UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[foghorn]

''They can however invade our abode(s)'' ..

I have no religious affiliation but am convinced a higher power or powers exists natively in some other realm of existence i.e. outside of our spacetime continuum. They can however invade our abode(s) at will as in e.g. UAP, Poltergeist, apparitions/'ghosts' etc. activities.

Are you saying below not just ''our abodes'', but also our heads?...

And imo these same mischievous entities are behind other '5% unexplained' category 'supernatural' phenomena such as hauntings, 'past lives experiences' (implanted false memories),

 

[Q-reeus]

''They can however invade our abode(s)'' ..


Are you saying below not just ''our abodes'', but also our heads?...

It's my synthesis, not a dogmatic 'this is how it is', that whoever these entities are, they have the power to, subject to some limitations imposed by presumed rules/guidlines, invade some hapless individuals minds. Hence many apparently 'genuine' accounts of 'past lives' often 'confirmed' by unerringly accurate details the 'recaller' could not have known by normal means. The hard residue of cases unaccounted for by fraud or chance. Implanted memories.
Cases of (demonic)possession are a different sub-set best left out here. Even some UFO encounters, according to Jacques Vallee, are best explained as implanted experiences, given that only a subset of observers could 'see' an otherwise highly intrusive event.

 

[Magical Realist]

I've forgotten exactly what your preferred explanation is, because it doesn't much matter; you've never tried to support it, as far as I'm aware.

At this stage of my ufo journey, I remain blissfully agnostic as to the identity of ufos. It IS possible afterall to believe something is without knowing exactly what it is. I WILL say that I believe they are otherworldly in nature, excluding all natural, manmade, or mundane explanations.

I never start by assuming that any given UFO account is erroneous or a hoax.

Your whole methodology smacks of skeptical bias. Your "analysis" of particular ufo accounts consists of a hodgepodge of mundane speculations, radar glitches, false memories, anecdotal errors and embellishments over the years. It looks to me like you're playing the role of a sleazy defense attorney whose sole aim is to create reasonable doubt. No conclusion is ever reached in terms of what exactly the ufo is. You're just as in the dark about them as we are. Don't pretend your so called "critical thinking" accomplishes something it isn't really accomplishing.

 

[Magical Realist]

Your threshold bar for being convinced about most woo is set approximately at floor level. No need to leap high to convince you.

It is better to believe and possibly be mistaken than to always disbelieve and never be mistaken.

 

[Magical Realist]

Most purported evidence for such things is anecdotal and/or otherwise weak.

Most evidence for all the events and experiences of our lives is also anecdotal. That there is no solid evidence for them doesn't then become an excuse to dismiss them. That someone has experienced something powerful and unusual firsthand is a "good faith" truth standard we apply everywhere in our daily lives. It is real and compelling and powerful. There's something to be said for the raw eyewitness ufo account, undistorted with assumptions about what ufos are and what they aren't.

 

[foghorn]

There's something to be said for the raw eyewitness ufo account, undistorted with assumptions about what ufos are and what they aren't.

If someone saw a ufo and goes on the web to read up on other sightings, they find people like Magical Realist telling them what ufos are.

UFOs are craft. This is shown from hundreds of cases of them landing and having beings exit them. Many ufos have also been spotted with windows. That makes them craft.

But knowing what we know about ufos in general and their demonstrated intelligent design and operation, I think it's logical to assume some sort of conscious pilots.

It confirms a capability that we already know ufos have of either teleportation or cloaking.

I have never ruled out extraterrestrials. I have simply suggested that the intelligences behind ufos are not of this world. That can include interdimensionals, time travelers, or paranormal beings.

I don't speculate on who operates ufos.

******************** *********************

Like I said, I'll leave it up to others to make up their own minds. Unlike you, I have no interest nor agenda in telling people what they are seeing and hearing with their own eyes and ears.

You MR are what I would call a web ''influencer'' and are telling people what their ''seeing''.

UFOs are craft. This is shown from hundreds of cases of them landing and having beings exit them. Many ufos have also been spotted with windows. That makes them craft.

In no way are you neutral / unbias when it comes to ufos.

 

[Magical Realist]

If someone saw a ufo and goes on the web to read up on other sightings, they find people like Magical Realist telling them what ufos are.

Anyone who has the patience, if not desperation, to read thru this entire thread more than likely have their own preconceptions about what ufos are. They don't need my help.

 

[wegs]

wegs:


Not initially. There's no way to know whether a claim is a fantasy or a reality until we look at the evidence.

However, it's worth keeping in mind that the people who claim that aliens are visiting Earth have now had more than 70 years to present good evidence for that particular claim, and they've come up with nothing that can withstand a modicum of critical examination in all that time.

That doesn't mean, of course, that somebody won't present really convincing evidence of alien visitation tomorrow. It could happen, but the chances aren't looking good, based on the last 70 year history of such claims.

Some of it is purposeful, of course. There's some money to be made from boosting UFOs. Some people manage to make a comfortable living out of promoting alien spacecraft etc. Look, for instance, of the huge amount of pseudo-documentary TV shows that the US, in particular, continually churns out. Somebody buys that stuff and puts it on the networks.


"Scary" is one of the key things that the UFO crowd increasingly depend on. Because so many of them are conspiracy theorists as well being UFO believers, the smarter ones recognise the power of fear to encourage and maintain dubious beliefs.

There's currently way too much fear about all kinds of things right now, especially in the United States. The trick is to sort out which fears are legitimate and which are spurious - driven by people who have vested interests in stoking the fear. Again, the solution is critical thinking: people need a certain skill set to be able to sort out truth from baloney. They also need, to some extent, to be able to recognise actual expertise and to distinguish it from such things as bluster and empty claims to authority.


The "U" in UFO or UAP means unidentified. It's nothing more than a place holder for "we don't know what this is, yet".

There's no problem with not having all the answers. The problem lies in pretending to have all the answers when really you don't.

I think that many people enjoy the mystery behind not being able to prove something with objective evidence, but believing it just the same.

When it comes to UFO's like the tic tac video, when does the science community take eye witness ''testimonies'' as valid? I mean, if something like that happens only once...but a few intelligent, critical thinkers manage to capture it on film, how can it ever be ''proven?''

At this point, I feel we're on a carousel with this thread, because I'm sure I've asked that question before in so many words, and you have replied. lol But, as we dig deeper, is the answer that eye witness testimonies never suffice as proof? Why do we allow eye witnesses to take the stand in criminal trials, then? Sometimes, those witnesses are what an entire legal case is built on.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that many people enjoy the mystery behind not being able to prove something with objective evidence, but believing it just the same.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with believing things. People only get into trouble when they demand other people believe the same things as them.

when does the science community take eye witness ''testimonies'' as valid?

They're valid, they're just not compelling without physical corroboration.

I mean, if something like that happens only once...but a few intelligent, critical thinkers manage to capture it on film, how can it ever be ''proven?'

It can't. Not like that.

'Proven' means irrefutable. i.e. "Here, examine this actual flying saucer that landed here."

Why do we allow eye witnesses to take the stand in criminal trials, then?

Because there is no doubt that murders actually exist. There is plenty of precedent.
Not to mention that there are physical, irrefutable facts as to that murder that can be examined at leisure (namely, the remains). It's not just "Trust me, I saw what I saw."

In fact, it is a very rare event when a person is found guilty without a body ("no body, no crime").

And that's a better equivalent of a UFO: without a body, who's to say there was even a murder at all?

 

[wegs]

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with believing things. People only get into trouble when they demand other people believe the same things as them.


They're valid, they're just not compelling without physical corroboration.


It can't. Not like that.

'Proven' means irrefutable. i.e. "Here, examine this actual flying saucer that landed here."



Because there is no doubt that murders actually exist. There is plenty of precedent.
Not to mention that there are physical, irrefutable facts as to that murder that can be examined at leisure (namely, the remains). It's not just "Trust me, I saw what I saw."

In fact, it is a very rare event when a person is found guilty without a body ("no body, no crime").

And that's a better equivalent of a UFO: without a body, who's to say there was even a murder at all?

Yet, many cases result in convictions by way of circumstantial evidence, which requires somewhat of a leap, but you make a good point that we don't know for sure that alien life exists at all, let alone a fleet of them flying in spacecrafts.

But, I think where this might fit with UFO sightings (alleging the alien kind), is that there is a difference between arriving at a crime scene and interviewing random ''eye witnesses'' who might be falsely stating information to get their 15 minutes of fame (many UFO enthusiasts are in it for just that) and cross examining eye witnesses during a trial in a courtroom...to see if their statements actually are true.

I think that could be what many UFO enthusiasts want more than anything, is for some of the sightings to be ''cross examined'' by the science community a little more rigorously, so to speak.

 

[Q-reeus]

I think that could be what many UFO enthusiasts want more than anything, is for some of the sightings to be ''cross examined'' by the science community a little more rigorously, so to speak.

Long done by the very few brave/honest/independently-minded scientists prepared to weather oppressive official-government/military/peer censure/pressure/public-ridicule.
The normal and intended result being caving-in via self-censorship and eventually rationalizing that as 'correct thinking'.
https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2020/11/when-j-allen-hynek-had-a-change-of-heart-about-ufos/
https://www.thinkanomalous.com/jacques-vallee.html (Your anti-malware app may, like mine does, flag the site as 'dangerous'. Just ignore such masked ideologically motivated censorship.)
I could add Stanton Friedman to the list but hesitate as he was fixated on Roswell which I think was a sad mistake.

Beyond that understandably tiny list (no doubt there are others of similar mind), the fact is the really convincing multi-spectrum records are controlled almost exclusively by the military.
Who have a notorious track record of suppressing any public disclosure of the huge accumulated record of such incidents.

My oft posted here go-to is the 1952 Washington flap incidents:
https://www.thinkanomalous.com/washington-dc-ufo-sightings.html
No chance then of 'leap-frogging' Russian/Chinese high tech drones etc. Nor of Photoshop/CGI 'creations'.
Note the perennially repeated before and ever since, contrast there between the Official Explanation, and the rebuttals of those trained personnel actually directly involved at the time.

 

[foghorn]

Anyone who has the patience, if not desperation, to read thru this entire thread more than likely have their own preconceptions about what ufos are. They don't need my help.

So, if you're saying people don't need your help, then this thread is just about you saying.... Here is a ''compelling'' picture of a ufo and '' ufos are craft'' ?

 

[DaveC426913]

But, I think where this might fit with UFO sightings (alleging the alien kind), is that there is a difference between arriving at a crime scene and interviewing random ''eye witnesses'' who might be falsely stating information to get their 15 minutes of fame (many UFO enthusiasts are in it for just that) and cross examining eye witnesses during a trial in a courtroom...to see if their statements actually are true.

I think that could be what many UFO enthusiasts want more than anything, is for some of the sightings to be ''cross examined'' by the science community a little more rigorously, so to speak.

But to what end? OK, now the witnesses are really really sure what they saw. We're no closer to "proving" anything.

 

[Magical Realist]

So, if you're saying people don't need your help, then this thread is just about you saying.... Here is a ''compelling'' picture of a ufo and '' ufos are craft'' ?

UFOs ARE craft of unknown origin and nature. That's clear from all the evidence posted here.

 

[wegs]

 

[wegs]

Long done by the very few brave/honest/independently-minded scientists prepared to weather oppressive official-government/military/peer censure/pressure/public-ridicule.
The normal and intended result being caving-in via self-censorship and eventually rationalizing that as 'correct thinking'.
https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2020/11/when-j-allen-hynek-had-a-change-of-heart-about-ufos/
https://www.thinkanomalous.com/jacques-vallee.html (Your anti-malware app may, like mine does, flag the site as 'dangerous'. Just ignore such masked ideologically motivated censorship.)
I could add Stanton Friedman to the list but hesitate as he was fixated on Roswell which I think was a sad mistake.

''Dangerous?'' Where are you sending me? lol I'm oddly intrigued, though.

Beyond that understandably tiny list (no doubt there are others of similar mind), the fact is the really convincing multi-spectrum records are controlled almost exclusively by the military.
Who have a notorious track record of suppressing any public disclosure of the huge accumulated record of such incidents.

My oft posted here go-to is the 1952 Washington flap incidents:
https://www.thinkanomalous.com/washington-dc-ufo-sightings.html
No chance then of 'leap-frogging' Russian/Chinese high tech drones etc. Nor of Photoshop/CGI 'creations'.
Note the perennially repeated before and ever since, contrast there between the Official Explanation, and the rebuttals of those trained personnel actually directly involved at the time.

From the link above:

Summary

The sightings over Washington D.C. in 1952 were one of the best early examples of multiple witness sightings that were also correlated with targets on multiple, independent radar units. It was one of many radar cases in the Blue Book archives that the Air Force explicitly denied having.

Whatever the U.S. Air Force really knew about UFOs, their public stance on the issue changed dramatically after the Washington sightings. Project Blue Book was slowly turned into a public relations front, and the Air Force became more active in their effort to debunk UFOs and downplay the importance of investigating sighting reports. The Washington sightings were among the last great cases before UFOs stopped making national news, and before the Air Force stopped treating them as matters of public concern.

I'm not much of a UFO enthusiast, although some sightings are more interesting and worth looking into, than others. What do you make of this? I wonder why the government feels the need to ''shield'' the public from these alleged sightings. That is stranger than the claims, themselves.

 

[Magical Realist]

I wonder why the government feels the need to ''shield'' the public from these alleged sightings. That is stranger than the claims, themselves.

The military was afraid of looking like fools to the public. If they have no idea what ufos are, then they would appear incompetent and failing in their duty to protect the American people. The excuse of having to "shield" the public was just a phony excuse to stop looking into them. They were only shielding themselves and their reputation.

 

[wegs]

The military was afraid of looking like fools to the public. If they have no idea what ufos are, then they would appear incompetent and failing in their duty to protect the American people. The excuse of having to "shield" the public was just a phony excuse to stop looking into them. They were only shielding themselves and their reputation.

I've always wondered...why is the military responsible for analyzing UFO sightings? I get that they're responsible for protecting our air space from foreign ''invasions,'' etc but are they even equipped to handle some of these alleged sightings?

 

[Magical Realist]

I've always wondered...why is the military responsible for analyzing UFO sightings? I get that they're responsible for protecting our air space from foreign ''invasions,'' etc but are they even equipped to handle some of these alleged sightings?

Well the military would be most qualified in determining whatever advanced technology the ufos represented. Also, they should be the ones to know first if the ufos were a foreign invader like China or Russia. I would say they are probably the most well equipped of govt agencies for handling ufo incidents. Unfortunately, as it stands now, the tic tac incident and other Navy sightings have only mystified the military.

 

[wegs]

Well the military would be most qualified in determining whatever advanced technology the ufos represented. Also, they should be the ones to know first if the ufos were a foreign invader like China or Russia. I would say they are probably the most well equipped of govt agencies for handling ufo incidents. Unfortunately, as it stands now, the tic tac incident and other Navy sightings have only mystified the military.

Okay, that makes sense.

So, that’s it? They are “mystified” and the case is closed? lol I think it’d be a pretty elaborate scheme if it were all just a hoax of some kind to fool people about UFO’s. I mean, from what I’ve read, the claimants were doing podcasts and such to share their opinions about it - why bother if there was nothing to it? But, then it seems to have all died down now, so guess we’ll never know.

If the US military has never seen anything like this, why wouldn’t they relentlessly be searching for answers? Maybe they are, and the general public just isn’t made aware of it.