UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

So we are left with the possibilities both that it might be fake, and that it might be genuine. Which is consistent with our saying we don't know what it was, and hence that it was a UAP in the "unidentified aerial phenomena" sense.
Well, not quite. It's consistent with us saying that we don't know if it even was/is a UAP, or whether it is something fabricated to look like a UAP. For it to be a UAP it does need to be unidentified, sure, but it also needs to be an actual aerial phenomenon. Just as Star Trek doesn't depict actual space travel, fabricated footage is not footage of an actual UAP.
First, let's make sure that it is what it purports to be. With neither of those pieces of film are we (or at least me) at that stage, and I'd need some convincing that either are genuine footage, even before considering what that footage is of.
 
Ok, Sarkus makes a reasonable point.

So lets interpret 'UAP' to mean Unidentified (Allegedly/Apparently/Ostensibly/Seemingly) Aerial Phenomenon.

Of course inserting those wiggle-words doesn't make it any more likely that the report wasn't an aerial phenomenon, absent some convincing evidence that it wasn't. They are just holding open the possibility that it wasn't, which seems reasonable to me.
 
Last edited:
While there's always an element of uncertainty with any uap video, I weigh the risk of posting a fake one to the awesome and jaw-dropping reward of posting a genuine one. After examining the video for signs of fakery and finding none, I'll take that risk every time. Skeptics are not going to believe it is a real otherworldly uap anyway. They'll always find some excuse to dismiss it. So I post it mainly for the honestly open-minded and for the believers, like Yazata.
 
Last edited:
Suggestions that it might be fake don't close out the possibility that it is genuine unless convincing evidence of fakery is produced.
Similarly, suggestions - like the ones that MR has made here - that it might not be fake don't close out the possibility that it's a fake, nonetheless, unless convincing evidence of non-fakery is produced.
 
While there's always an element of uncertainty with any uap video, I weigh the risk of posting a fake one to the awesome and jaw-dropping reward of posting a genuine one.
What's the risk of posting a fake one? Being uncovered as fraudster? That doesn't seem to worry a lot of people who make UFO videos.

As for the "genuine" ones, do you mean ones that aren't faked and which genuinely haven't been identified as anything in particular (and so remain unidentified)?

Or by "genuine", do you mean UAP footage that has been proven to be alien spaceships or whatever? As far as I'm aware, no such footage is available at this time.
After examining the video for signs of fakery and finding none, I'll take that risk every time.
You're saying nobody can possibly fool you with a faked video?

Do you recall the many times you've been proven wrong on this stuff in the past, on this very forum, or have you forgotten all those times?
Skeptics are not going to believe it is a real otherworldly uap anyway.
Not until there's some good evidence for it.
They'll always find some excuse to dismiss it.
Not if there's good evidence for it. So, far, though, nada. It's been 70 years, so far. How long do you think it will take to find some convincing proof of the little green visitors?
So I post it mainly for the honestly open-minded and for the believers, like Yazata.
I wonder if Yazata will be pleased to be included in your Believers club...
 
What's the risk of posting a fake one? Being uncovered as fraudster? That doesn't seem to worry a lot of people who make UFO videos.

You run a science forum and you don't see anything bad about posting fake uap videos here?
 
You run a science forum and you don't see anything bad about posting fake uap videos here?
The fakes most likely outnumber the ones that present some genuine element of mystery.

The UFO subforum forum is mostly a junk forum anyway, full of your mindless cut and pastes.

Still, it can be fun to debunk the fakes, from time to time.
 
Fascinating interview of the legendary Jacques Vallee by religious scholar Jeffrey Kripal. Probably the most interesting, original, and knowledgeable ufologist alive today.

"On December 17, 2017, the front page of The New York Times read “Real UFOs? Pentagon Unit Tried to Know.” Its results: inconclusive. But this and countless subsequent articles might suggest that UFOs or UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena) have gone mainstream. With newly established official Department of Defense offices researching them and congressional hearings discussing recovered non-human “biologics,” as NPR reported last year, one might think the truth is approaching.

French scientist and inventor Jacques Vallée isn’t so sure. A principal exponent of taking UFOs seriously since the 1950s, Vallée doesn’t doubt that these contacts happen. His research—as published in books such as Anatomy of a Phenomenon, Passport to Magonia, and The Edge of Reality—shows humans have attested related experiences for centuries (take Celtic fairies, who, stories claim, abducted humans for reproductive purposes and left magic circles). He’s worked on classified projects, helped make the first digital map of Mars, and inspired the character played by François Truffaut in the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind. He’s dug in the dirt; he’s looked through telescopes; he’s interviewed countless witnesses. He also, as a teen in France, saw what presented itself to him as a saucer.

I say “presented” because, through his combination of scientific, historical, and interpersonal research, for much of his career Vallée has suggested that rather than beings from space, UFO witnesses might be facing interdimensional humans, or some other such phenomena, in disguise. UFOs’ radical weirdness, he argues, suggests our current modes of “understanding”—scientific, political, spiritual—aren’t prepared to handle these experiences. “Are the UFOs ‘windows’ rather than ‘objects’?” Vallée wrote in 1969. By this, he means that there is something bewildering in their nature—that whatever they are, another reality lurks behind the experience of them. There’s contact, but the fantastical visions—inflected by people’s cultural specificities—may not be the things themselves. Perhaps, he’s suggested, the UFOs are even intentionally deceptive. Perhaps they are teaching us to look beyond this deception and into the mechanism of perception itself...."

".....As you may know, when I was about 15, I saw something that wasn’t explained at the time. My mother saw it first. It was over the little town where we lived—a bright afternoon, very clear blue sky. It was just standing there about half a kilometer away. And it was very clearly a disc with some superstructure. The next day, I spoke to a friend of mine who’d seen it from his house. He had looked at it with binoculars, and he drew it at my request. It was exactly what I had seen.

So I had the advantage of having a proof of concept very early. And I felt that if I was going to be a scientist, here was a problem. For a while, I pushed it out of my mind, which is what many witnesses do. This was the ’50s, and many new airplanes were coming up and so on. I almost convinced myself that I had seen a prototype of some new device that would become common. Well, it didn’t become common.

A few years later, I was working at the Paris observatory, tracking the early satellites—like Echo and others—and computing orbits, which was my first exposure to serious computers. Working for the government, we were getting observations from the public that we had to respond to. Some of those matched what I had seen. I reinvestigated the whole thing. I had access to the files of the French Air Force at that time and found that yes, there was a mystery. Astronomers didn’t want to talk about it because of their scientific reputation—which is still true today, by the way. There was a lot of data that the public didn’t know about. And I thought, Well, I have a computer. I can start looking at this............"

https://www.documentjournal.com/2024/05/jacques-vallee-jeffrey-kripal-science-ufo-technology-ai/
 
Last edited:
Here's a Facebook video I just came across of a very authentic-looking uap. It is a well-known video in the uap field called the Kumberzag video. It was taken in 2009 in Turkey by a man at 3:00 in the morning while stargazing. The audio on the video confirms it to be real by an eyewitness who was there at the time and lacking any signs of CGI according to a expert video analyst. Sparing it the usual mockery and knee-jerk claims that it looks fake, what do you think about it? And to all the claims in the past that uaps show no signs of being craft, this stands as a total refutation of that. Occupants can actually be seen in it, as with other ufo sightings in the past. A skeptical explanation of fata morgana is included in the 2nd video but seems too implausible. The uap's height in the sky rules that out.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1393668254602592

Here's additional elaboration on the video:

 
Last edited:
James said:What a troll you are.

As you're well aware, UAPs are not a single phenomenon, but refer to a class of disparate phenomena, all of which are unidentified. So yes, there are UAPs without visible wings, rudders, exhaust fumes etc. For instance, UAPs later identified as weather balloons have none of those things. UAPs later identified as the planet Venus have none of those things.

You keep forgetting about what the Pentagon's own AARO office turned up after analyzing hundreds of uap videos and photos. Conclusion? A single phenomenon with repeating characteristics such as no wings or rudders or thermal exhaust and speeds up to Mach 2. So who should we believe James? You or the Pentagon's own uap research office?

"Of the 650 cases being reviewed by AARO, 52 percent involved objects that were round or spherical, Kirkpatrick testified. The remainder were “all kinds of different, other shapes.”

The most typical profile was of a round object of 1 to 4 meters (3.3 to 13.1 feet) wide, that appeared white, silver, translucent, or metallic. Their speed varied from zero to Mach 2. Most were observed flying at altitudes of 15,000 to 25,000 feet, though this might only be because terrestrial aircraft, which report many of the UFO sightings, fly in that altitude band, Kirkpatrick said.

In addition, these objects could only be detected intermittently by radar. They usually had no thermal exhaust plumes, like the kind emitted by jet aircraft."---https://www.popularmechanics.com/militar...dern-ufos/

x228jC8.jpeg
 
Last edited:
You keep forgetting about what the Pentagon's own AARO office turned up after analyzing hundreds of uap videos and photos. Conclusion? A single phenomenon with repeating characteristics such as no wings or rudders or thermal exhaust and speeds up to Mach 2.
The AARO did not say this.
 
The AARO did not say this.

"The most typical profile was of a round object of 1 to 4 meters (3.3 to 13.1 feet) wide, that appeared white, silver, translucent, or metallic."

So explain how you can have a "most typical profile" of something that is NOT a single phenomenon? How can you have a most typical profile of misperceived balloons, birds, conventional aircraft, drones, and the planet Venus?

So yes...it's definitely a single phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
World renowned physicist weighs in on UAPs. Describes their many well-documented and super-advanced flight capabilities. I love this guy!

 
Last edited:
"The most typical profile was of a round object of 1 to 4 meters (3.3 to 13.1 feet) wide, that appeared white, silver, translucent, or metallic."

So explain how you can have a "most typical profile" of something that is NOT a single phenomenon? How can you have a most typical profile of misperceived balloons, birds, conventional aircraft, drones, and the planet Venus?

So yes...it's definitely a single phenomenon.
The language of the claim does not support your conclusion.
Imagine opening a door to a room and inside that room there are 20 objects. 10 are beach-balls ranging in size from 2 to 3-ft in diamater, 5 are model aircraft, and 5 are shoes. It would be correct to say that, upon examining the contents of the room, "the most typical profile" was of a round inflatable object of about 2 to 3 ft in diameter. But does that mean that all the objects in the room are a single phenomenon??
World renowned physicist weighs in on UAPs. Describes their many well-documented and super-advanced flight capabilities. I love this guy!
He's a self-promoting hack who is so far out of his wheelhouse it's almost embarassing. He's written a book that he hopes appeals to the mass market, he's trying to sell it, and he's making unsupported claims to try to appeal to those he thinks will buy it. Worse still, he's relying on his supposed "famous scientist" authority to convince people that what he says on such matters is to be taken as truth. To open with the idea that the burden has shifted to the military and government showing that it isn't aliens is nothing to do with science, for example, but simply politics.
I have a rule of thumb that as soon as someone appeals to Kaku on a matter that isn't about the theoretical physics he's actually an expert in, then they've lost the argument. ;)
 
The language of the claim does not support your conclusion.
Imagine opening a door to a room and inside that room there are 20 objects. 10 are beach-balls ranging in size from 2 to 3-ft in diamater, 5 are model aircraft, and 5 are shoes. It would be correct to say that, upon examining the contents of the room, "the most typical profile" was of a round inflatable object of about 2 to 3 ft in diameter. But does that mean that all the objects in the room are a single phenomenon??
He's a self-promoting hack who is so far out of his wheelhouse it's almost embarassing. He's written a book that he hopes appeals to the mass market, he's trying to sell it, and he's making unsupported claims to try to appeal to those he thinks will buy it. Worse still, he's relying on his supposed "famous scientist" authority to convince people that what he says on such matters is to be taken as truth. To open with the idea that the burden has shifted to the military and government showing that it isn't aliens is nothing to do with science, for example, but simply politics.
I have a rule of thumb that as soon as someone appeals to Kaku on a matter that isn't about the theoretical physics he's actually an expert in, then they've lost the argument. ;)
Yup, see for instance this: https://www.realclearscience.com/bl...kakus_embarrassing_stance_on_ufos_840226.html

This is from 2022, before the (entirely predictable and underwhelming) conclusions of the recent investigative exercise came out.
 
"The most typical profile was of a round object of 1 to 4 meters (3.3 to 13.1 feet) wide, that appeared white, silver, translucent, or metallic."

So explain how you can have a "most typical profile" of something that is NOT a single phenomenon?
That is exactly how the word typical works.

The most typical profile for celestial objects is roughly spherical. That applies to stars, nebulae, planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, meteors and bolides - all of which are phenomenologically unrelated.


Again, AARO did not say they are "a single phenomenon". That is a free interpretation on your part, biased by - and designed to confirm the needs of - your pre-existing agenda.
 
Last edited:
Imagine opening a door to a room and inside that room there are 20 objects. 10 are beach-balls ranging in size from 2 to 3-ft in diamater, 5 are model aircraft, and 5 are shoes. It would be correct to say that, upon examining the contents of the room, "the most typical profile" was of a round inflatable object of about 2 to 3 ft in diameter. But does that mean that all the objects in the room are a single phenomenon??

LOL It's not that complicated.

Even in your example the profile is of one set of objects--the beach balls. It makes no sense to use it to describe other non beach ball objects. How would that be illuminating? It's like when an FBI agent says the most typical profile for serial killers is a white male. middle aged, antisocial and single. He's not referring to any other people but this subset of people. Not to any of the exceptions to this generalization, Just to the majority of the members of the set of all serial killers. Likewise, for UAPs the most typical profile is referring to only the round metallic spheres around 4 meters in diameter and that fly at speeds from stationary to Mach 2. One phenomenon with one set of repeating characteristics. Not to balloons or birds or the planet Venus. This is all so ridiculously obvious.
 
Last edited:
He's a self-promoting hack etc and etc...

LOL Wow! So aside from whatever intense personal hatred or grudge you harbor for this man, for whatever reasons, what do you think of his descriptions of uaps? Do you think he is just making all that up? I happen to know about the Navy encounters he's talking about, and it's all on record. What possible motive would he have to lie about that? Does he teach questionable science at the university? Does writing and promoting one's books make one untrustworthy? I hope not, because alot of famous good people do that.
 
Last edited:
LOL Wow! So aside from whatever intense personal hatred or grudge you harbor for this man, for whatever reasons, what do you think of his descriptions of uaps? Do you think he is just making all that up? I happen to know about the Navy encounters he's talking about, and it's all on record. What possible motive would he have to lie about that? Does he teach questionable science at the university? Does writing and promoting one's books make one untrustworthy? I hope not, because alot of famous good people do that.

No mate he has a really bad rep for promoting sensational garbage, usually to sell books.
 
Back
Top