UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

You blew it in the first two words.

It is a 6 ft in diameter sphere that flies and hovers and has no wings or control surfaces and no propulsion that would definitely show up in thermal. That is absolutely beyond any known technology or our level of physics. There were 14 of these spheres detected by the ships. Neither we nor any other govt on earth have anything like that.
Please...
... post the evidence and leave the debunking to the debunkers
 
I've never heard of this one before.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29342407

Sixty years ago a football match ground to a halt when unidentified flying objects were spotted above a stadium in Florence.

Notable:
  • ten thousand witnesses
  • extant physical evidence remaining after the fact for analysis
I've never heard of a UFO sighting that had so many people sharing in the same experience, at the same time. I'm curious what those ''cob-web-like strings'' were that fell from the sky that day? Great find, thanks for sharing.
 
It's a very well known case, but seemingly all quite natural: spider silk, aka angel hair seems to be the likely main cause, although quite possibly a larger than usual occurrence. People then misinterpreted, and the rest becomes a case of mass delusion/hysteria.
Seems plausible to me, at least. :)
 
wegs:
I’d say you’re comparing apples to…well, turnips?
I was telling you that the best way to go about verifying the existence of an alien spacecraft is the same as the best way to go about verifying the existence of anything else.

There's no reason to assume that UFOs ought to be immune to scrutiny using ordinary methods of science and critical thinking.
Experienced navy pilots spotting what has been described as an extraordinarily fast moving, acrobatic “tic tac” for one example, which seems credible in terms of believing these pilots witnessed something unusual that can’t be debunked so far, is nothing like comparing a car turning into a turnip, which is physically impossible. lol
I think you missed the point of the turnip example. The point was: you ought to apply the same standards of investigation and the same kinds of critical thinking, whether you're investigating tales of fast-moving, acrobatic tic tacs or tales of cars turning into turnips.

It is not overly helpful to assume things are impossible from the start. In fact, that's exactly what Yazata keeps advising against.

It sounds to me like you're trying to decide who to trust, just like Magical Realist. You have decided, for whatever reason, that navy pilots' reports are to be trusted implicitly, even when they report seeing very unusual things. That is, you trust them to file accurate reports. Even more importantly, you trust them to make correct interpretations about what they see.

That's a mistake. These sort of investigations shouldn't be about deciding who to trust. You should look at the facts objectively. You should certainly bear in mind that navy pilots, like the rest of us, are fallible human beings.

Also, the fact that a story sounds credible does not mean it is true.
I get your point, but think you’re conflating what would be considered impossible with unsolved mysteries.
Deciding in advance that something is impossible is the wrong approach, especially when we're dealing with claims of the fantastical or paranormal. Better to keep an open mind and follow the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Yazata,

Scientific facts like climate change and evolution are not beliefs that are held dogmatically. No scientists asks that you just "trust us" on climate change or trust the scientists when they say evolution is real. Quite the contrary. The scientists openly provide sufficient data, along with the models they use to interpret that data, so that any doubters can check for themselves whether the science is correct or wrong, provided they are sufficiently motivated and capable of doing so.

Questioning is built into science. No scientists demand that you take the science on faith or subscribe to "dogma".

A science denier is a person who, having more than sufficient information to confirm scientific findings, nevertheless pretends that those findings are incorrect or unsupported by evidence. Science deniers typically tell lies and make stuff up. Yes, they are "anti-science", but the criticisms are levelled at the deniers not because deniers won't bow down to the dogma of science, but because the deniers are demonstrably wrong (and are sometimes knowing liars as well).
 
Here is some infrared footage of a flying sphere recorded by the U.S.S. Omaha off the coast of California on July 15, 2019. The object is tracked for some time before it appears to enter the water. The object at that point disappeared from radar and sonar as well. These spheres are definitely NOT balloons!
Tell me how you determined that the object was not a balloon.

How does a spotlight hover in midair and show up on infrared camera and on radar?
A spotlight does not hover in mid-air on its own, clearly. A spotlight that is attached to something can easily appear to be hovering in mid-air (indeed, it might actually be hovering in the air, suspended by the thing it is attached to).

A spotlight can be a heat source. Heat sources show up on infrared cameras. That's kinda one of the useful features of an infrared camera.

Spotlights are solid objects. Solid objects tend to show up on radar. That's kinda one of the useful features of radar.
It is a 6 ft in diameter sphere that flies and hovers and has no wings or control surfaces and no propulsion that would definitely show up in thermal.
Tell me how you determined it is 6 ft in diameter.

Tell me how you deteremine it is spherical.

Tell me how you determined it was flying.

Tell me how you determined it has no wings or control surface or propulsion system.

That is absolutely beyond any known technology or our level of physics.
No. For instance, balloons are spherical, have no wings or control surfaces or propulsion systems. Balloons can be 6 ft in diameter and can fly or hover. The construction of balloons is clearly within the bounds of known technology.

Why do you make outlandish claims that are just silly?
There were 14 of these spheres detected by the squadron of ships over a 3 day period.
Why do we only get to see appallingly shoddy footage of one of them, then?
Neither we nor any other government on earth have anything remotely close to that.
I believe the government has both balloons and spotlights.

The sphere either vanished or entered the water.
Tell me how you determined it was a sphere.
Tell me what you did to rule out all explanations for its disappearance other than vanishing or entering water.
Both capabilities entail something far more advanced than us.
No. Balloons and spotlights can both enter water. They can also appear to "vanish" under suitable conditions.
 
Last edited:
Tell me how you determined that the object was not a balloon.

Simple. It was filmed flying horizontal to the ocean and then came to a stop, hovering in place. A balloon doesn't do that. It then plunges into the water. Balloons don't do that. A search was conducted at the coordinates and nothing was found. And there were 14 of them detected on radar. There's just not that many weather balloons out there. And certainly not all together like that.

 
Last edited:
Simple. It was filmed flying horizontal to the ocean and then came to a stop, hovering in place.
Was it filmed flying horizontal, though? You can't actually tell from the video that it was actually moving, and if it was moving you can't tell which direction or how fast. To know the object's speed and direction of motion you need to know the observer's speed and direction of travel, but you also need to know how far the object is from the observer. To a moving observer, a stationary object will appear to move against the background from the observer's point of view. It's parallax.
The video could be of, as you say, something close flying horizontally to the ocean, then stopping and descending and disappearing etc. It could also be of a slowly descending balloon, and the apparent motion is caused by parallax, with the balloon then splashing into the water and bursting, hence no sign. It could also be of an aircraft flying away from the observer and disappearing over the horizon, with the "splash" into the water being an artefact of the camera's algorithms etc.
There are many things it could be, although which it is has not yet been established with any authority. My money is decidedly not on the alien/advanced tech/trans-dimensional stuff, though. ;)
 
Video of multiple spheres being tracked on radar flying and even speeding up to 50 knots. Definitely not balloons.


 
Last edited:
It’s sad that people like Mick West can toss out “it could very well be a weather balloon” and that shuts down the conversation.

I can’t believe someone is gaining a following off sloppy debunkery. Debunkery by the way isn’t the same as falsifying a claim. Debunkery usually uses ridicule and mockery to show that a claim is ridiculous to begin with. It’s not the same as taking the time to evaluate the eyewitness reports and falsify them.

I’m a skeptic when it comes to aliens visiting earth but I think some of these UAP’s are not weather balloons or birds, based on what the eyewitnesses have shared. They could very well be advanced technology created by foreign countries. Why is that so far fetched?
 
It’s sad that people like Mick West can toss out “it could very well be a weather balloon” and that shuts down the conversation.
It doesn't shut down the conversation. He's not the authority. Stop treating him like one. He's just a guy with some analytic tools and a YouTube channel.

That's the beauty of the scientific method. You don't have to (shouldn't!) take anyone's word for anything. Feel free to check his work - or even do your own analysis!

To review:
No scientists [or Youtube skeptics] asks that you just "trust us" on climate change or trust the scientists [or Youtube skeptics] when they say evolution is real. Quite the contrary. The scientists [and Youtube skeptics] openly provide sufficient data, along with the models they use to interpret that data, so that any doubters can check for themselves whether the science is correct or wrong, provided they are sufficiently motivated and capable of doing so.



Debunkery by the way isn’t the same as falsifying a claim.
That's true. But falsifying a claim is premature, if the claim has not first met its burden.

The onus first lies on the claimant to show that it cannot be something mundane.

Frankly, I'd rather concentrate our limited efforts on sightings that cannot be weather balloons.
 
Last edited:
That's true. But falsifying a claim is premature, if the claim has not first met its burden.

The onus first lies on the claimant to show that it cannot be something mundane.

Frankly, I'd rather concentrate our limited efforts on sightings that cannot be weather balloons.

If you saw an unusual aircraft that you can’t explain and you’re an otherwise reasonable person, who isn’t known to hallucinate or do drugs or spend your days intoxicated…I would believe you saw something, unexplainable. I wouldn’t tell you, “nah, Dave it was likely a weather balloon.”

At that point, I should be required to describe why I think it could have been a weather balloon.

Even in a criminal trial, defense attorneys have to defend their clients. You have to defend your position, it should be a two-way street. It’s not fair that the entire burden is on that of the claimant, in my opinion.
 
If you saw an unusual aircraft that you can’t explain and you’re an otherwise reasonable person, who isn’t known to hallucinate or do drugs or spend your days intoxicated…I would believe you saw something, unexplainable. I wouldn’t tell you, “nah, Dave it was likely a weather balloon.”
That is a gross oversimplification. Nobody "merely" said "it's likely a weather balloon."


Even in a criminal trial, defense attorneys have to defend their clients. You have to defend your position, it should be a two-way street. It’s not fair that the entire burden is on that of the claimant, in my opinion.
In a court of law, if the claimant does not first make their case, then the judge will in all likelihood throw it out without needing to hear from the defense.

"Your honour, the defendant underpaid me for my work!"
"Do you have a bill to show how much you charged him?"
"Well, no. But I vaguely recall was somewhere between... ...."
"Case dismissed."
 
I don’t consider Mick West to be an “authority” when it comes to debunking UFO claims, but James does. He is the one who brought his name into the thread. I think the guy is an influencer for the debunkery crowd, which is fine. But, he doesn’t really falsify anything - he just plants seeds of doubt, which is also fine but he and others like him are why we haven’t made that much progress in regards to UFO investigations. I could see if he was an authority, but he isn’t. And that’s what is sad.
 
Back
Top