UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Yes, it is a Youtube video. What about it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The "upside down triangle" UFO is just an aircraft, with the triangle shape being camera bokeh. Any light out of focus will assume the shape of the lens aperture, usually circular-ish. Cameras with a six-panel aperture opens as a hexagon, and cheap cameras with just 3 panels open as a triangle. Hence the appearance of the light as a triangle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep. Flashing Triangles have been unequivocally debunked.

As for the "disappearing beneath the waves" video, its a ridiculous overreach. There is no indication that anything disappeared beneath the waves. Bright lights turn off all the time; UAPs havent cornered the market on that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The UAP as seen in the video is being detected via an infrared camera at night. It was not illuminated AFAIK..

 

Yes, and when bright lights turn off or turn away, they go dark in infrared.

"submerged" is ridiculous wishful-thinking (and the antithesis of Occam's Razor).

But no need to tell you, I'm telling everyone else.

 

The UAP is already completely dark in infrared. There's no reason to think it would turn invisible. Unless you are allowing for a superhuman capability. Otherwise, submergence is the only logical conclusion. And the Navy agrees. They conducted a search in the area for the UAP.

 

the Navy agrees. Do they?

conducted a search in the area for the UAP
Yes they did. If Navy had NOT conducted a search, first question out of the box from reporters and UFO believer's would be "Why wasn't a search carried out?"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Should strike that UFO believer's. I would say all posters here do believe in UFOs
The disbelief comes into play when claims are made about performance and origins

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really? How are you defining UFO?

Here's a definition:

UFO
noun

1. a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ufo...31i433i512.1972j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

I thought we'd all agreed the term UFO was loaded withbaggage and more trouble than necessary, and that the term UAP was more appropriate.

 

I still use UFO since it defines a flying object that defies mundane and conventional explanations. UAP otoh seems like an attempt to smear this definition out of existence. Like it isn't anything in particular and could still be anything. We have to preserve what we have learned about UFOs over the decades of their sightings. They have characteristics that distinguish them from being just a variable X. They have repeated and objective qualities that allow us to categorize them as distinct entities with typical behavior and appearance. That's what most people mean when they use the term UFO.

 

Well the U remains same

Not sure Ariel is much better than Flying since some now appear to do into the ocean
Add / Aquatic?

Phenomena many are shown to be mundane so being tagged Phenomenal bit of overreach

UA / AO?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is a whole range of phenomena for which concluding it is "flying" is premature, and thus prone to bias the analysis.

The incident at Lake Cote Costa Rica recently covered is one such example. It's not a UFO. Frankly, it's not even a UAP. We do not know that it is flying - in fact, we don't even know if it is aerial.

 

Then we're not talking about UFOs anymore. We are talking about Identified Aerial Phenomena. Can you give some examples of these?

 

No. We're talking about Unidentified Phenomena that may or may not be aerial.
As I said, the Lake Cotes anomaly is such an example.

It is unidentified, but it is not known if it is aerial. (It is an unusual case, since, unlike most UAPs, this one is not set against the sky.)

 

A bokeh? I didn't know that word. So I looked it up on the ever-reliable internet. And found this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I just learned something!

Makes my head hurt! I'll never forgive you Sarkus!

Owww!

 

I never learned what you concluded the Lake Cotes anomaly to be. A hole in the lens? The camera's aperture? A grain of sand on the film? You seem to have arrived at a diffuse mix of non-flying and non-aerial mundane causes. A nebulous cluster of maybe's and could be's affectively ruling out a UFO.

 

Always happy to bash people about the head with a Kipper of Realisation!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's also not known if it is "flying", which rules out the UFO acronym.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes. See my post before the one you quoted