UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for trolling.

The limitations of human perception have been explained to Magical Realist many times already in this thread. His posting of this straw-man version of that explanation can only be (a) a trolling attempt to annoy those who have explained the point in depth to him several times in the past; or (b) an idiotic failure to understand an established fact, even after it has been carefully explained in a simple and understandable way.

We see here, again, the dilemma posed by Magical Realist. Really, there are only two possibilities: (a) the man is a troll or (b) the man is a fool.

On the (charitable) assumption that MR is not the fool he pretends to be, he is warned for trolling.

 

I take it you agree with the rest of what I wrote.

 

Yazata,

I note that you chose to post #6744 without addressing anything I put to you a few posts before that. Your ignoring my posts has become quite pointed of late. I am aware of what you're doing. The question is: why are you behaving this way? One possibility is that you'd rather pretend that I haven't challenged you, because that's easier than accepting that I might be right about things and that I might have made some fair criticisms of the position you have taken in this thread. Another possibility is that something in what I have posted to you has upset you on a personal level, and you feel that I have slighted you in an unfair and unfriendly way, such that you have therefore decided to cut off dialogue with me. Either way, I'm in the dark as to your motivations.

If I have offended you, then there's no way I can alter my behaviour without knowing what you think I did wrong. On the other hand, if you're merely copying Magical Realist's approach of pretending not to have seen posts that take issue with the opinions you have expressed, then I can continue to take you to task for being actively dishonest in being unwilling to address criticisms of the positions you have taken in the thread. It is not unreasonable for me to continue to point out where I think you are in error, and I will probably continue to do so, whether or not you respond.

It would be a pity to confirm that you are willing to follow Magical Realist's playbook of denial and pretense and intellectual dishonesty, merely to defend your belief that there are things "out there" which aren't explainable in my philosophy, or whatever. Personally, I would prefer to have an actual discussion with you, but we can do things whichever way you prefer. The ball's in your court.

So, some further comments...

There are certainly some aspects of this discussion that consider "hard data", if that's what you mean by "scientific argument". For instance, we have considered Mick West's analysis of the "tic tac" videos, in which West determined that the apparent manoeuvring of the "tic tacs" was not particularly remarkable or "beyond the capabilities" of human-made aircraft (or even of regular old birds).

The science of human perception and its limitations has also been the subject of some of this discussion. We have also discussed, to some extent, scientific estimates of the probability that space aliens are currently visiting Earth in interstellar spaceships.

Aeronautical engineering is applied physics.

Yes. Interesting that nobody in this thread has presented any actual technical data on performance characteristics of the radar systems, or their typical reliability, yet. Is such data even available, publically?

Not until there's chemical, biological or geological evidence associate with UAPs. Obviously.

As for astronomy, it does inform us as to unlikeliness of interstellar travellers - at least in the absence of as-yet-unknown technologies.

There are several people here - myself included - who are conversant with such things. You no longer want to engage with those people, most of the time, as far as I can tell. Maybe you believe you already have all the answers you want.

That has never been controversial. It is assumed common ground for this thread.

I wrote quite a lengthy post addressed directly to you on essentially this topic, regarding your assertion that skeptics "want to dismiss" UAP reports without proper investigation, which is an error you are apparently both unwilling to admit and unwilling to correct. I don't know why that is.

This sounds like you're being deliberately non-specific, given our previous discussion of the word "mundane". Something exciting, interesting and new doesn't have to be supernatural, if that's what you mean by "extra-mundane". If that's not what you mean, then you probably ought to spell out what you mean more clearly.

Generally, though, it is the UAP enthusiasts who don't investigate with open minds etc., as I'm sure you'll agree.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But you agree that both of those assumptions are fundamentally flawed. Right?

What both have in common is that a priori assumption thingy. That's the mistake.

The "answer" if you're a True Believer would be to find convincing evidence in just one case of something extraordinary. With thousands of cases to consider, you'd think the True Believers might have something better by now, don't you think?

The skeptics, of course, will never have the answer that you demand of them (us). I'll never be able to prove to you that there are no alien spaceships, even if that happens to be the case.

The True Believers have the easy job to convince you. Of the skeptics, you demand the impossible. Why do you pretend that the burden of proof is the same for both, then?

 

Maybe the aliens don't exist at all.

Maybe you should learn to walk before you try to run.

Maybe you should try to find at least one convincing case that definitively establishes the existence of "AI controlled unmanned probes from another planet" or "teleport" or "wormholes" or "aliens more advanced than us" or time travel from the future or ...

Meanwhile, your wild speculations would be better suited to the Science Fiction and Fantasy subforum.

 

What makes these eyewitness reports credible to you? What convinced you that these people didn't just make it up?

What checks into these people did you make, exactly?

Do you have any evidence about this case, other than the youtube video that you posted, and perhaps a couple of other youtube videos that "report" on the same events?

How did you decide these people were all "totally credible"? Is that anything other than your guy feeling or wishful hope? Do you have any basis for trusting these people's stories?

What steps did you take to confirm that her story is accurate and really happened?

I wasted 6 minutes of my life watching the video.

What's remarkable about the accounts? Which details are you referring to, exactly?

Even the descriptions of the UFO from different witnesses don't match up very well, and they are all very vague.

What steps did you take to rule out mistaken sightings of a helicopter, for instance? How do you know that's not what some of these people saw (if they saw anything)? Some of the descriptions appear to be consistent with a helicopter - perhaps even a fire-fighting helicopter that sucks up water to dump on bush fires.

Why? What makes it "compelling" for you?

From a brief google search, I can find virtually no corroborating evidence for the veracity of these accounts, and no records of any investigations, even by True Believers. All I can find is two or three second or third-hand youtube videos being shared around the usual UFO Believer haunts. Nobody seems to have made any attempt at a proper investigation. And, of course, I'm sure you, Magical Realist, never got as far as looking away from youtube to find out anything else about it.

So, what's so amazing about this that convinces you that the little green men are here, this time? Do tell. I'm *yawn* so excited to *yawn* learn.