UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Mom, dad I want to be a armchair expert who has an agenda of debunking all ufo sightings

So it's years of study of Astronomy for me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would that be the person who didn't even have the presence of mind to take note of the time?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The person who knew it wasn't a star or a planet because it was moving from the NE towards the peak of Mt. Shasta and flashing like a strobe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MR: "Four moving lights in the sky? Could it be UFOs??"

Me:
"Here is the sky
- on that exact day,
- at that exact time,
- at that exact location,
- looking in that exact direction,
- showing exactly one light, followed shortly by three more lights,
- moving up the sky over the mountain,
- scintillating just like they should be for objects in exactly those atmospheric conditions."

MR: "Definitely an unsolvable mystery! What an inexplicable place is the world!"

 

I never said it was an unsolvable mystery. It's just not a star or planet. See posted link about "earth lights".

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-396#post-3708300

 

Uh. North East.

Isn't it funny how the events of an account can get mangled in the retelling? Huh!

It's almost like we should probably not take every claimed fact of an account as gospel - especially when it's passed down from teller to teller...

It's almost as if ... as if your memory is not completely reliable!

 

How does it traveling from the NE and halting over the peak of Mt. Shasta entail it is the Planet Venus? Does Venus do that? No..It doesn't move like that at all.

 

Oh, so you're going back and correcting your faulty memory of reading the incident?

Who was it who said perception and memory are perfectly reliable? Who was it who attempted to use that supposed reliability as a defense that people don't forget or alter facts of accounts?

Oh right. That was you.



Please take time time to actually read the articles you post here. It would go a long way to separating the high quality wheat from the low-quality chaff of your dalliances.

 

Right.. Change the subject when backed into a corner. Typical..

 

It has been demonstrated - on this very page, and for posterity - that neither you, nor the eyewitness, have the skills or inclination to accurately recount what was and was not seen.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but that opinion is weighed against your historical inability or unwillingness to bring any rational analysis, logic - or even faithful recounting - to bear on the subject.


So, do you have any reports where the erstwhile eyewitness has the presence of mind to record something as fundamental as the time of the events?
(Please post links, do not try to write your own version of the account - it is as likely to be littered with fabrications as not.)

 

You can't say that. You weren't there, remember? That "I wasn't there" door swings both ways.

(See above, under "unwillingness to bring logic to bear").

 

The eyewitness account is of moving lights that travel across the sky and hover over Mt. Shasta. There's no debating it. Either you dismiss their account or you accept it. It's obvious you are doing the former to fit your (or is it James's?) forgone conclusion that they are stars or planets. No amount of vaunted expertise or astronomical knowledge on your part can excuse that. Google confirmation bias.

 

I can say that because I know the eyewitness's account rules out stars or planets. The lights were observed moving across the sky and hovering over Mt Shasta. That excludes the possibility of stars or planets.

 

Nothing in that account rules out Mars and three bright stars as the culprits

As previously stated:

You are in no position to rebut that.


However, being able to show objective irrefutable facts (i.e. that four celestial bodies were at the right place, at the right time, and quite plausibly doing the right thing) is objectively much more reliable evidence - in terms of objectivity, repeatability and independent verification - than a demonstrably inexperienced eyewitness. Objectivity, repeatability and independent verification is the Holy Grail of analysis.

 

LOL Except that Mars and three stars don't move across the sky and hover over Mt Shasta.

 

"But as it flew slowly and silently over the tops of the forest it it began to act like a strobe light. It eventually flew over to, hmmm maybe a couple of thousand feet to the top of the mountain off to the right a bit from my angle. It basically just stopped or parked itself in one spot and began to strobe."

Yep...definitely not a star or planet..

How do "we" know that?

 

: insert foghorn 's list of quotes where you repeatedly claim not to judge, assert, analyze or draw conclusions or whatever your current hypocrisy-of-the-day might be :

Stay in your lane; leave the analysis to the grownups who have the skills and inclination.


The witness also said "...it could be anything." which is our cue to analyze and interpret his fumblings for understanding.
It has been explained how inexperienced observers see things moving and also see the same things not moving. His description is well within line of the celestial objects visible during that time.

Since you have admittedly no skill or interest in the sciences of physics, optics or perception, you have no argument otherwise. Any opinions you might have are given appropriate weight.

Because he is so inexperienced that he delivered a crap account of events. If he didn't have the presence of mind to observe the single most basic unit of an event - the time - then it is prudent to assume he is capable of being just as sloppy at any aspect that is more complex than that.

There is ample objective, irrefutable, independently verifiable evidence that it could be bog standard celestial objects - of which there were just the right amount, in just the right place, at just the right time, doing just the right thing. There is zero evidence of any other explanation. There is also zero evidence that there is - or ever will be - any more information bound to come to light about this hapless witness' story.


I think as this point you are just trolling - pretending to be bloody-headed just for the amusement of watching us analyze - something which you not only don't bother to do - but demonstrably disdain. That's OK. It's all on-record.

 

LOL So just because he didn't report the time of the sighting makes him an unreliable and inexperienced witness? Nope. That doesn't follow at all. You assume the incompetence of the eyewitness only because it fits your contrived narrative of the lights being stars and planets. A made up narrative that doesn't fit the details of the eyewitness account at all.