UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

The information is all from the actual eyewitness the event happened to.

No it isn't. This guy is telling his own story, in his own words about some other guy. In all his chattering, he ever actually quotes anything the other guy might have said.

Do you know what the Broken Telephone Game is?

I don't think an eyewitness account quits being an eyewitness account just because it is told by someone else.

There may or may not be an actual eyewitness account out there somewhere. This isn't it.
Yet you have labeled it as such. That is false. It is literally not what you claim it to be.

And irrefutably so. At no time does this guy1 at the bar say he's quoting even a single word the mysterious unnamed guy2 might have said. This is 100% guy1's story, in his own words, start to finish.

Doubling down again.

Regardless of what you think, you made it up. It's an embellishment. Admit this.

Just like the "lit" windows. This time, admit it before you have to be taken by the ear and marched out to the middle of the class to apologize like a naughty school child.

 

[C C]

Interesting eyewitness account of a 300 ft triangular uap observed hovering over his car by a senior US Naval officer. Actual physical evidence of the craft in the effects left on his car's paint indicating some kind of intense ultraviolet radiation. Totally credible accounts like these are enough to make a believer out of any skeptic!

19K views · 233 reactions | #ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting | Alien's Ufo | Alien's Ufo · Original audio

#ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting. Alien's Ufo · Original audio

www.facebook.com

Is that David Grusch? EDIT: It is. Seemed familiar. Clips of the rest of it distributed through the video below.

VIDEO LINK: New UFO details from Whistleblower David Grusch (Oct 6, 2023)

_

 

[Magical Realist]

Apparently it is Dave Grusch. But interestingly Chris Lehto (the anti-Mick West) is actually supporting the story as an authentic encounter with a 300 ft black triangular uap. See time mark 7:40. He points out that this sighting was a key turning point in Dave's experience turning him from a skeptic to a believer. I can certainly see why.

 

[Magical Realist]

Dave: Just like the "lit" windows. This time, admit it before you have to be taken by the ear and marched out to the middle of the class to apologize like a naughty school child.

What is your problem? You get wound up over the most petty things. Everyone here can see it. All this drama will just end up getting you more ignored.

 

[wegs]

Well, consider what would happen if we don't.

If we jump to an exotic explanation too quickly (too bad neither MR nor Yazata have the courage of their convictions to say what they believe that explanation is...). If we jump to exotica quickly, why stop at aliens?
Why not ghosts?
Why not angels?
Why not God himself?

They are all just as helpful in explaining anything we want them to.

"But this isn't a ghost/angel/God. It doesn't look like one at all!" they might say.
Really? What do those things look like? I mean, what do they look like that isn't part of the story-telling industry we've all come to believe that ghosts look like or angels look like or God looks like. Each of these things' appreance and behavior is just a pile of lore that is a house of cards waiting to topple. They have no foundation - No physical, extant, materially evidence to push them from idea into fact. They are beliefs.

Just like aliens.

No one has ever been able to produce an alien on a plate and say ""This, here, is what an alien actually looks like, and this is how he behaves."
No one has ever been able to produce a ghost on a plate and say ""This, here, is what a ghost actually looks like, and this is how it behaves."
No one has ever been able to produce an angel on a plate and say ""This, here, is what an angel actually looks like, and this is how it behaves."
No one has ever been able to produce a God on a plate and say ""This, here, is what God actually looks like, and this is how he behaves."

So no one can claim any given UAP can't be a ghost or an angel or God.

You see that jumping to an exotic solution before exhausting a more common solution (i.e. involving elements that we know for a fact actually already exist) snowballs rapidly to absurdities.


You'll notice, by the way, that both Yazata and Magical Realist already do moderate themselves this way instinctively.

Several times I have offered up "God did it." to MR as an explanation for some incident, and MR made it clear at the time that he did not believe in God and would brook no discussion of it.

Like all of us skeptics, MR has a limit beyond which he thinks an explanation is too exotic to consider - certainly not before he has exhausted what he considers more plausible explanations, such as aliens, or underwater merpeople or dimensional travellers.

For Yazata, it's ghosts. He simply thinks it's too exotic a solution to seriously consider.

We are all skeptics; we all have a line where we personally divide the plausible from the implausible, and we all stay on the near side of it until and unless pushed across it.

We all start off with the working hypothesis that "there's no 'there' there, until there's a 'there' there". That also known as the null hypothesis, and it is a cornerstone of, for one example, medicinal research.

See?

I agree that we should start from mundane explanations as the baseline, and explore out to the fringe from there. Hmm, I thought I implied that with my response to MR.

 

[DaveC426913]

What is your problem? You get wound up over the most petty things. Everyone here can see it. All this drama will just end up getting you more ignored.

To analysts of anomalous phenomena, the meaning of "eyewitness" is not a petty matter.
To analysts of anomalous phenomena, the meaning of "cannot be explained" is not a petty matter.

But good on you for putting it on record that you see these subject matter fundamentals as "petty".
That'll go down well when the chickens come home to roost.

Now run away again; those questions ain't gonna dodge themselves!

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree that we should start from mundane explanations as the baseline, and explore out to the fringe from there. Hmm, I thought I implied that with my response to MR.

It sounded like you were suggesting we critics start by assuming it's mundane. We don't assume. (That's what Magical Realist has been doing. He asserts things are in evidence that are not. That's an assumption.)

All we do, really, is say "show us this evidence that these things are extraordinary."

See, a dark object in the night sky that disappears is not exactly extraordinary. It happens all the time. We make no assumptions about what it is, we simply say "Well, lots of things disappear. So what?"

A dark object in the night sky that has the silhouette of a disk is not exactly extraordinary. It happens all the time. We make no assumptions about what it is, we simply say "Well, lots of things in the sky can have a silhouette that appears to be disk-like. So what?"

An object in the sky that has shapes that resemble windows is not exactly extraordinary, etc ...

The onus is always on those who make assertions to defend them.

I do not actually assert - or even think - it was a dirigible; I am simply pointing out that - with the smallest bit of critical analysis - one can easily find any number of possible non-extraordinary things about this incident.

You'll notice it's always the skeptics that take the time to dive deep into analysis of the incidents. You don't see any enthusiast here saying, "well, seeing as the altitude on the pilot's display says X, and the range is Y, it can be derived that the speed of the object was actually within the size and flight characteristics of a common goose..." This is te kond of thing our enthusiasts think is "pedantic".

No, what enthusiasts here say is little more than Math is hard. But lookit that thing go! Gotta be alien tech!
Or perhaps It has no wings, therefore alien tech!
And then on the the next shiny bauble.

Low quality incidents are really a drain on the thread. It only took a couple of posts of careful examination of the Golden CO report to show why it's quite problematic and low quality, and a few analytical posts is all it warranted (we're nearing 10,000 now, so...). They turn out be uninteresting, because they contain nothing that must be exotic as opposed to mundane.

What we skeptics are interested in is getting to the meat of the issue. We would like to concentrate on is the hypothetical case where there is sufficient examinable data that is incontrovertibly unexplainable by normal means. Even the best cases (eg. tic tac incident) simply have insuffiicent data to make any determination, and so there is little else to discuss, and they remain interesting but fruitless. For now. So we pass our time honing our skills and teaching others using the dribs and drabs of what we can get.



I'm actually using this content to start a book - a primer for UAP enthusiasts to hone their critical thinking skills. Each of Magical Realist's naive questions and assertions and ignorances will inspire the title of one chapter. And each chapter I will lead off with "That's a great question, little Billy! Here's why that's probematic. And here's how you analyze it..." (Of course, my readers have memories, and reading comprehension, and are able to learn, so I will only have to explain it once. That will prevent the book from having many, many duplicate chapters all with the same repetitive naive questions, assertions and ignorances, and thus prevent it from being 10,000 posts long.)

 

[Magical Realist]

To analysts of anomalous phenomena, the meaning of "eyewitness" is not a petty matter.

The account given is still the eyewitness's account, even though given by the person he told it to. Just like news reporters do with eyewitness accounts every day. It certainly doesn't suddenly become the account of the person telling it.

To analysts of anomalous phenomena, the meaning of "cannot be explained" is not a petty matter.

"Cannot be explained by mundane phenomena" means exactly what it says. To insist that it means or even implies "one day it may be explained by mundane phenomena" is lunacy. We've been over this. You had a hissy over it and reported me to try to get me banned again. Remember?

 

[DaveC426913]

The account given is still the eyewitness's account, even though given by the person he told it to. Just like news reporters do with eyewitness accounts every day. It certainly doesn't suddenly become the account of the person telling it.

Tripling down.

"Cannot be explained by mundane phenomena" means exactly what it says. To insist that it means or even implies "one day it may be explained by mundane phenomena" is lunacy. We've been over this. You had a hissy over it and reported me to try to get me banned again. Remember?

Quadrupling down.

 

[Magical Realist]

It's called sticking to my argument. Everyone does it. Even you sometimes..

 

[TheVat]

Interesting eyewitness account of a 300 ft triangular uap observed hovering over his car by a senior US Naval officer. Actual physical evidence of the craft in the effects left on his car's paint indicating some kind of intense ultraviolet radiation. Totally credible accounts like these are enough to make a believer out of any skeptic!

19K views · 233 reactions | #ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting | Alien's Ufo | Alien's Ufo · Original audio

#ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting. Alien's Ufo · Original audio

www.facebook.com

Bar stool data IS THE BEST!!!!

 

[DaveC426913]

It's called sticking to my argument. Everyone does it. Even you sometimes..

It's called simply repeating the same erroneous assertion, even when you have been shown patiently that - and how - it is wrong.

You have an obligation to address challenges to your assertions if you don't want to be labeled as just a popup troll. You are not addressing challenges. You are consistently dodging them, knowing full well you can't answer them without shooting off your own foot.

You know this. You've been marched out in front of the class multiple times for doubling and tripling down on claims that are false.

 

[Magical Realist]

It's called simply repeating the same erroneous assertion, even when you have been shown patiently that - and how - it is wrong.

No it's called reframing my argument and repeating it when you fail to address it. It's like what you did with that stupid car color analogy, repeating it over and over until I addressed it. It's the way arguing goes. Unless you wanna just agree to disagree there's really no other way around that impasse.

 

[Magical Realist]

Bar stool data IS THE BEST!!!!

LOL I scrutinized their setting. It's a conference room with coffee and water.

 

[DaveC426913]

until I addressed it.

Except you didn't.

 

[Magical Realist]

UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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"...

www.sciforums.com

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

I've never heard of that definition of anomalous as "harder to solve that usual."

Nobody is as stupid as you pretend to be.

The word "anomalous" means only "deviating from the general or common order or type".

When somebody describes or labels something "anomalous" it means merely that they have identified some feature, or combination of features, that distinguishes the thing from other "general" or "common" examples of those types of things.

The next question any intelligent person ought to ask after they hear something described as "anomalous" is: in what way(s) did this thing differ from common examples of similar things?

Now consider the term "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon". The acronym UAP is used to label a certain class of reported observations. We note several things:

1. What is being described is a phenomenon of some kind. "Phenomenon" is a general placeholder word that just refers to something perceived using the senses, as opposed to things that known through intuition or reasoning.
2. The particular phenomenon in question is currently unidentified. That is, it has not been identified as any particular object - not as a blimp, or as a weather effect, or as an alien spaceship, or as a ghost, or as an individual from a superadvanced species that lives at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, or as God.
3. The unidentified phenomenon is anomalous in some sense.

This last item - the 'anomalous' bit - is worth thinking about a bit more, after you've got to first base and worked out what 'unidentified' means. In what possible sense could an unidentified thing possibly be 'anomalous'?

Obviously, 'anomalous' can't mean that some non-human technology is apparent, for instance, because we've already agreed that whatever the 'phenomonon' is that we're examining, it has not been identified. So it can't be that it differs from common examples of things seen in the sky because it has identifiable non-human technology. No non-human technology has been identified. If it had been, we wouldn't be putting the label 'unidentified' on it.

The only meaning of 'anomalous' that makes any sense at all in this context is that the observed 'phenomenon' has reported features that make it differ in some way from 'common' or 'general' examples of things typically reported in the sky. That is, the report(s) about the 'phenomenon' are 'anomalous', not necessarily whatever the 'phenomenon' itself might eventually turn out to be, when it is eventually identified (if it ever is).

In other words, the word 'anomalous' in the context of UAP merely indicates that certain characteristics of the observation (e.g. elements in the reporting or circumstances of the observation) are unusual, compared to run-of-the-mill and quickly resolved sightings of the planet Venus, for instance.

Because certain elements stick out as being 'unusual', or due to other factors surrounding the observations (very often this means low quality data), making a positive ID is more difficult than usual.

As you can see, "harder to solve than usual" is all that the word 'anomalous' can really convey in the case of an unidentified phenomenon.

Of course, if somebody were to actually find pieces of a crashed alien spaceship, say, and they were confirmed to be technology beyond human capacity to create, then we'd no longer be dealing with an unidentified phenomenon. We'd be dealing with a phenomenon that has been identified as pieces of a crashed alien spaceship - i.e. definitely not a UAP. The items from the crash would still be 'anomalous', in the sense that when compared against all other known examples of technology, they differ: all other known examples are identifiably made by human beings (or other 'mundane' animals), but this one is clearly made by Something From Space. But at this point, we'd be way beyond 'UAP'. That would no longer be a description with any utility for this particular (set of) object(s).

Now to the inanities, which is where you play the clown and pretend to be the village idiot, as usual.

Is a problem in mathematics "anomalous" because it is harder to solve than usual?

Possibly. In this case the problem would differ from the common or general in the sense of being particular hard to solve, and therefore 'anomalous'. This is assuming, of course, that most maths problems are easy to solve, and I'm not convinced that's true.

Is a puzzle "anomalous" because it is harder to solve than usual? Or a murder case?

See the maths problem example above. The same thing applies.

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

It can't mean that, because the thing would have to have been identified to the extent that things previously known to mankind have been ruled out as possible IDs. But for a UAP, that can't be the case, due to the 'U', which stands for unidentified, as I have explained (many times).

IOW, a phenomenon that defies any current attempts to scientifically explain it.

That is simply an unidentified phenomenon. An identified thing is not automatically 'anomalous', in the sense of being "something previously unknown to mankind". You can't fail to see why, now that DaveC and I have explained it so thoroughly to you, many times. Right?

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/

We've been through this You ought to mentally append the word "currently" after the word "cannot" in that sentence.

NASA would be stupid to claim that, because something has not yet been identified, it never will be, or that it will be impossible ever to ID it. NASA isn't stupid.

Are you stupid?

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

There are no documented events or objects in the sky that cannot be explained naturally. Not as far as anybody knows, right now.

So this businessinsider.com mistake can safely be ignored. Clearly, the author of this doesn't know what s/he is talking about. Making the same silly mistakes as you.

 

[James R]

What a strange thing to say.

I said "Nobody can describe something unknown." That's an accurate statement, not strange.

People describe things all the time that are unknown, especially when it comes to uaps. A 40 ft long tic tac...

Tic tacs are something known. Things that are 40 ft long are familiar.

... a transparent cube with a sphere in it...

Cubes and spheres are known things. Transparency is a known thing.

... a metallic orb, a metallic disc, a large black triangle, etc.

You keep describing things that are known: metal, orbs, discs, triangles: known, known, known, known. All known.

Such are clearly instances of describing things that are unknown and unidentified.

Don't be silly. You know what metal is. You know what a triangle is. You know what a tic tac is. Stop clowning.

 

[James R]

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.

In other words, you're agreeing with DaveC that the words "cannot be identified" often just mean "has not yet been identified".

Right?

Those words almost never mean "will never be able to be identified" or "is impossible to ever identify" or "must be something previously unknown to Mankind".

This is a simple exercise in ordinary comprehension. Isn't it?

UAPs otoh by NASA's own definition simply cannot be identified as anything mundane.

Which, we can agree, just means "simply have not been identified as anything mundane yet".

Right?

Nobody can predict the future, so this doesn't rule out the possibility that, some day, they might just be identified as something non-mundane.

Agree?

No "not yet" or "maybe someday someone else can" about it.

NASA isn't stupid. Are you stupid? Or just clowning?

 

[James R]

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. "But it's frustrating that the rest of the problems 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.

All these are examples in which the words "cannot be identified" means "cannot be identified but one day might be".

Under the ground rules for the briefing, the official cannot be identified.
The man, referred to in court only as P, cannot be identified.

In this case "cannot be" means "is not permitted to be". These are examples of situations were somebody's permission is needed to act in a certain way.

You don't think these examples are in the same category as the ones above, do you? Are you confused?

See, this is why comprehension is important. One must be aware of how language is commonly used by mundane human beings.

If one insists, stupidly, that words can only ever have one fixed meaning, one has little chance of being able to operate effectively in the real world.