UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Yazata:

West explains convincingly why it appears that way. You should watch his video. Until you do, you're operating in an information vacuum. Why choose to remain wilfully ignorant? What are you afraid you might find out?

I'll say the same to you as I said to MR: if you think that West's technical analysis is "contrived" or full of errors, like Magical Realist claims it is, then point out West's mistakes for us - or at least find some competent expert who has done that for you already.

In the end, Yazata, it's not down to your gut feeling about who you feel like you can trust, or whose voice you prefer when they offer explanations. Surely you know that? If you and MR claim that West has made errors, then the onus of proof is on you to show that those errors exist. Your gut feeling - or wishful thinking, perhaps - does not cut the mustard, I'm afraid.

Either way, that doesn't matter one jot.

Either he's right or he's wrong. Can you find a flaw in his analysis of the video, or can't you? Can you find somebody else who can find an error, perhaps? If you can't actually point to any error in West's analysis, then it looks a lot to me like you just want to imagine there might be an error. Why would you want to do that, rather than keep an open mind? Surely it can't be just that you don't like West's tone of voice when he explains things?

Here's what I think. I think that you don't want to look at West's analysis because you're scared that he might have a point. You're anti-skeptic - that much is obvious - and he rubs you up the wrong way, along with all the other UFO skeptics. And therefore, you've already decided that what he has to say is worthless, regardless of what he says or does. I think that your bias is showing, badly.

What are you saying? Alternative to what? Might have?

Really? You're going there, even after all of our previous discussions on this topic?

You must know that you're telling lies about me, at the very least, Yazata. Why do that? It makes you look like a guy with a grudge.

I have repeatedly told you that I don't think that the idea of alien visitation is a priori ridiculous. That would be an assumption, and I have an open mind on this. You also know that I think it is very likely that extraterrestrial life exists out there somewhere, though that is not the same as saying I "believe in" alien life. On the other hand, I also think it is very unlikely that advanced aliens are currently visiting Earth, or have in the past. Nothing a priori about that, either. Both of my estimates of likelihood are actually based on knowing some facts about the universe, about life, about science and, as it happens, about the specific science around the SETI project.

You bring up "faith". Tell me, if you can, why my refusal to accept that aliens are visiting us, in the absence of sufficient evidence, would have anything to do with any "faith" that I might have. Can you really keep a straight face as you claim that what I think about UFOs is based "largely on faith"? Just to be clear, I do not hold a belief that aliens do not exist. Nor do I hold a belief that no UFOs are alien spaceships. Nor do I hold a belief that some UFOs are alien spaceships. What I believe is that I am unconvinced that alien spaceships are visiting (or have visited) Earth. I hold that belief because I find the evidence put forward for that conclusion to be generally weak and unpersuasive, for reasons I have explained at some length already in this thread. Even the best evidence put up by UFO proponents is obviously inconclusive - or else we wouldn't be arguing about this.

Battling the possibility of anything new? Where do you get this stuff? You've spent too long listening to Magical Realist, and your brain has become fogged, I fear.

It's a bit difficult to post any meaningful critique of his analysis when you aren't even aware of what he has to say. Wouldn't you agree?

I mean, it's fine if you don't want to watch his videos. But don't pretend that you can have a meaningful discussion about their content if that's what you've chosen.

I've suggested a number of possible explanations to you, previously in this thread. Too bad you didn't pay attention.

To summarise: the thing to bear in mind is that you are considering one incident out of literally thousands upon thousands; of course there will be some coincidences and dubious detections on the "edges of sensitivity" every now and then. All the "easy" cases are rapidly solved. That leaves only the few more puzzling cases. If no such cases existed, that would be the surprise.

Good scientists themselves go through this process as a matter of course. This is what doing science involves. A good scientist has to think about all the reasons that her findings might not be due to her preferred hypothesis; she should at the very least try to anticipate any objections that might be raised by peer reviewers.

So yes, in principle, any scientific result might be the result of error. But no magic wands are involved. Errors must be pointed out and tracked down. Therein lies the beauty and utility of science: self-correction is built into the method.

 

No.

Science is very often a reductive process. We can focus on one piece of a big puzzle at a time. An analysis of a video is an analysis of the video. It stands or falls on its own merits. West is very clear in his video about what his analysis of the video does and does not confirm. Like a scientist, he is very careful to state his confidence limits, and he does not make excessive claims about his analysis.

This is in stark constrast to your methodology - if you even have one. As a matter of course, you make extensive claims that go beyond what your analysis (if you can call it that) could possibly support. DaveC has provided a clear example of that - if another one was needed - of how you overstate your case and exaggerate the evidence to pretend that it shows what you wish it would show. This is why you're a pseudoscientist, at best.

Of course, one can and should widen the investigation beyond a mere analysis of the video, to look at the surrounding circumstances. In doing so, one should look at all the surrounding circumstances and not just the ones that support a pre-conceived conclusion that you wish was true. Also, one should not rush through that investigation and pretend that one was thorough, any more than an investigation of the video should be rushed or piecemeal. One ought to look at how reliable each piece of evidence is on its own before one considers the "big picture". That's because the strength of the "big picture" hypothesis you're trying to push will necessarily depend on the strength of all the small items of evidence that point to your grand conclusion. If each small item on its own is weak or unpersuasive, that adds up to a big picture that is similarly weak and unpersuasive, no matter how many small unpersuasive items you add into the mix.

But let's look at your big picture, again, briefly, seeing as you're unequipped or unwilling to discuss the matters I put to you regarding the video analysis.

I don't recall any such testimony from the original reports on the Nimitz incident. Reference?

What's an "ASA"? Which pilots saw the "fleet"? What did it look like? What independent evidence do we have for the existence of the "fleet"? A fleet of what? "Fleet" itself seems like a loaded term - like you've already decided what they saw. We're talking about UFOs (or UAPs), aren't we? What's with "fleet"? Why the pre-loaded language and assumptions all the time?

You're exaggerating, of course. There are no records of everybody in the squadron seeing things every day for several months. And I don't know what you think to add by the word "physically". What other kind of seeing are you comparing this to?

What independent evidence, other that eyewitness testimony, do we have that such a "near collision" ever occurred? Also, all this seems to be information about separate incidents that you suddenly feel a desperate need to introduce into the conversation. Is that because you realise you're on a losing streak with the Nimitz video, Fravor incident etc.? You're just trying to distract attention again, aren't you? Next shiny bauble once the original one has lost its luster.

No. Clearly more than one video was released by the Pentagon, covering separate incidents. However, West's analysis is relevant to all such videos showing similar "rotating tops" because, of course, the FLIR systems on the US fighter jets were all similar or identical.

Besides, whether the video was a one-time deal or not doesn't matter. Either West's analysis is right about that video, or it is wrong. You can't find anything wrong with it even though you continually insult West. Neither can Yazata, apparently. So, it is what it is. A problem for you.

Not in the case of the Nimitz video. West has shown that and you have been unable to refute his analysis. That means you don't get to make that claim any more about that video.

 

Referring to the above video (interview with Graves regarding an incident in 2014). Time stamps are given.

1:13 Graves says that one of his colleagues [unidentified] and not him saw a UFO in an early incident. He didn't hear about it "until after I landed". This refers to the cube-within-a-sphere story. Importantly Graves does not claim to have seen a "cube within a sphere" UFO.

1:40 Graves admits that the radar systems on his aircraft sometimes produced "phantom tracks".

1:51 Graves says he didn't see a "physical object" but just "a flash shining out there".

2:23 He says he initially thought maybe the objects were "some kind of drone thing they were testing out".

2:29 He says that another time "someone" [unidentified] saw an object go between two aircraft, within 150 feet. This is another second-hand report from him.

~3:00 Graves says that a safety (incident) report was submitted [by whom?] but there was no follow up that he was aware of.

4:16 Graves says the "Gimbal" and "Go fast" videos were taken by a jet flying off the Theodore Roosevelt. [I note that West has effectively explained why the "Gimbal" video does not show unusual manoueverability of any object.] Graves says both of these videos were filmed within weeks of each other, over the Altantic off Florida.

5:02 Graves claims that the "Gimbal" video is part of a longer video that he saw on the ship. He says the "Gimbal" object was larger than those he was familiar with, but the unreleased section of the video showed some smaller objects as well. He claims the smaller objects were flying in a V formation ahead of the larger "Gimbal" object in the video. He claims that at some point the smaller objects turned around with a "radius of turn" and started flying in the opposite direction to the "Gimbal" object. He says the "Gimbal" object shown in the released video is footage from after the smaller objects had turned around.

5:53 Graves clarifies that there wasn't a "whole fleet" of "Gimbal" objects. The "fleet" referred to the smaller objects that do not appear in the released video.

6:04 Graves states that the apparent rotation of the "Gimbal" object by 90 degrees (seen in the video) was like nothing he had ever seen. This strongly suggests that he was not well informed about the way the gimbal camera on his plane worked.

6:28 Interestingly, Graves talks about the "Gimbal" object turning "on his [i.e. the Gimbal object's] wingtip". This suggests that Graves was assuming at the time that it could be another plane.
--------

Boiling this down, what we have from Graves is a bunch of second- or third-hand accounts from unnamed "colleagues" of his, for the most part. Graves himself claims involvement with the "Gimbal" video. However, it is clear that he does not know (or did not know at the time of the interview above) how the gimbal system could produce apparent rotation of an object on his screen.

There is no independent confirmation of any sighting of a "fleet" of smaller objects. We have only Graves' testimony about that, since there is no record of any such objects in the video released by the Pentagon.

From this paucity of new information, Magical Realist somehow draws the following conclusion:

"Mick West's ad hoc synopsis of regular jet plane with a glare is effectively refuted."
​

Nothing in the video that MR posted above directly addresses anything in Mick West's analysis of the "gimbal" video, let alone refutes that analysis. Once again, MR's wishful thinking is belied by simple facts.