UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist:

That still sounds very religious to me, especially the bit about "Being". Do you mean "Being" as just the fact of existence itself, or "Being" as in a conscious, thinking agent of some kind? The second kind of being would essentially be a god, going by the terms you've used.

No. It's a statement about the facts as they are, which apply to both you and me, whether you like them or not.

For instance, I wrote "We certainly don't know whether Fravor's opinions are a "genuine" description of something that actually happened in reality."

The "we" in that sentence includes both you and me. I don't know whether Fravor's opinion that he saw some kind of aircraft/spacecraft carrying out impossible manouvres is a genuine description of something that actually happened or not, and neither do you. We - both you and me - don't know.

I put this to wegs, but my series of posts was probably too long for you to be able to pay attention for the whole thing, so here's the TL;DR version for you:

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're right, and I have a definite agenda to debunk all UAP sighting as mundane objects. What follows? Either the evidence supports the alien hypothesis (or the advanced aquatic species from another dimension hypothesis or whatever it is you think they are today) or it doesn't. No possible agenda of mine could affect that.

You have the radar records now?

No, you don't have those, so don't tell lies about them, please.

You are correct that there are accounts for two pilots that appear to corroborate each other in at least some of the details. But we know that they are not independent accounts and we know that each pilot's account might well be influenced by knowing the other's.

As for me, I have never claimed to have "solved" the tic tic case. All I know is that, so far, no evidence has been presented that establishes that any "craft" (i.e. mechanical, artificial vehicle of any kind) was involved (other than the known human-built fighter jets and so on).

If you believe you have new evidence that establishes anything more than the video and pilot testimony we've already seen and discussed ad nauseam, I'm very happy to take a look at it.

Of course, you have nothing of the kind. That's right, isn't it?

 

wegs:

I already explained in some detail why the two (three?) categories aren't comparable, including some very important distinguishing features. When you aren't on your phone, please read through everything I posted. There's quite a lot to take in.

That's an opinion you've formed about West, but it's irrational, for reasons I explained previously.

Specifically, you have not yet pointed to any flaw or deficiency in any of West's analysis in even one case he has examined, despite making claims that he ignores evidence and that his bias leads him to faulty conclusions.

You really need to make your case against West, or else desist with your allegations.

I know. I think you're far from being a lost cause. It's one reason I'm writing long replies to your posts.

In a previous post to Magical Realist, I specifically addressed the problems of estimating a priori probabilities.

But maybe you're not talking about estimating the chances before we examine the evidence, but rather of estimating the chances of this or that after examining the evidence. This can only be done with reference to a specific case in which the evidence has been examined.

If you're thinking about the tic tac case, then I'd agree with you that it seems unlikely, after reviewing the evidence, that the tic tac observed at low altitude was a weather balloon. I'm not so sure about anything observed at high altitude.

I think you're unfairly accusing West.

I have given you a specific example in which West has, in my opinion, produced sufficient proof for his claim that a particular UFO sighting was actually a sighting of Starlink satellites. Prior to his analysis in that case, West withheld judgment. In fact, somebody else suggested to West that he ought to investigate the possibility that it might be satellites. He thought that was a good suggestion, so did some work. And - lo and behold - the satellite tracks match what was observed so well that it seemed to him (and to me) far more likely than not that the reported UFOs were, in fact, Starlink satellites. I say this is a case where West withheld judgment until he had sufficient proof. When he had it, then he said he thought the UFOs were almost certainly Starlink satellites.

In contrast, you have yet to post a single example of where West has rushed to judgment without sufficient proof.

You ought not to make accusations of bias until you can find at least one example of it. That's what I think.

Can you find a single example of a case that West has examined, for which he has ignored information you consider to be relevant?

---
One last thing: bear in mind that West (or any skeptic) probably looks at lots of cases, but only publishes or posts youtube videos about a few of them. If you're a careful analyst, you don't usually spend time making a video unless you're confident you have something new to add to the discussion. That means you don't claim to have solved cases you've haven't solved. That would be pointless, and you'd also rapidly lose credibility with your audience, not to mention being an easy target for your opponents.

 

Yazata:

I see you haven't yet worked up the courage to respond directly to what I wrote to you. So be it. I'm getting used to your avoiding what is inconvenient for your claims. I'm still disappointed, though.

"Why?" is a tricky question. The big "why" questions are the philosophical ones which, like a lot of questions in philosophy, are most likely unanswerable.

Science, in one sense, doesn't attempt to answer "why" questions; it answers "how" questions. How does the Sun make things hot? How can we account for the blueness of the sky? How does the Moon stay in orbit around the Earth? How can we send a spaceship to Mars? How can we prevent polio? How can we record large amounts of information in a small object? How does the human body digest food?

Lots of questions in science can be phrased as "why" questions, but the answers science provides are usually a series of "hows". Why is the sky blue? Well, light is refracted by air and different some colours are refracted more than others. How this happens is explained by the theory of refraction, the wave model of light, Rayleigh scattering and other models.

The philosophical "why" question that goes with science's "how" answers is: why are scientific models - especially mathematical ones - so successful in allowing us to explain the universe? Nobody knows the answer to that.

When when you talk about "iterating" through "why" questions on scientific topics, you're right that at some point you're going to hit a "science doesn't know the answer, yet" answer. As far as we can tell, the universe just is how it is. Maybe it is an accident that it is the way it is, at least in some respects. Or maybe not.

I think, perhaps, the point you're missing (or downplaying) is that, a lot of the time, it's not that important that our beliefs be ultimately grounded, in the sense that we can chase an infinite number of "whys" to a final conclusion. Why shouldn't you stand in the rain? Because you'll get wet. Most of the time, to answer that question there's no need to understand how rain happens, how the molecular structure of water molecules arises, why there are some molecules rather than none, or why God would choose to create water.

Interestingly, he became known for that phrase long before he ever used actually used it. He had the awe you mention, certainly, but people get things wrong and make stuff up. This one was intended as a sort of caricature, albeit one that Sagan himself embraced to some extent towards the end of his life.

He was a scientist working at the frontiers of scientific research, plus he was a bright guy. I'm have no doubt that he was well aware of the limits of astrophysics and, indeed, science more generally.

I think that you, Yazata, regularly underestimate the level to which clever scientists are aware of your Philosophy. Philosophy isn't exactly a closeted subject hidden from the world or restricted to a select group of initiates, you know.

Try asking any professional scientist whether he thinks he knows all the rules of the game blah blah blah. It sounds to me like you'll be surprised at the answer you'll get.

Who are these people you say exhibit this form of hubris?

Certainly, none of the skeptics right here do, and they've all told you they don't.

This is your Big Lie again. Perhaps I should start keeping a tally, since you repeat it in almost every post.

 

Yazata:

Perhaps you should try being a little less aggressive and confrontational with your Big Lie, then. It is still not clear why you keep putting that straw man into your posts, and you have yet to post any substantial response explaining your behaviour in that regard, despite my raising the issue on numerous occasions.

If you don't want a confrontation, maybe don't try to start one.

 

We haven't seen any radar records, so far. It would appear that the only evidence for this, then, is the testimony of a radar operator. Is there anything more?

Besides, a "mysterious object" on a radar screen could be lots of things, until it is identified.

We only have the radar operator's opinion that the radar was functioning correctly. But even if it was functioning correctly, there are obvious questions to ask. How often do spurious traces show up on the radar, under ordinary operating conditions? If I recall correctly from other reading, the answer is: often enough that radar operators learn to discount what they would regard as "normal" glitches or spurious signals. We would expect some radar operators to be better than others at doing that.

My opinions on those things are more nuanced than that. Probably you couldn't maintain concentration long enough to take in my previous posts, in which I discussed these things in more detail.

For the radar, there's no way for us (you and me) to check whether the radar was in error. Neither of us has access to radar recordings, let alone system parameters, operational data etc. As I have mentioned, there are many different kinds of "errors" that could conceivably play into this: errors in the equipment itself, errors in the software used to run it, errors in perception and/or interpretation by the operators, errors in the accuracy of what was reported about the radar traces, etc.

I have already discussed my analysis of Fravor's account in detail, earlier in the thread. It's not a matter of all or nothing. He doesn't have to be wrong about everything or right about everything. He could make one, or a few, errors and that would be enough for him to make an incorrect assessment about what he saw. And that's before we get to the issues with memory and embellishment after the fact, which are very common when it comes to eyewitness statements.

There's no evidence that Fravor did not make errors.

I have offered several possible alternative explanations during the course of this thread. They were probably TL;DR for you, I guess.

Be specific. Refer to what I've written, and show where I have made implausible assumptions. If you can.

I do not believe I have asserted anything as fact that I do not know. I speculate, of course, but so do you. Don't pretend that your speculations are superior to mine.

 

Sorry, wegs, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you telling me that West has said the US government failed to thoroughly investigate a particular case? Which one? The tic tac one? Can you point me where West said this?

I can say whether I agree with West or not, until I know what you're referring to.

Regarding the tic tac incident, it is not currently my opinion that the US government has failed to investigate that incident properly. As far as I am aware, that investigation is ongoing.

I haven't said that. But "top US officials" is a very vague term. Who, exactly, are you talking about? I can't say much about a whole class of people whose work is not available to me. I can only comment on publications produced by identifiable people or groups, which I have seen. I guess I could also give you an opinion on a published, accessible anonymously-published investigation, too, if there is one.

I did say something about expertise, previously. What I said was that I see no reason to assume that a randomly-selected US military investigator will necessarily be better equipped than somebody like West when it comes to investigating a UFO sighting. They might be. For example, they might have access to information that is unavailable to West. They might have specialised technical knowledge about military capability that West does not. But on the other hand, West has a long history of successfully getting to the bottom of UFO cases (you might call it "debunking"). If nothing else, it means that West might be more aware of the pitfalls that commonly come up in UFO investigations, and perhaps also more aware of some of the errors that previous "official" investigators have made in the past.

 

Stop casting slurs and be specific. I have accused you of lying when you have told lies.

Recently, I have accused Yazata of a specific lie, namely the one he keeps putting out about how skeptics (including the skeptics here) start with the assumption that a UFO cannot be paranormal or "non-mundane" (in either the sense he likes to use that word or the way the rest of us use it).

In both cases, the record of posts supports my accusations. Also, in both cases my accusations stand unrefuted.

But two examples do not make a general pattern. If you're going to accuse me, you'd better be specific. Stop the slurs.

 

You're on a crusade. Of course you agree. It doesn't count for much.

You ought to be specific, too.

Also, for a man who says he doesn't care, you sure are posting a lot in a way that shouts out that you care.