea might have been an alien submarine, then that's a quite extraordinary claim, and it demands the presentation of extraordinary evidence by the claimant.

Sure, it's possible that is was an alien submarine, but, all things being equal, far less likely than it turning out to be, say, a whale. So, we can say "might be this", "might be that", but when it come down to assigning probabilities that it's this or that, there's far more chance it was whale than an alien submarine unless there's positive evidence that would tip the balance in favour of the submarine.

Lack of good evidence consistently defeats claims of alien visitation. The onus is on those making the extraordinary claim to come up with the goods, and they consistently fail to produce the smoking gun.

 

Seeing as you asked, I think it's that you don't feel like you fit in with other people in some way, so you identify yourself with certain fringe elements instead. Built into that is the mistrust of perceived authorities common to conspiracy theorists - but only if they are the usual sanctioned authorities (scientists, politicians, the government etc.). In-group perceived authorities (e.g. those in the "paranormal" community) are trusted completely and without a second (or even a first) thought.

Everything else regarding your fringe cheerleading follows from that core need you have to belong to something bigger, and wanting to feel that you're in some ways better than other people.

How did I do?

You don't strike me as mentally ill. But you're right; I don't have formal credentials to diagnose.

Which parts are bullshit, exactly? You never set out exactly what your problem is with skepticism, other than the usual whinging about closed-mindedness and the like. I think a lot of the problem you have is that you identify skeptics with scientists and hence perceived authorities whom you distrust. You feel you are outside that crowd, so you don't have to listen what any of those people have to say. Probably you can just assume they're all wrong or are in denial about the obvious reality of the vast compendium of disparate fringe beliefs that you subscribe to.

You're gullible. You selectively apply your distrust of authority only to certain identified authorities, while at the same time completely putting your trust in certain other authorities who, in fact, have far more dubious claims to authority of any kind.

A fool is somebody who refuses to live up to his own potential.The fool gets suckered in by the con men every time. I'm not saying you're a fool, but you give every impression here that you want people to regard you as such.

It depends. If you're otherwise intelligent enough (and you seem so) then it is quite remarkable that you apparently are unable to work out for yourself that you apply a double-standard when you look at evidence. That is, you reject reasonable mundane explanations without thought, believing yourself to be a critical thinker, but you simultaneously accept without question paranormal explanations without applying any kind of critical filter at all. If you're not consciously aware that you do this, I'd say that's a pathology.

On the other hand, it is possible that you are, actually, not as intelligent as you present, so that you're not actually capable of reflecting on your own motives and actions. In that case, it's probably more that you're a blind sheep following a certain crowd than that you have a problem. There are plenty of people who are willing to be led, who aren't mentally ill in any way.

See, the thing is, you can put on this dumb act and play all hurt and innocent and stuff, and probably that plays quite well to a certain proportion of our demographic here. But then you give the game away when you drop in your snide little remarks and asides about how I and other skeptics are being unreasonable by daring to ask sensible questions to challenge the stuff you soak up uncritically. Here's what I think: I think that at some level you are aware that you're making yourself look the fool, and it makes you angry when I (and others) remind you that that's what you're doing.

Of course, it fits with the usual conspiracist mindset to paint yourself as persecuted by those authorities that you so distrust. It makes it that much easier to justify that very distrust to yourself.

That's very clear. The question you ought to ask yourself is: are those "different" beliefs of yours reasonable, or are they just a bit foolish? Of course, you can always stay in your bubble and avoid those kinds of questions. You won't be the first or the last to make that choice.

It must actually be nice to be the village idiot. You don't have to worry about things. I'm sure it's all very comfortable, even if you're not very aware of what's going on around you. (Note: I am not calling you the village idiot here. This is an analogy.)

Morally speaking, if you're not hurting other people, then believing a whole lot of weird shit doesn't matter that much. You're only hurting yourself with that, in the end.

Psychologically, my own preference is to live in the real world rather than a fantasy one (although I love fantasy). But your mileage may vary

Intellectually, if you have the capacity it is such a shame not to use it, I think. Not everybody has the capacity to sort what is true from what is bullshit, of course. Some people are gullible because they aren't smart enough not to be. Others, I guess, are gullible by choice; they choose not to put their brains to use to avoid getting sucked in. Yet others are gullible because they have never really learned what they need to do to avoid being scammed. But you've had some education on that right here, so you must fall into one of the first two categories.

I just posted my ideas on the topic above, while you were spending your time whinging again.

Do you really have no idea how to assess credibility, as you would have us believe?

You are. If it's not aliens, it's something equivalent. It doesn't matter whether you fill in that particular place-holder with time travellers from the future, the ghosts of futures past, transdimensional fairies or whatever. Your belief is that it's something "paranormal".

"I don't know what it is but I just know Science can't explain it!"

Meh.

Sure I do. Do you know what unidentified means? Think on that.

 

Your readers can decide for themselves whether I'm right or wrong on the whole "looking like a fool" thing. No big deal.

It's quite a normal human concern. I think you'll find that most people don't want others to think they are fools. Sure, the village idiot isn't concerned about that; it doesn't occur to him to be concerned. But mostly, people do care about what others think about them, and they want to give a good impression - even if they say they don't care about that, most of them do, really. In the end, everybody wants to be loved.

It says something.

And you don't care about your own double standards or how you come across on this forum? Okay. If you say so.

This, here, isn't about the UFOs. It's about why you're a cheer leader for the UFOs.

The fact that there are lots of other gullible and misguided people out there doesn't excuse you. You need to take responsibility for yourself.

Right. All you need to do is to look at it without the biased blinkers. It's all just so unpersuasive and flimsy. There's only one sensible conclusion you can come to.

It hardly ever does. Most of the time, analysis and interpretation is necessary. If you don't bother to do any of that, then the evidence by itself can't take you beyond your initial assumptions.

That's a faith statement you're making there. You have faith that there are some things in this world that can't be understood, no matter what we do, no matter how hard we work to understand. But there's nothing to suggest that's a truth about the world. It's just your assumption, adopted without evidence, as usual.