UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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

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

    Messages:
    12,310
    Just my 2 cent speculation

    And noticed you move in mysterious ways

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Scientists are not obliged to let you live in the mystery

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    As I have posted many times, 'interdimensional hypothesis' - as expanded on and interpreted by various authors quoted in that Wikipedia article, is the only hypothesis consistent with the large body of variously anecdotal and/or optical/radar/sonar records. And very much more than just the 'tic tac' incidents. Which is just deja vu to the 1952 Washington Flap encounters. And a vast number of other mass sightings with or without accompanying surveillance hardware records.

    Armchair critics refuse to read widely on the huge span of UFO/UAP/USO encounters - many involving military personnel over many decades span. Easier to just scoff and impugn the character and intelligence of the individuals targeted by the skeptic brigade here.
    Seems few if anyone posting here has bothered to actually study the two YT vids re 1978 Enfield poltergeist incidents, previously linked to quite a few times. Maybe out of a fear of being confronted with good evidence for a worldview that if embraced would make one a target for unending ridicule. Anyway, if studied with serious open mindedness, UFOs etc. as supernatural phenomena become just a logical extension or rather a different facet.
    The two facets nicely merging together in 'The strange case of Doctor X', presented by ThinkAnomalous.com. Further expanded on in highly detailed articles linked to therein.

    All this and much more covered in the preceding 281 pages. 'Debunkers' or rather defamers here are hard-wired to reject any and all evidence contrary to their strictly materialist worldview.
    I will also repeat that the true nature of the phenomena will never be revealed through any amount of further stamp-collecting exercises. The intelligences responsible for it all have clearly shown no interest in revealing their true nature or specific intent.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2021
    Magical Realist likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,266
    Science has not eliminated the mystery of reality. Far from it. If anything it has only refined it and made it more..... inevitable. See Heisenburg's Principle of Uncertainty.

    "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed."--Albert Einstein
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,310
    But but but I do stand rapt in awe at REALTY

    I do not gawk at stuff which will never be be inevitable. Scientists know their limitations

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed."--Albert Einstein

    Wow.
    I quote Einstein, so I must be right in whatever I say.
    **** ****
    There is the reality that some ufos may be craft.
    Then there's Magical Realist's reality that ''UFOs ARE craft''

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,310
    Nothing like having your own reality

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There is a word for that condition. On the tip of my tongue. Can't quite remember

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    When a UFO lands - Does it become a Unidentified Landed Object?

    Or when Aliens come out and probe us humans - Are they Unidentified Landed
    Proctologist ULPs

    Unlicensed (on Earth) as well ULUPs

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2021
    foghorn likes this.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    Yazata:

    Who on sciforums do you think refuses to acknowledge the possibility that some UFOs are craft? Would I be included on your list of skeptics who you think have already made up their minds?
    Previously, I have mentioned the possibility that reports of UFOs that are close or coincident in time, but at different locations may not necessarily be sightings of the same object or objects (or other visual phenomena). To assume without good evidence that spatially separated sightings by different observers are necessarily sightings of a single object is a mistake.

    We should be clear that these controversial UFO sighting cases are exceptional cases that need to be treated with special care. If you see a white Toyota Landcruiser travelling along a freeway, and somebody else reports seeing a white Toyota Landcruiser travelling along the same freeway 5 minutes later and a few miles away, then in many circumstances it might be safe to assume that both of you saw the same car. But when fighter jet A sees a UFO that the jet's pilot interprets - based on his naked-eye observations - to be flying just above the water, and fighter jet B detects a UFO a few minutes earlier or later that is high in the sky and seen on an infrared camera, we need to be very careful in jumping to the conclusion that A and B both saw the same thing, especially when their observations do not coincide in seeing the "same thing" in the same place at the same time.

    If, then, the pilot of fighter A sees something and interprets it in a particular way, we should be aware that this is a single data point in the "incident" or string of incidents. We should also bear in mind that the later accounts of the pilots of fighters A and B may well be contaminated by their knowledge of what the other guy says he thought he saw.

    I do not agree with you that "it wasn't birds". I don't think you have sufficient information and corroborating evidence to rule out the possibility that one or more of the sightings were not birds. You are assuming that all those guys were watching the same object, and you are willing to link them together into a single narrative, without good reason to do so other than proximity in time and general location.
    I lack your confidence in being able to venture what the "most plausible explanation" might be, simply because there's so little reliable data to consult to try to find the best answer. If I had to guess, based on hypotheses that are consistent with the observations, I'd say that maybe Fravor saw a bird just above the water (and possibly diving into it), and maybe one of the other planes - with or without Fravor's plane - detected another aircraft - probably a jet of some kind. As for the radar, none of us have seen any actual radar records and we're also unfamiliar with the radar systems being used, so it's difficult to even start to analyse that in anything other than the most speculative way. I also find reports of mysterious men in black taking records away in the immediate aftermath to be implausible - suspiciously so. At the very least, they are impossible to verify with any degree of confidence, and they sound like a typical conspiracist trope.
    I'm no military expert, so I claim no special knowledge of the state of the art in military hardware. I suspect you don't either. However - again - if I had to guess, I'd say that the most advanced combat air vehicle prototypes made by human beings are probably owned by the US military. There's an outside chance that perhaps China might have the resources and know-how to build something more advanced, but I doubt it. I also think that experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to keep that kind of thing secret for very long, what with various forms of espionage.

    It is possible, of course, that the US military (and the government at high levels) knows more than it is telling the general public, but that kind of thinking just leads us down well-trodden conspiracist paths of fantastical speculation, in the absence of any good evidence (e.g. leaks).
    Precisely because the reported "performance characteristics" so greatly exceed the publically known state of the art, I am very skeptical that they are accurate. Besides, there's a very long history of people reporting UFOs who badly misjudge basic features of what they are looking at, including the distance from themselves to the object(s), the speed of the object(s), the size(s) of the object(s), etc. etc. This is why multiple independent sources of data are so important if we want to get to the bottom of these things.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    (continued...)

    I'm still wondering about who you think its trying to eliminate such possibilities by fiat.

    On the flip side, look at Magical Realist's many unambiguous claims to knowing for sure that UFOs are "craft" that are "piloted" by "beings" etc. That's a much better example of attempted fiat.
    A medieval scholar, I am sure, could be convinced of the reality of DNA or neutrinos by being given access to suitable evidence supporting their existence. Similarly, I am perfectly happy and ready to believe in extraterrestrial spaceships, extra dimensions, ghosts, time travel or whatever - just as soon as I am presented with sufficient confirmatory evidence. Fuzzy photos and breathless anecdotes won't cut it, I'm afraid. Nor will fuzzy flir footage combined with anecdotes from commended military personnel, I might add.
    But you're aware that the bird hypotheses and the like are based at least as much - more so, in fact - on the available evidence, than the accounts of alien spacecraft or interdimensional travellers. If you're consistent about your own expressed skepticism, then you should admit that you can no more rule out the comedy of errors that you deride than you can rule out your (preferred) advanced craft hypothesis. Why you call it a knee-jerk is a mystery to me. I'd say that assuming it's aliens, or ghosts, or advanced Chinese stealth aircraft, is a knee-jerk.
    I think that this skeptic you imagine is largely a fictional being. Look at the evidence of the current thread. For the most part, all the skeptics are asking is "show us some good evidence for your wild claims!" When Magical Realist tells us that he has decided that most UFOs ARE craft, the skeptics say "show us the evidence that establishes that - at least with a reasonable degree of confidence." What we find, though, is that all that MR and his ilk have, when pushed, are their own beliefs and wishful thinking.

    It also puzzles me that you persist with the myth that skeptics dictate that aliens, God, ghost and time travels must be impossible a priori. You repeat that myth regularly, even after skeptics (such as myself) have told you directly that we do not hold any such belief or opinion. You must think you know us better than we know ourselves, if you're unwilling to listen to what we tell you about our own beliefs. Why is that?
     
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,310
    Alien craft me yes
    Craft of earthly origin distinct possibility

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    I'm glad you too notice that in Yazata's posts here. It seems sometimes he's trying to defend MR and having to resort to strawmen to do it.
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,310
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,108
    Looks like we have to wait until June before the Pentagon tells us what it thinks this UAP might be - if it reaches any conclusion.

    It's the usual fuzzy footage - looks like it was taken during a rain storm.
     
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,310
    Think more electronic snow - Big Bang microwave background

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,266
    I think that's referring to a video and that Pentagon report that was released last summer.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2022
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
  19. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,266
    On more than one occasion you and Dave have claimed that a bird or a whale or an unidentified aircraft is more likely than an otherworldly ufo, suggesting its mere unlikelihood as a sort of a priori argument against it. That to me is ruling it out because you just so happen to not believe in them. It is an argument from incredulity, based on one's own sense of what is more believable. No evidence is offered for your explanation. And what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2022
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,687
    Couple of logical flaws there:
    There are millions of extant examples of whales and birds. Their existence is called 'incontrovertible fact', not 'likely'. "I saw a bird" requires zero corroboration.


    You
    think they're the same thing. That sounds like a 'you' problem.

    "More likely than
    " is not synonymous with "ruling it out" Don't put words in our mouths.

    It is an argument from insufficient evidence.

    Unlikelihood is a valid argument against likelihood (granted not conclusive). To-wit: "I just saw a unicorn in the yard!" "You probably saw a horse." Accepting that you saw a unicorn would require sufficient corroboration that you didn't just mistake a very likely horse for a very unlikely unicorn.


    That's science, baby.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2022
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    That isn't really debatable any longer. Of course they exist. The big question, which remains very much open today, is what these UFOs/UAPs really are. At this point nobody seems to know. Or if somebody does know, they aren't talking.

    My own guess is that probably most of them will reduce to fairly mundane causes, ranging from imagination to more familiar natural or aviation events being mis-identified.

    But I do think that the evidence supports the hypothesis that something not so easily dismissed is happening in some subset of the cases. That might be advanced terrestrial technology, unfamiliar natural phenomena or maybe even something even more exotic and unexpected. We don't know at this point, and it's foolishness to pretend that we do. That's why the subject deserves to be an open research question and not just a subject of ridicule.

    I needn't argue for that in this post, certainly not with you MR. I probably already have near a hundred posts in this thread explaining why I feel that way. The problem cases is where I think the interesting questions arise and they are why I find this subject fascinating.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,687
    I think you're making a semantic argument there. And I think it's confusing the issue.

    At the risk of speaking for others, I'd say most of us skeptics would argue:
    • that "they really exist" and "are merely imagination or mis-identified" in the same sentence is an oxymoron,

    • that "they really exist" means "they are not imagination or some other form of misperception",

    • that "they" are objectively a thing,

    • that, if you think they reduce to imagination or misidentification, then you are in the same camp as us skeptics.
     
  23. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    Often very substantive arguments revolve around what referring expressions (nouns and noun phrases etc.) are referring to. About what bits of reality (if any) they are pointing out in other words. This seems to be one of those instances.

    You will need to take that point up with James R and with the UAP Preliminary Assessment. I was basically agreeing with both of them.

    James R:

    And the UAP Assessment:

    Certainly one might say that objects purely of imagination don't exist. (Though that involves us in the ontological status of fictional entities. There's a sense in which Sherlock Holmes exists as a fictional character.) But I never suggested that all UFO's/UAPs are objects of imagination. In fact I said precisely the opposite.

    Familiar mundane objects whose existence isn't in dispute can obviously be misidentified. ("Venus!" "Swamp gas!") Probably a significant number of UFO sightings are cases of this.

    I think that many UFO reports and much of the popular UFO myth might be explained as either imagination or misidentifications of more familiar objects. But there's going to be a residual set of more problematic observations that might best be explained in some other way.

    It's harder to dispose of the UAPs that way since they appear to largely be reports by trained military observers who in a majority of the their 144 cases were backed up by other sorts of verification like radar and other sensors. But sure, some of these might be misidentifications too. The problem set will probably be much larger though.

    My assertion was stated here. (The highlighted bit was my real point in that post.):

     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2022

Share This Page