UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[James R]

froze:

You really should have taken a little time to look around the forum and work out the navigation.

If you had looked at the subforum list here, you would have noticed that there is a section of subforums labelled "science" and another section labelled "On the fringe". Guess what? The ones marked "science" are for discussions of science, and the ones marked "On the fringe" are for discussions of "fringe" beliefs and claims.

Check which forum the current thread is in.

I gave the FACTS, and you all dispute them, this is not a science forum, it's a forum for things like Big Foot, little green men, Mothman, fairies, superstitions, etc, that are all myths.

Actually, all I did was to ask you whether you could support some claims that you made.

Apparently, being asked to provide evidence and such is too much for you, so you're throwing a bit of a temper tantrum. The problem seems to be on your end, not on ours.

These myths all stem from the same aspect of the human psyche: the desire for and fascination with an 'other'. The idea of a wild, man-like 'other' creature co-existing with us but just beyond our understanding is heavily rooted in mythology.

That's all well and good, but it's a different topic than the one we're talking about in this thread.

Bigfoot for example, is the modern American manifestation of a human-wide cultural concept, not a zoological reality, it embodies other less romantic but no less enduring American traits, like gullibility and a hunger for attention, and that's why there are so many fake videos. That can example can be applied to UFOs, little green men, etc.

Again, while this is a worthwhile discussion to have, it's a little off-topic for what was being discussed before you came in to tell us all that you have everything worked out.

I know for a fact what happened at Roswell New Mexico, why do I know what happened is fact? Because I had some family that lived there back when the event occurred! It was NOT an UFO, it was an American spy balloon sent to take pictures over Russia sensitive nuclear testing sites, and on the return trip it was suppose to drop a film cannister onto a designated drop zone in White Sands Missile Test Range but it never did because of a storm in the region that blew it off course and crashed about 50 miles East from the Test Range, and 75 miles North West of Roswell My relatives knew the farmer, and were one of the many townsfolk who opened alien gift shops! That's one of the reasons I don't believe in UFOs, along with what I mentioned in my first and second paragraph, and due to all evidence is aways later found out to be faked.

That's interesting. Let's assume that the Roswell "crashed UFO" was a case of mistaken identity, for the sake of argument. Are you aware that this would not invalidate any other UFO sighting?

Just because one - or seven - or hundreds - of purported sightings of alien spacecraft have been shown to be fakes or mistakes, one cannot therefore conclude that every such sighting must be a fake or a mistake.

I'm not going to come here any more, because I thought this site would have rational discussions, but that's not the case, so I simply wish not to waste my time with such nonsense, which should be a huge sigh of relief for all of you.

You're being a bit of a baby. Your choice. Have a nice life.

 

[DaveC426913]

I gave the FACTS, and you all dispute them

Facts are things that are so broadly agreed upon that they are not in dispute.
I am pretty sure that if you indeed listed facts, we would not disagree with them.
Can you list some of those facts?
What I saw you provide was mostly theories and speculation, just like the rest of us.

it's a forum for things like Big Foot, little green men, Mothman, fairies, superstitions, etc, that are all myths. These myths all stem from the same aspect of the human psyche: the desire for and fascination with an 'other'. The idea of a wild, man-like 'other' creature co-existing with us but just beyond our understanding is heavily rooted in mythology.

This is a science forum. This particular sub-forum is for UFOs and other fringe topics. You have been around long enough to know this.

I don't think you have actually read the posts you are criticizing. Whatever else you figure may be going on, we're simply analyzing a photo. Nobody has said anything about little green men or bigfoot. You are way off-base.

If you were to read back in the thread (you won't, but let me assure you) you will find that none of us who are currently active believe any sighting listed here, or elsewhere, is evidence of any alien visitation. The trolls and believers have mostly left (or been perma-banned) under an onslaught of rational analysis by the rest of us.

Bigfoot for example, is the modern American manifestation of a human-wide cultural concept, not a zoological reality, it embodies other less romantic but no less enduring American traits, like gullibility and a hunger for attention, and that's why there are so many fake videos. That can example can be applied to UFOs, little green men, etc.

Great. None of which has anything to do with what we're discussing here. Please stay on topic.

I know for a fact what happened at Roswell New Mexico

What does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about Roswell New Mexico.

, why do I know what happened is fact? Because I had some family that lived there back when the event occurred! It was NOT an UFO, it was an American spy balloon sent to take pictures over Russia sensitive nuclear testing sites, and on the return trip it was suppose to drop a film cannister onto a designated drop zone in White Sands Missile Test Range but it never did because of a storm in the region that blew it off course and crashed about 50 miles East from the Test Range, and 75 miles North West of Roswell My relatives knew the farmer, and were one of the many townsfolk who opened alien gift shops!

But we're not talking about Roswell New Mexico. None of this is relevant to the discussion at-hand. Is this the same guy who's complaining about not being rational?

That's one of the reasons I don't believe in UFOs,

We're also not talking about what we "believe". If you want to do that, I suggest to try the Religion forum. What were doing here is analyzing a photo.

This thread is about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. The Calvine photos definitely falls into that category.

along with what I mentioned in my first and second paragraph, and due to all evidence is aways later found out to be faked.

Wait. So your logic is: "Some incidents turned out to be faked. Therefore all other incidents are faked." That is terrible logic.

It is also demonstrably false. Almost all UAP incidents turn out to be misidentifications of known objects such as Venus, airplanes, birds, etc. Very few turn out to be hoaxes.

It would be great if we could identify the Calvine photo as a known object. That's certainly one of the possibilities that's on the table.

To insist that it has been "determined to be hoax" without compelling facts is as closed-minded as any UFO enthusiast believing it's little green men. It's irrational.

What you have is a hypothesis at-best. And, if you make good on your thread not to return, you won't be able to defend it with evidence in its favour. Pity.

I'm not going to come here any more, because I thought this site would have rational discussions, but that's not the case,

Frankly, I doubt you would know a rational discussion if it bit you on the nose.

1] I don't think you've read the previous discussion about the Calvine incident at all, because you're asserting things have been said that simply aren't true. You made them up.

Here is an example:

"...only the figment of your imagination keeps the myth alive for you because you refuse to see the facts because you want to believe in a myth so strongly you can see nothing else..."

No one currently engaged in this discussion is "keeping any myth alive" - unless you mean simply participating in a discussion about it, which - if it's as simple as that - you are now likewise guilty.

No one here "believes in any myth", let alone "want to believe" in it. We too think little green men are baseless wishful thinking. That does not mean we, as skeptics, simply close our minds and plug our ears to incidents. That would be as closed-minded as any UFO-enthusiast.

By the way, We didn't start this thread - a UFO enthusiast did. But we enjoy dismantling the wishful thinking of irrational (and occasionally dishonest) believers. We simply analyze when new information comes in. We go where the evidence takes us. So far it has taken us mostly to misidentified known objects.


2] You have completely and utterly misunderstood anything that has been posted. I think you made a knee-jerk reaction - I dunno, maybe you scanned every fifth word and just assumed we're UFO nuts?

Whatever you thought, your reaction was bathed in emotion. The only one not being rational here is you. Look:

"I heard from a friend that Roswell was a hoax, therefore all UAP incidents are hoaxes." This is as flawed as "I saw a swan and it was white, therefore all swans are white".

so I simply wish not to waste my time with such nonsense, which should be a huge sigh of relief for all of you.

If, to you, critical thinking and objective analysis is nonsense, then this is not the place for you.

Good bye

I doubt it. Clearly, you are strongly emotionally invested, and I'll wager you're not ready to let it go.

 

[TheVat]

My photo analysis consultant looked, said she thought it might be a deceptive perspective across a still lake surface with an object floating in it whose lower half is a reflection of the projecting part. Once you see that, it becomes difficult to unsee it. Then the Harrier becomes simply a reflected aerial object. In which case, the photo location was elsewhere than the Calvine hillside. And there's nothing in the frame to definitively pinpoint a geographic location.

 

[DaveC426913]

My photo analysis consultant looked, said she thought it might be a deceptive perspective across a still lake surface with an object floating in it whose lower half is a reflection of the projecting part. Once you see that, it becomes difficult to unsee it. Then the Harrier becomes simply a reflected aerial object. In which case, the photo location was elsewhere than the Calvine hillside. And there's nothing in the frame to definitively pinpoint a geographic location.

That was a hypothesis that has received a lot of attention and analysis. It turns out to be a lot harder to do than it looks. So the caveat is: A cursory glance is insufficient to move the needle to plausible.

Because the devil is in the details. The geometry to get the right angle without reflection of branches and distant horizon etc. is prohibitive.

1. It needs to have been be on a slope looking up at a pond surface. Not a lot of ponds at the crests of hills in that area. Very, very difficult to get those elements in the pic with that orientation without unwanted elements.

One guy did a 3D geographical reconstruction in Blender to see if he could mimic the required conditions. But considering the geometric gymnastics required, I think he pulled a muscle.

2. In reality, reflections of objects in the surface of water are almost universally darker than the primary object. In the photo, the object appears to be lit - not as a refection, but as a normal upright object - lighter on top, darker on bottom. This is deemed inconsistent with a reflection. That doesn't rule it out - just means it's harder to explain.

3. It's also pretty hard to get a perfectly flat water surface, with zero distortions, as this would have to be. (Again: the report concluded that there was no out-of-camera manipulation, such as blanking out spurious objects like horizon and branches or eliminating waves or ripples.)

4. The Harrier would have to be flying upside down. Not definitively ruled out, Harriers are probably technically capable of flying upside down, but they're low speed VTOL craft: they simply don't have any reason to fly upside down - even in a banking turn. So it raises more questions than it answers.


So there's at least four requirements that need to be tortured into position to get the 'reflection' hypothesis to move toward possible, let alone plausible. Donlt let your casual glance at photo short circuit your dispassionate analysis.


The report does go into a little detail on the reflection hypothesis, but other articles (possibly in Wiki?) that explore it in more depth. I haven't had the chance to dig them up again to post them.

 

[TheVat]

Thanks, Dave. We were very much at the cursory glance stage with the image, so I appreciate your list of ways the reflection hypothesis is problematic. And I agree the geometry would be really weird to have all those angles work out. My (and my partner's) reaction does underscore how one interpretation can start and then cling tenaciously in one's perceptions.