UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

For the record, what is your position on monsters?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A bit of a broad brush you got there, but the same thing in principle: show me sufficient evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol!! Omg, this thread…

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don’t think he (MR) draws “hard conclusions.” He speculates, and offers a general idea of what some of these UAP’s could be, without clinging to any one thing. At the start of the original thread, YES, he took a more dogmatic stance, but he strikes me as moderate in his views, at this point.

What has made me more of a skeptic now is with the recent shooting down on a Chinese “spy balloon,” it would seem logical that other UFO’s would have been shot down by the US government if they in fact, posed a threat. So, maybe so many of these really are just…weather balloons.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I’m mildly sad about that because so many of these sightings seem a bit more mysterious than that.

 

"It's not a plane."
"It's a piloted craft."
"It's technology advanced beyond ours."

 

All provisional conclusions based on the observed flight characteristics and structure of the uaps..

Example: video taken by a commercial pilot in 2020 of a dark cube-shaped uap flying across the sky at 30,000 feet:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jtZGKYO7iyI

 

That wasn't addressed to me, but it's an interesting question.

I think that cryptozoology is a legitimate area of biological science. Wikipedia's article disagrees, and dismisses the whole thing as "pseudoscience" (which is supposedly a terrible thing that must always be stamped out). I much prefer freedom of thought.

But regardless of what some anonymous Wikipedia editor thinks, it's estimated that a significant percentage of animal species are as yet unknown and undescribed by science. It's true that here on land, most of these undescribed animal species are small. Insects most commonly, and obscure invertebrates like tiny soil nematode worms. So on the level of small animals, cryptozoology is a happening thing and entirely uncontroversial among those who know. Expeditions are sent out from places like the American Museum of Natural History every year to search for new species.

That being said, it just seems less and less likely to me that terrestrial (in the sense of land-living) animal species remain unknown, the larger and larger they are said to be. The larger they are, the more likely that they will be observed. And that goes for large hominins like "bigfoot". But I would argue that it's not impossible.

So my view on "bigfoot" is that it's conceivable that we still share the world with a different species of hominin. We clearly did up until maybe 30,000 years ago (the Neanderthals and the Denisovans and perhaps the Flores "hobbits"). They might hypothetically have survived down to today by being very good at avoiding humans.

I don't actively believe that they have (it just seems too unlikely), but I do believe in the hypothetical possibility. That means that I'm willing to accept people who do propose these things, without all the insults, ridicule and disdain. I'd just tell them that they haven't convinced me yet.

But the fact remains that 2/3'ds of the Earth is covered by oceans. The oceans are still Terra Incognita to a some large degree. Humans have been sailing across the top of the ocean for many centuries, they have cast nets into the top levels, and very recently (last 50 years) have sent deep submersibles to the deepest parts. But that's just a small sample of a huge volume of water. Much of what lives in the oceans probably remains unknown to science. It's where multicellular animals seemingly originated after all, and the most interesting examples might remain down there.

So while I don't necessarily believe in the existence of large unknown aquatic animals (I just don't know), I do think that the likelihood of some relatively large unknown animals being down there is actually rather high.

 

Perhaps the objection is to the use of the word science in there. Nothing wrong with non-science investigation as long as it doesn't hide in the guise of science.

 

Is science a sacred cow, though? Science tells us to keep searching and stay curious. At least that’s what I thought…

 

I've reached the point where I'm willing to publicly confess that I finally do believe that there are large, tall, shaggy, indigenous bipedal creatures walking around on North American soil who do not belong to the modern family of humans.

link: It walks on two legs is back to strolling the neighborhood

 

To Yazata and wegs et al:

No one wants you to stop being curious and no one is strangling anyone's freedom of thought. Oh My God, you bunch of drama queens.

There are certainly many, many ways to learn about things in the world. Without question. Not all avenues can encompass all ways of learning (the fox that chases many rabbits will catch none). This particular avenue concentrates on science, the scientific method and evidence-based argument. It says so in the name.

There are uncountable places where anyone can go to explore in any mode they they choose. No one's chasing you away, just asking that you respect the basis upon this forum was founded and to which you agreed when you signed up. Those are rules that overarch the more lenient rules of the subfora.

A world where everyone has to cater to every whim would produce only tears and chaos.

I swear I'm going to go sign up on your Knitting Forum and start asking why we can't all examine the merits of making nipple rings using Gas/Metal Arc Welders. When you complain that 'This is a knitting forum', I will accuse you of oppressing my freedom of thought.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For Pete's Sake.

 

On reflection, this may not have come across as tongue-in-cheek as intended.

I don't really want to put a stranglehold on what stuff is explored. The Mod responses to the thread in the Open Gov thread I started have gone some way toward ameliorating my views on the matter.

If it hasn't been obvious, my objections try to centre - not around the subject matter - but around the faulty logic used to promulgate it. The poor logic is almost always of the "hasty conclusion" type. Hasty Conclusion fallacy: "a claim based on evidence that it just too small". Things like:
- it moved erratically across the sky therefore it must be guided
- the blip was here and then it was over there, therefore it must have moved hypersonically
- no wings are visible therefore it couldn't have been plane
You get the idea.

It could have been guided, it could have moved hypersonically, it might not have been a plane, but we can't use those could'ves as the foundational blocks of a solid explanation.

 

If there’s a sub-forum on the Knitting site for “nipple rings,” it would suggest that such a topic is welcome and that “knitting” wouldn’t really apply.

Fringe topics on this site shouldn’t be treated like the hard science sections except to say, you are correct in thinking that how we apply logic and the scientific method for exploring unusual phenomena, shouldn’t be tossed out the window. Maybe that’s where you’re coming from?

 

Well, if we go by the definition of “monster,” it’s considered to be an imaginary creature, which is how I see the term. Of course, we (collective societal “we”) use it to describe serial killers etc… “He has to be some kind of monster to have slaughtered his family.”

But, lumping “monsters” in with UFO’s on this site under its own special sub-forum, tells me that scientists don’t take UFO’s seriously, in as much as they’re classifying them in a similar genre as “monsters.” I want to believe however, that this “classification” wasn’t a deliberate attempt to stifle healthy discussion about UFO’s, but it reveals an engrained bias towards UFO discussion, in a broader sense.

That said, and since you’re asking, I think “monsters” should be removed from this sub-forum title and placed in the sci-fi sub-section or perhaps another sub created for “mythology, folklore and legends.” And “ghosts” should have their own category, as well.

Personally, the site could use a category facelift and I’d add “Unexplained space phenomena” as a sub heading, and that’s where UAP’s discussions could take place. “UFO’s” lumped in the same genre as “paranormal activity” and “imaginary creatures/monsters”, seems misplaced. You wouldn’t see these subjects lumped together in the same section of a bookstore, for example. So, why here?

Just my opinion, anyway. What do you think?

 

Does anyone disagree that many animal species are cryptids, species as yet unknown and undescribed by science? Does anyone disagree with my observation that most of these unknown land animals are probably small: insects, small worms and similar things?

Does anyone disagree that the survival of a separate unknown/unacknowledged hominin species is far less likely, but not impossible?

Does anyone disagree that the zoology of the oceans is more poorly known than land-animal zoology?

Does anyone disagree that the likelihood of large cyptids in the oceans is probably higher than their likelihood on land?

Is there anything that I wrote in post #8570 that anyone believes is "unscientific" or an error in reasoning? If so, what do you believe is unscientific or an error in reasoning, and why do you think that's so?

http://sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-429#post-3711940