UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[James R]

And yet we have a very long history of unknown anomalous objects witnessed by many ,n the sky and captured on video and radar.

It doesn't matter how long the history of "anomalous" objects is, as far as this particular sighting we are discussing now is concerned. None of those other "anomalous" objects is at all connected to the one we're considering, as far as we can tell. Even if some - even hundreds - of those other "anomalous" objects are someday identified as alien spaceships, that will have zero impact on the chances that this sighting we're discussing will turn out to be an alien spaceship.

The thing is what it is. What other things are doesn't affect it.

Suppose you are presented with a large bag containing 100 small semi-spherical objects. You start pulling them out of the bag one by one. After pulling out 75 of them, you have learned that all of the ones you've pulled out so far are mandarins. How confident are you that the next one you pull out will be a mandarin, then? How confident are you that all 100 of the things in the bag will be mandarins? You put your hand on the 76th object in the bag. Can you be sure it's not an orange, without pulling it out (and without carefully examining it using touch)?

The UAP situation is sort of the opposite of this, though. You claim there is a "long history of unknown anomalous objects", but is there really? That's like putting you hand into the bag and feeling something that might be an "anomalous" orange. But when you pull it out, it turns out to be just another mandarin, to add to the collection of the 75 mandarins you've already identified. And, as you go through the bag, it turns out that every time you've thought that maybe you've found an "anomalous" orange among the mandarins, you've actually just found another ordinary mandarin when you pull it out. Sure, you can't conclude with certainty that there are no anomalous oranges in the bag, but if you're pulled out three quarters of the objects from the bag and have failed to confirm the presence of a single orange so far, your chances are diminishing of finding any orange in the bag. It would certainly be silly to bet there are any oranges in the bag, based on the 75 mandarins you've pulled out so far, even though it's possible there is at least one orange in there. (There might even be 25 oranges in there, but that's highly improbable based on the sampling history. It is far more likely that there are none.)

This whole thread demonstrates that history quite clearly. Are you denying the very existence of uaps now?

The only reason you ask this question repeatedly of the skeptics here ("Are you denying the existence of UAPs?") is that you're (a) trying to provoke an angry reaction, and/or (b) you're trying to portrary skepticism about UAPs to be an unreasonable position to take and (c) you're lying by implication, suggesting that some UAPs have been identified as something truly "anomalous" (as opposed to being merely difficult to positively ID), when you know that none have.

You should stop that nonsense.

Nobody here denies that people report seeing things in the sky that they can't immediately identify. In some cases, lots of other people can't immediately identify them, either (usually, it's due to lack of sufficient data). It's unusual to find cases where nobody can identify the thing, even though it seems there's quite a lot of data. Those cases are "anomalous" in the sense that they are out of the ordinary, since many UAPs are quickly identified and many others have such low quality data that a great many mundane solutions present themselves as possibilities. But "anomalous" in the sense of "harder to solve than usual" is not the same as "anomalous" in the sense of "This is something Previously Unknown to Humankind".

It suits your purposes to deliberately obfuscate this dual meaning of "anomalous". You're not the only one - Yazata also does this. It's dishonest. You should both stop it.

Exactly zero of which have been confirmed as anything other than misidentifications (or hoaxes, or lies).

Really? So who has confirmed the Nimitz tic tac uap as a misidentification/hoax/lie? Or the weird cubical uaps zipping in and out between jets training for months off the coast of VA in 2015? Who has confirmed the mass sighting of a hovering disc over Chicago's O'Hare airport as a misidentification/hoax/lie? Who has confirmed the Ariel school uap landing in Zimbabwe as a misidentification/hoax/lie? What about the Stephenville ufo of 2008 described by 300 eyewitnesses as being "as big as a Walmart" and chased by two fighter jets? Or the Hudson Valley NY uap witnessed by thousands over a period of months? Or the Levelland Tx uap landings witnessed by dozens and causing their cars and trucks to stall out?

You either didn't pay attention to what DaveC wrote or else you deliberately tried to twist his words.

DaveC did not say that the Nimitz tic tac - to take just your first example - has been confirmed to be a misidentification, a hoax or a lie. He said it has not been confirmed to be something other than a misidentification, a hoax or a lie. Obviously, this is also true for all the other cases you have listed.

DaveC is correct. You should acknowledge this. Be honest.

In none of the cases you have mentioned has the UAP been confirmed to be something "not of this world" or "new to human understanding". Not a single one. You know this.

So this is really all about ego for you and just winning an argument with no real concern for the truth?

Seriously? The man who was just caught out and forced to apologise for tripling down on a lie he told is now going to accuse the people who caught him out in his lies of having "no real concern for the truth"?

You're trying your luck, Magical Realist. Don't push it.

Unless of course there is no known explanation and the events continue to exhibit the observed traits of an unknown phenomenon that has repeatedly been witnessed over and over again all over the world. Then the evidence outweighs the mere parsimony as it always should.

The absence of a "known explanation" is not evidence of an extraordinary truth. That's a rookie error on your part. When will you stop clowning? You can't still be this stupid after years of discussion, surely? It must be an act.

Mine is the strength that comes from knowing.

The strength that comes from deluding yourself, perhaps. Or maybe just habitual play acting, at this point.

Yes...everyone knows that about 80% of the cases end up being explained as mundane objects.

Where did you get that 80% figure?

The real unknown phenomenon however persists 20% of the time...

Known phenomena are confirmed to be real. Unknown phenomena are unknown, not real.

.... defying all conventional explanations, which is why they all fall under the category of uaps.

It's not as quite as dramatic as you portray it, though. The best you can say is that there are cases which so far have remained unexplained by "conventional" explanations, which can be for all kinds of reasons. This does nothing to raise the chances than any "unconventional" explanation will ultimately be necessary to explain them.

I never said alien. I said anomalous. And that's what the evidence shows 20% of uap cases being. An unidentified anomalous phenomenon.

Key word: unidentified.

20% sounds too high to me. What's your source for that?

Once again the evidence totally dictates here. And 20% of the time the evidence points to an unknown anomalous phenomenon well known for around 150 yrs all over the world.

You're assuming an anomalous phenomenon - i.e. a single, common cause - but that's bad reasoning again. There's no reason to assume that all unsolved cases must have the same explanation.

Your claim that people have known about something unknown for 150 years is specious. Unknown is unknown. Unidentified is unidentified. You seek to imply that people know about the unknown, which is just silly.

Probabilities simply to not apply when the evidence is saying uap.

Then we won't be hearing silly arguments based on incorrect ideas about "parsimony" from you in future. Will we?

 

[DaveC426913]

Once again, I am in the position of thanking James for taking the time to itemize all the little (and big) red flags in the argument of enthusiasts.
I 'think' every one of them as I read enthusiasts' comments but I don't have James' stick-to-it-iveness to articulate them and the problematic logic they contain.

One, of many, that stands out is this:

"Nobody here denies that people report seeing things in the sky that they can't immediately identify. In some cases, lots of other people can't immediately identify them, either (usually, it's due to lack of sufficient data). It's unusual to find cases where nobody can identify the thing, even though it seems there's quite a lot of data. Those cases are "anomalous" in the sense that they are out of the ordinary, since many UAPs are quickly identified and many others have such low quality data that a great many mundane solutions present themselves as possibilities. But "anomalous" in the sense of "harder to solve than usual" is not the same as "anomalous" in the sense of "This is something Previously Unknown to Humankind".

It suits your purposes to deliberately obfuscate this dual meaning of "anomalous". You're not the only one - Yazata also does this. It's dishonest. You should both stop it."

The enthusiasts have yet to proffer an alternative that they care to defend, preferring instead to hand-wave and keep it a mystery.

I have taken to using the phrase "alien or exotic explanations", for lack of anything better. Yours might be "little green men" - which hopefully might provoke the enthusiasts into saying "No, we don't think they're LGMs; we think they're X!"

Still, I see this is actually a failing on the part of us skeptics, to be able to hold their feet to the fire, as it were, to get a valid counter-argument. Until we can do that, discussing UAPs with them is going to continue to be like chasing faeries through a dense forest.



Because, ultimately if they won't (or can't) proffer even a shred of an alternative, then they certainly have no business ruling out "it could be a mundane phenomenon, seen under extraordinary and rare circumstances".

I say this to you or other skeptics, because our enthusiasts will surely stay true to form and dodge any discussion that involves them committing to any concrete argument.

 

[Magical Realist]

James R said: But "anomalous" in the sense of "harder to solve than usual" is not the same as "anomalous" in the sense of "This is something Previously Unknown to Humankind".

I've never heard of that definition of anomalous as "harder to solve that usual." Is a problem in mathematics "anomalous" because it is harder to solve than usual? Is a puzzle "anomalous" because it is harder to solve than usual? Or a murder case? I think the definition of "something previously unknown to mankind" is precisely what it means, especially as used as an adjective for "phenomena", as in "unidentified anomalous phenomena". IOW, a phenomenon that defies any current attempts to scientifically explain it. hence being "not mundane:. I refer again to NASA's definition of uap as given on their website:

"On June 9, 2022, NASA announced that the agency is commissioning a study team to examine unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena – from a scientific perspective."--- https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

This is also in line with the definition given here:

"The term describes documented events or objects in the sky that cannot be explained naturally. These could be instances not entirely understood on a scientific level, or instances where an aerial object does something in the sky that can't be explained under normal circumstances."--- https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-a-uap-meaning-congress-ufo-hearing-2023-7

 

[Magical Realist]

James R said: Nobody can describe something unknown.

What a strange thing to say. People describe things all the time that are unknown, especially when it comes to uaps. A 40 ft long tic tac, a transparent cube with a sphere in it, a metallic orb, a metallic disc, a large black triangle, etc. Such are clearly instances of describing things that are unknown and unidentified. And such is the case here, of a large hovering metallic disc with 3 rows of windows and other lights.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the definition of "something previously unknown to mankind" is precisely what it means,

Sure. Note the term previously unknown. There is no reason to assume it will not become known with sufficient study.

IOW, a phenomenon that defies any current attempts to scientifically explain it. hence being "not mundane:.

No. It has so far defied the attempts that have been made to-date. That says nothing about what may come tomorrow, which may crack the mystery wide open. By no means has every effort been exhausted, nor every expert weighed in.

 

[DaveC426913]

I refer again to NASA's definition of uap as given on their website:

"On June 9, 2022, NASA announced that the agency is commissioning a study team to examine unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena – from a scientific perspective."--- https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

It means, for those of you who need the logic spelled out: "We, NASA, have as yet been unable to identify it - using the time and resources we decided it warranted, and we have stopped investigating it. But that sure doesn't stop anyone else from finding answers, and we certrainly reserve the right to look into it again of we so choose."

All of the provisos in that paraphrase must be implied, unless you, MR are willing to speak for NASA to say:

- we, NASA, will not re-open this investigation,
- we, NASA, certainly will not put any more time and resources into it than we have to-date,
- no one else is allowed to investigate this incident,
- no further details will ever come to light about this incident that could change our minds.

Are you willing to speak for NASA and put those words in their collective mouths? No. So the implications stand.

 

[DaveC426913]

I refer again to NASA's definition of uap as given on their website:

"On June 9, 2022, NASA announced that the agency is commissioning a study team to examine unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena – from a scientific perspective."--- https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

This has been covered. I'm tired of you wasting everyone's time when you feign faulty memory.
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/post-3729504


The simple scenario:

"The colour of the getaway car cannot be identified".

Does that mean the car has no mundane colour?
Does it mean they, the cops, will not find some new avenue tomorrow to identify the car?
Does it mean that someone else won't find the car and determine its colour?
Does it mean that, when they classify it in their report under "vehicles of unknown colour" (or VUCs) the colour of the car will never be determined?

I put these questions directly to you, Magical Realist, to give you a chance to show you understand even the basics of formal logic. Four simple 'yes/no's will suffice.

 

[Magical Realist]

"The colour of the getaway car cannot be identified"

You're starting with something already known as mundane--the color of the getaway car. So of course it can be identified as a mundane thing. UAPs otoh by NASA's own definition simply cannot be identified as anything mundane. No "not yet" or "maybe someday someone else can" about it. Do you understand the phrase "cannot be identified"? It's pretty unequivocal. Hence the term "unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon".

 

[DaveC426913]

Thank you for singling this out.

Do you understand the phrase "cannot be identified"?

I do, but it appears you do not.

Prove me wrong by providing your yes/no answers to the four questions in 9627.

It is a perfectly hypothetical scenario that simply tests the understanding of the phrase "cannot be identified" which is the phrase you
have singled out, thinking you understand it, and question whether I understand it.

I'll make it a little easier:
Police report: "The colour of the car cannot be determined."

Do you assert that this means the car cannot have a mundane colour? Yes/no.
Do you assert that "cannot" is synonymous with "will never"? Yes/no.
Do you assert that no one else but the cops could ever possibility determine the colour of the car? Yes/no.
Do you assert that the cops have handcuffed themselves from stumbling upon the colour of the car at a later time? Yes/no.

 

[Magical Realist]

I found these examples of "cannot be identified" on a grammar site. See if any of them match your definition of "cannot be identified but one day maybe will be."

An attacker who cannot be identified cannot be threatened.


For one thing, it cannot be identified as national literature.


Under the ground rules for the briefing, the official cannot be identified.


"But it's frustrating that the rest of the problems cannot be identified".

The man, referred to in court only as P, cannot be identified.

Modernity cannot be identified with any particular technological or social breakthrough.


The contours of a new system cannot be identified overnight or imposed on anyone.

https://ludwig.guru/s/cannot+be+identified

 

[DaveC426913]

I found these examples of "cannot be identified" on a grammar site. See if any of them match your definition of "cannot be identified but one day maybe will be."
An attacker who cannot be identified cannot be threatened
For one thing, it cannot be identified as national literature

Under the ground rules for the briefing, the official cannt be identified.


"But it's frustrating that the rest of the problems cannot be identified".

The man, referred to in court only as P, cannot be identified.

Modernity cannot be identified with any particular technological or social breakthrough.


The contours of a new system cannot be identified overnight or imposed on anyone.

https://ludwig.guru/s/cannot+be+identified

I see you rapidly dropped your ploy of trying disallow mundane scenarios. Attackers are mundane phenomena, as are officials, problems, modernity, and system contours - and, notably, there is nothing preventing any of those things from becoming identified at some later point by some other means. So thanks for that signal boost.


Now, since you've boned up on the dictionary it will be a simple matter to answer those four questions, now in smaller words, in post 9629.

 

[Magical Realist]

I see you rapidly dropped your ploy of trying disallow mundane scenarios. Attackers are mundane phenomena, as are officials, problems, modernity, and system contours - and, notably, there is nothing preventing any of those things from becoming identified at some later point by some other means. So thanks for that signal boost.


Now, since you've boned up on the dictionary it will be a simple matter to answer those four questions.

Do any of the above usages make any sense defined by you as "cannot be identified but one day might be."? No.. not even in these cases of referring to mundane objects. Context is everything.

Oh look! Here's even more examples:

For one thing, it cannot be identified as national literature.



The pressure waves within the source region cannot be identified as being radiating sound waves.





While auctions can indeed improve efficiency and effectiveness, this cannot be identified as a generic trend.





Legacy therapies cannot be identified as "approved" or "recommended" even if both statements were true.





To prevent spam, email addresses that cannot be identified as legitimate will be removed from the list.





The population at risk is in a dynamic equilibrium, and cannot be identified as those who are not and have never experienced disease.






The reason why the ACDE model cannot be identified is as follows.
1




An honest person cannot be identified simply as one who, for example, always tells the truth, nor even as one who always tells the truth because it is the truth, for one can have the virtue of honesty without being tactless or indiscreet.






Unicellular rhodophytes, of which there are a few living today, may go back well into the Precambrian, but since none of the Precambrian fossils in question contain pigments, they cannot be identified confidently as red algae.




An honest person cannot be identified simply as one who, for example, practices honest dealing, and does not cheat.



The erroneous answers provided utilize either an approach whereby the erroneous answer cannot be identified correctly as a distractor (denoted a meaningless erroneous answer henceforth) or an approach in which the erroneous answer reflects a potential mistake made by the learner (denoted a meaningful erroneous answer henceforth).

I think I've sufficiently made my case here. Moving on.

 

[DaveC426913]

Do any of the above usages make any sense defined by you as "cannot be identified but one day might be."?

All of them do.

"The man, referred to in court only as P, cannot be identified."


Everyone in the courtroom actually knows who P is. That's how courts work.
When they say "cannot", what that phrase actually means is "
- is known by all the relevant parties, but
- is not allowed to be disclosed
- by court order
- to the public
- at this time (while the case is active)."

A highly conditional meaning of "cannot". As they all are in your examples.


What are you asserting? That there is no person or technique or effort that is physically capable of identifying the man, now or in the future? That his identity is, what? protected by cosmic forces beyond our ken?

Tell that to his lawyer, the judge, the prosecution and the jury. And him, since he can always go public himself.


"Cannot be identified" certainly does not mean what you (pretend to) think it means.



Now your grasp of logic is definitely called into question.

Answer the four questions in 9629 please.

 

[Magical Realist]

Everyone in the courtroom actually knows who P is.

That's how courts work.

No..it doesn't say that at all. It says the man called P referred to in the testimony given cannot be identified and so forever remains unidentified. Nobody present in the courtroom knows who P refers to because the court is protecting his anonymity. There is no "but one day may be identified to those in the courtroom". This is so obvious it hardly needs to said.

 

[DaveC426913]

No..it doesn't say that at all. It says the man called P referred to in the testimony given cannot be identified and so forever remains unidentified. Nobody present in the courtroom knows who P refers to because the court is protecting his anonymity. There is no "but one day may be identified to those in the courtroom". This is so simple it hardly needs to said.

This is all entirely false. Yikes!


(Here: I'll give you an easy one: if, as you fancy, nobody in the court room knows who he is - including the judge, how could anyone possibly know he's not simply an impostor? Do you assert that the judge would allow an entirely anonymous person - that absolutely no one knows - to enter his courtroom and testify?)


Let's put a nail in that coffin so as not to further waste anyone else's time with your grasp of basic logic.
Answer the four questions in 9629 please.

 

[wegs]

You're starting with something already known as mundane--the color of the getaway car. So of course it can be identified as a mundane thing. UAPs otoh by NASA's own definition simply cannot be identified as anything mundane. No "not yet" or "maybe someday someone else can" about it. Do you understand the phrase "cannot be identified"? It's pretty unequivocal. Hence the term "unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon".

I think what Dave may be inferring is that even with UAP’s, we “should” start with mundane as the starting point, in terms of exhausting all possible mundane explanations first, before turning to “unidentified.” But I do think there are UAP cases that have left scientists/researchers utterly mystified, and those would fall out of mundane identifications.

 

[Magical Realist]

I think what Dave may be inferring is that even with UAP’s, we “should” start with mundane as the starting point, in terms of exhausting all possible mundane explanations first, before turning to “unidentified.”

My impression is that they rule out all mundane possibilities until they reach the conclusion that it is a true uap or anomalous phenomenon that cannot be identified as a mundane phenomenon. There are only so many mundane possibilities to rule out after all. Also, the object's extraordinary flight behavior can further rule out mundane possibilities like balloons or conventional aircraft. That it zips around at high speeds and comes to sudden stops and hovers in place for instance like the tic tac was observed to do.

 

[Magical Realist]

James R: You're mixing up what was seen and how the thing that was seen was interpreted by the person who saw it, again. I don't think this is accidental.

Whatever it was that this witness saw, he interpreted it as looking like windows. But we can't simple extrapolate from there to the conclusion that what he saw was windows.

Well then actually we have TWO interpretations here--one by the eyewitnesses based on what they actually saw with their own eyes, and your interpretation based on nothing more that your groundless assumption that it wasn't as he described it as being. So whose interpretation should we go by? Their's based on what was actually seen? Or your's based on nothing at all? We go by the eyewitnesses' account. That is the available given data of the case, and there is no justification for changing or cherrypicking that data just to suit your agenda of debunking the sighting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well then actually we have TWO interpretations here--one by the eyewitnesses based on what they actually saw with their own eyes, and your interpretation based on nothing more that your groundless assumption that it wasn't as he described it as being. So whose interpretation should we go by?

James is not interpreting. James R is offering possible alternatives.

Cops: "The get away car was described as black."
Suspect: "There you go - my car is not black; it's dark blue."
James: "The witness also said it was a dark night. A dark blue car, seen at night, can appear black."

In this scenario, you would be arguing that the getaway car cannot belong to the suspect because the witness said "black".

James is pointing out that there are other factors within the details of the witness' own statement. It is quite possible that the witness saw the suspect's car but drew a hasty conclusion about its colour.

It is our job to understand that the witness might rethink if they had a chance to clarify. "Ah. I see your point. i did say it was a dark night. I don't actually know it was black. It could easily have been a very dark blue."

Likewise, "I don't know it was a mile away and several hundred yards long, since I had nothing as reference. I guessed."

Their's based on what was actually seen?

Witnesses do not always see what they think they see. Worse, witnesses often form their own interpretations, which corrupt the accuracy of the recounting.

For example a dark blue car at night can easily be mistaken for a black car. And a witness might say the car was black. This is a fact that does happen. The possibility must be factored in to any comprehensive witness report.

Likewise, a witness might see regular square shapes on a distant object and say they are windows when in fact that would be virtually impossible to determine.

We go by the eyewitnesses' account.

No we don't.

We analyze a report of an incident which has been described by witnesses - witnesses whose details cannot necessarily be taken at face-value.

Note the case of the Golden, CO report, where the witness guesses at the size and distance of an unknown object, despite that fact that, in the same report, he describes details that make that virtually impossible to guess the size and distance with any reliability.

Witnesses draw conclusions. Often, those conclusions can be wrong. It's up to analysts to determine if a conclusion is valid (in this case it was not).

That is the available given data of the case,

The case has problems. Some of the interpretations of the witness are in conflict, or at least allow for alternate possibilities.

and there is no justification for changing or cherrypicking that data

No one is changing any data. Please don't be confused by this. The report itself is the data.

But data requires interpretation. It is our role to provide meaning with the best interpretation. And there is justification for doubting how a witness interprets what he saw.


Only the naive or the fraudulent would feign that witness interpretations should be taken as gospel. If that were the case, our encyclopediae would be overrun with every UFO, unicorn, ghost, faerie and monster ever claimed by any witness. Our encyclopediae are not overrun with such things - because all cases are analyzed for reliability before making it into mainstream knowledge bases.

The world does not work the way you seem to claim it does. Note, for example, that you demonstrably have absolutely no idea how anonymity in judicial courts work.


Police report: "The colour of the car cannot be determined."

Do you assert that this means the car cannot have a mundane colour? Yes/no.
Do you assert that "cannot" is synonymous with "will never"? Yes/no.
Do you assert that no one else but the cops could ever possibility determine the colour of the car? Yes/no.
Do you assert that the cops have handcuffed themselves from stumbling upon the colour of the car at a later time? Yes/no.

 

[Magical Realist]

James is not interpreting. James R is offering possible alternatives.

He is offering an alternative account of what the thing was (an advertising blimp) based on the groundless assumption that 12 people all misperceived what they describe as seeing. And he is doing that because he is trying to debunk their account. Clearly the skeptics' typical bias against uaps existing at all is operating here, as opposed to the unbiased and firsthand perception of the 12 eyewitnesses. There is simply no evidence the thing was anything different from what they described it as--a large dark disc with 3 rows of windows and other lights that suddenly vanished when a flashlight was shone on it. Every reason to believe the account of those who saw it and no reason to believe the account of a skeptic who didn't see it and only wants to debunk it.