UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Magical Realist]

Moderator note: The original title of this thread was "In defence of space aliens". The title was changed in June 2022 because the original title was perceived by some to inaccurately describe what they believe UFOs to be.
-----

"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)

 

[Kittamaru]

"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public.

So then, I have to ask... what do you make of this "Flat Earth" craze that has started up again thanks to several high-profile celebrities (with, apparently, the combined education of a four year old) that are proclaiming it truly is flat and that "fish eye lenses are responsible for making it look round" et al?

People are, unfortunately, not as smart as we would like to think... and are all too easily swayed to believe something stupid when someone "important" tells them it must be true.

 

[Magical Realist]

So then, I have to ask... what do you make of this "Flat Earth" craze that has started up again thanks to several high-profile celebrities (with, apparently, the combined education of a four year old) that are proclaiming it truly is flat and that "fish eye lenses are responsible for making it look round" et al?

People are, unfortunately, not as smart as we would like to think... and are all too easily swayed to believe something stupid when someone "important" tells them it must be true.

I've not heard of this. How do they account for planes and boats traveling around the world without falling off the edge?

 

[Kittamaru]

I've not heard of this. How do they account for planes and boats traveling around the world without falling off the edge?

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

Welcome to the Flat Earth Wiki, otherwise known as The FEW - a collaborative resource maintained by the Flat Earth Society!

This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax.

People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the earth is flat?
The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the USSR and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the other's supposed achievements. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the conspiracy is most likely motivated by greed rather than political gains, and using only some of their funding to continue to fake space travel saves a lot of money to embezzle for themselves.

In light of the above, please note that we are not suggesting that space agencies are aware that the earth is flat and actively covering the fact up. They depict the earth as being round simply because that is what they expect it to be.

and

What does the earth look like? How is circumnavigation possible?
As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.

The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.

Here is picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, flat earth.

Yeah... they're serious.

 

[Kittamaru]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/16424622/reddit-conspiracy-theories-memes-irony-flat-earth

If you feel like flat Earth theory has gotten unaccountably popular recently, you’re right. According to Google Trends, search interest in the flat Earth conspiracy theory has already had several distinct peaks in the last year. (“The last year” was 2017, not 1519, just to be clear.) It’s funny, weird, and while it’s certainly not at the top of our list of problems as a society, it’s not entirely innocent either.

Interest surged in February and March, then again in May, then again in August and September. These jumps are mostly tied to a couple of strange outbursts by celebrities, notably 2010’s favorite cheeseball rapper and Gossip Girl backing vocalist B.o.B. and Boston Celtics point guard Kyrie Irving. But interest in the topic has been climbing steadily since late 2014, shortly after a faction of Daniel Shenton’s “Flat Earth Society” broke away to create its own website and forum. The FAQ page for Flat Earth Society is the third Google search result for “flat Earth,” and encourages people to distrust science completely, as the best way to experience reality is “by relying on one’s own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us.”

News outlets contribute, too, because explainers about the flat Earth conspiracy do incredible traffic. They’re capitalizing on a basic human interest in mysteries and the strange behavior of others, and they’re also wading into an online environment where it’s impossible to differentiate a joke from a deeply held belief. That’s a recipe for one viral hit, then another. It’s been a huge, thrilling year for flat Earth truthers.

And

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41399164

Spoiler: The Earth is not flat.

But US rapper B.o.B. is crowd-funding the launch of satellites to see if he can get some evidence to the contrary.

The rapper, whose real name is Bobby Ray Simmons Jr, has been a vocal proponent of the Flat Earth theory - the claim the Earth is, in fact, a disc and not spherical.

Some proponents of the Flat Earth theory claim NASA employees guard the edge of the world to prevent people falling off.

Let that sink in - NASA guards the edge of the world to prevent people falling off...

just... *headdesk*

 

[NotEinstein]

"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' ...

I feel there is more to this quote... A skeptic is "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual." (dictionary.com) To "flatly deny the existence" doesn't seem compatible with skepticism. In fact, it would be the skeptics that should doubt such denial.

Is this quote referring to skeptics in general, or a specific group of skeptics? What is the context?

Edit: I answered my own question: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208348

This quote is from an ufologist, and thus probably refers to UFO-deniers, not skeptics in general.

 

[Bells]

I feel there is more to this quote... A skeptic is "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual." (dictionary.com) To "flatly deny the existence" doesn't seem compatible with skepticism. In fact, it would be the skeptics that should doubt such denial.

Is this quote referring to skeptics in general, or a specific group of skeptics? What is the context?

Edit: I answered my own question: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208348

This quote is from an ufologist, and thus probably refers to UFO-deniers, not skeptics in general.

There is a lot more to the quote.

It was from an introduction to "Confrontations: A scientist's search for alien contact", by Jacques Vallee. And that line that he quoted is actually quoted quite a bit in UFO sites.

The paragraph in full (starts from page 20 of the book):

In the course of my field work on UFOs I also accumulated evidence in three related domains I consider to be outside the scope of the present book. First, I obtained much new information about cults. I am repelled by this material, yet the cultist temptation is definitely present among many witnesses and quite a few ufologists. My attempts to sound an alarm on this subject in an earlier book Messengers of Deception went largely unheeded. Many ufologists even became angry at me for pointing out that a belief in extraterrestrials could be used to manipulate unsuspecting populations. Perhaps the experience of the People’s Temple in Jonestown, Guyana, will have to be repeated before the full impact of cults in our society is realized. Cults are driven by irrational beliefs, and they serve a psychological purpose in their members by providing a release from the confrontation with the unknown. It is my view today as it was when I wrote Messengers of Deception ten years ago that science, by refusing to openly study the UFO phenomenon, drives many sincere witnesses into such cults. The skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of “rationalism” are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really telling the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown. He is contributing to the growth of irrational movements in modern society.​

Context, as they say, really is everything.

His argument is a whine that the lack of scientists showing an interest in UFO's and reports of UFO's is driving people who have experienced something or seen something, into this cult like belief system - which I guess we see quite extensively on the internet, where film footage of helicopters from a distance, is touted as being UFO's and people buy into it, in a sort of cult like fashion. And in a way, it is used to manipulate, ermm, gullible people into believing without question.

 

[NotEinstein]

There is a lot more to the quote.

It was from an introduction to "Confrontations: A scientist's search for alien contact", by Jacques Vallee. And that line that he quoted is actually quoted quite a bit in UFO sites.

The paragraph in full (starts from page 20 of the book):

...

Context, as they say, really is everything.

His argument is a whine that the lack of scientists showing an interest in UFO's and reports of UFO's is driving people who have experienced something or seen something, into this cult like belief system - which I guess we see quite extensively on the internet, where film footage of helicopters from a distance, is touted as being UFO's and people buy into it, in a sort of cult like fashion. And in a way, it is used to manipulate, ermm, gullible people into believing without question.

Ah, thank you for adding the proper context! This indeed strongly suggests we should read "deniers" where it says "skeptics".

 

[Dywyddyr]

Ah, thank you for adding the proper context! This indeed strongly suggests we should read "deniers" where it says "skeptics".

It should also be noted that it's something written by a (fiercely) pro-woo person making a claim he doesn't (or can't) justify: "the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public".
What? People who say "where's the scientific evidence?" make a non-scientific public reject science?
Apart from the complete lack of figures to support his claim all he's saying is that people who don't know - or are already ignoring - science (apparently) get uppity when a scientists says "Show me the science".

 

[parmalee]

Fun fact: complex partial seizures often feature components of prosopagnosia, retrograde and anterograde amnesia, autoscopy, and just plain weirdness. In short, I--along with countless other epileptics--have experienced episodes which are not unlike "alien abduction experiences"--right down to the witnessing of oneself being probed by "greys," and having no idea as to how the hell one got there,or got "back," for that matter. Typically, the face blindness aspect isn't quite that extreme, but I have seen people as largely featureless, their visible orifices--eyes, nostrils, mouth--appearing as simply black holes. IOW, they look pretty much like this:


Except, sometimes even a bit more freaky--like the figures in Adrian Lyne's Jacob's Ladder or the people on the train in Alan Parker's The Wall.

Fun times!

 

[NotEinstein]

It should also be noted that it's something written by a (fiercely) pro-woo person

True. I just didn't want to open that can of worms.

making a claim he doesn't (or can't) justify: "the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public".
What? People who say "where's the scientific evidence?" make a non-scientific public reject science?
Apart from the complete lack of figures to support his claim all he's saying is that people who don't know - or are already ignoring - science (apparently) get uppity when a scientists says "Show me the science".

And I bet that when a scientist (or '"skeptic"') shows the science, it's all "conspiracy", "close-minded", or "they got it all wrong" without any arguments.

 

[Magical Realist]

John Alexander, NIDS, “Refuting Fermi: No Evidence for Extraterrestrial Life?”

“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?


There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence."

Evidence? Did someone ask for evidence?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/

 

[Kittamaru]

There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls.

I'm no pilot, but I'd imagine any number of things can give the feeling of interference with flight controls, including lightning strikes, strong winds, ice, turbulence, mechanical failure, being tired, etc

On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes.

During WWII, the use of radar reflective Chaff scared German bomber pilots into a frenzy, when a dozen or so incoming British interceptors suddenly blossomed into a swarm of hundreds of aircraft.

Unexplained doesn't necessitate extraterrestrial.

So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence."

Yes, and these are undeniably, unquestionably UFO's.

That doesn't make them aliens. It simply means they are objects, flying through the air, that are unknown to the observer. None of that is evidence for alien life.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes, and these are undeniably, unquestionably UFO's.

That doesn't make them aliens. It simply means they are objects, flying through the air, that are unknown to the observer. None of that is evidence for alien life.

"An unidentified flying object, or UFO, is in its strictest definition any apparent object in the sky that is not identifiable as a known object or phenomenon. However the term is widely used in popular culture to refer more specifically to supposed observations of craft of extraterrestrial origin."---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

Remember THIS compelling case?

http://www.texasufosightings.com/buzz/zimbabwe-ufo-incident-new-amazing-witness-testimony

 

[Kittamaru]

"An unidentified flying object, or UFO, is in its strictest definition any apparent object in the sky that is not identifiable as a known object or phenomenon. However the term is widely used in popular culture to refer more specifically to supposed observations of craft of extraterrestrial origin."---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

Well, when there is evidence enough to show it is in fact a craft of alien origin from an extraterrestrial source, it will cease being a UFO and, quite possibly, be a bogey.

 

[Magical Realist]

Uh..there seems to be some confusion between seeing a ufo and believing in a conspiracy theory. One is a perceptual experience and the other is a belief. If someone believes in their own perceptual experience, despite skeptics bitching that ufos can't exist and that they were hallucinating or seeing swamp gas, they are the ones being scientific. The skeptics are the ones pushing a belief that requires them to set aside perceptual experience for the faith held proposition that ufos don't exist. So the skeptics in this case are actually demoting the scientific approach of accepting what was experienced and exploring it further. They deceptively parade around under the noble banner of science while mocking and dismissing experiencers of ufos as crazy or gullible or money-grubbers. They do a tremendous disservice to the spirit of true science which is to remain agnostic on the matter while researching the phenomenon as it presents itself. Fortunately the ufologists are doing just that and patiently gathering up the necessary evidence that shows ufos to be a very real and empirically evidenced phenomenon to all the world.

Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned anthropologist, "UFOs - Visitors from Outer Space?,"

"There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases - perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies - for which there is no explanation... We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to." (Mead, Margaret, "UFOs - Visitors from Outer Space?," Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974.)

 

[Kittamaru]

Nothing in that post does anything, Magical Realist, to address the fact that seeing an unknown and unidentifiable object in the sky does not give one the ability to simply divine that it is somehow an alien creature piloting something from another planet.

Not knowing what something is does not make it aliens.

 

[Magical Realist]

Nothing in that post does anything, Magical Realist, to address the fact that seeing an unknown and unidentifiable object in the sky does not give one the ability to simply divine that it is somehow an alien creature piloting something from another planet.

Not knowing what something is does not make it aliens.

Right. A large metallic disc that flies at high speeds silently in the sky and shoots rays out of itself and even lands in fields with small beings that exit it isn't of extraterrestrial origin. How could you know that? What else COULD it be?

 

[DaveC426913]

What else COULD it be?

"What else could it be" is not science.

It is argument by incredulity - a fallacy: "I cannot imagine how this could be false; therefore, it must be true."

Which is why this thread exists.

 

[Kittamaru]

Right. A large metallic disc that flies at high speeds silently in the sky and shoots rays out of itself and even lands in fields with small beings that exit it isn't of extraterrestrial origin. How could you know that? What else COULD it be?

As DaveC said... "What else could it be" isn't science.

What could it be? Literally anything. That's kind of the point - we don't know what it is... if we did, it wouldn't be a UFO at that point.

Presenting something you don't know and cannot prove or even support as fact is dishonest.