UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you suggesting an analogy similar to say humans coming across an ants nest, as comparisons in intelligence?
I don't buy that at all. While certainly any Alien species visiting Earth would need to be far in advance of us, it would be obvious to them that we were also to a lesser extent, also intelligent....mostly anyway. Again, why would they not want to converse? Of the 5% or so that remain as unexplained by natural sources, are they all different species of Aliens? Or from the same planet?
We as an example have tried to make contact with Apes Dolphins Whales etc I don't see why any potential obviously advanced Alien species, would not want to converse with us if at all possible.

Not at all. The small percentage that remain, are bizarre [some of them] but certainly not conclusive.
Another question, many, probably most scientists would speculate that in a universe of near infinite extent and content, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, that ETL should exist, then why wouldn't said scientists jump with glee at any evidence for Aliens, if it was indeed conclusive evidence, or to use your words, the totality of evidence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can play your game. Above "quote" is not an accurate quote. If you can't get that much right why should anyone take anything else you say seriously?
Like that James? I could keep going but unlike yourself I hate wasting time doing so.

I would never hang my hat on the basis of one incident like that Zimbabwe one. Nevertheless, note the skeptic's tactic in the article you linked to is basically inferential and ironically suggestive. All 62 children were carelessly nay shamelessly coached and all went along with a purely fabricated yarn. Too bad that scenario fails to mention the 'trifling matter' of afaik exactly zero retractions/confessions out of 62 witnesses after decades have passed, and the now mature adults doggedly stick to the same story. Such matters never bother the True Unbeliever.

Can you Google up a similar 'debunking' for say the eerily similar 1966 Westall UFO incident? Let us know how many confessions/retractions you can turn up for that one too. Good luck.

You assert there (just as you simply assert throughout your #4064) those now well publicized and scrutinized US Navy encounters have been adequately debunked by presumably yourself. I say that's BS. Link to your earlier best-shot debunking postings on those cases. Or of others you approve of. This should be fun. Might even amount to some light relief against Covid-19 gloom.

 

How many times do I need repeat - stop projecting your limited idea of 'proper alien decorum'. None of us - certainly not you - can have any real idea of their perspective or intentions or motivations.
Other than to say there is a disturbing running theme of deceitfulness in many recorded incidents. I don't mean human deceit (that happens too of course), I mean deceit by at least some of those entities supplying UFO phenomena for their own purposes.

 

Ok, call it 'assholism' then. (I don't like assholes either.)

Of course it applies. Just read all the insults in this thread and attend to where all the rudeness in this thread is coming from and where it's directed. It's all flowing in one direction and it reminds me of medieval responses to heresy.

I don't think that rudeness, insults and sarcasm are the best responses to people who say things that we don't happen to agree with. Rhetorically, insults are a piss-poor way of replying to disagreement, since they are just guaranteed to anger our opponents, harden them in their opposition to us and make them even less inclined to abandon their own position and agree with us.

More fundamentally, I don't think that our current ideas, even when they are dubbed with the honorific "science", necessarily constrain what can and can't happen in reality. At best, science provides us with an explanatory framework for what we observe and creates expectations about what we think will happen in the future. But science shouldn't be confused with reality's underlying metaphysics and it doesn't really dictate what can and can't happen. Science is just a collection of human ideas about the natural world after all, and our beliefs have no causal power over anything but our own behavior.

What's more, I still damnably believe that our beliefs are almost certainly incomplete and most likely in some cases wrong, such that reality still possesses the ability to surprise us by presenting us with phenomena that we simply didn't expect.

So I'm something of a Fortean I guess and I welcome the possibility of anomalies and even seek them out. I don't feel compelled to deny them or try to insult them back into oblivious oblivion. (Out of sight, out of mind. Things don't cease to exist when we turn our backs on them.) The prospect of reality revealing new and unexpected aspects doesn't make me angry... or afraid (fight-or-flight). It speaks to my sense of transcendence, I guess.

 

Q-reeus, I don't understand, you do seem to be saying mischievous or at best inquisitive streak entities may '' Prod diverse members the 'Earth colony' in various ways and closely monitor results.''
From an earlier post on this thread.

 

Made up episode by a commenter on the article James linked to. Trying to pass this off as a real event is beneath even you James. Is that all you got?

 

I liked and agreed with what might be called the earlier Vallee position (in Anatomy of a Phenomenon particularly) but haven't read any of his more recent books. MR has and I agree that he appears to be influenced by Vallee.

I'm inclined to attribute much of it to psychological or sociological influences. I tend to see much of it as contemporary folklore in other words. Something that repackages the ancient mythology of heavenly visitors in modern quasi-"scientific" form (spaceships!). So I question whether there was ever anything material there, 'materialized out of thin air' or not. I'm not ready to embrace any non-material intelligence hypotheses at this point, though I can't totally dismiss them. (I'd assign them a low informal likelihood, though I might turn out to be wrong.)

Or an item of constantly growing folklore.

But... having said that, I'm not convinced that everything seen in the sky can be dismissed as folklore.

Right. Those are perhaps the best UFO sightings that I'm aware of. As I've written previously, I think that the preponderance of the evidence points to something physical being present. I have no idea what it was, though my speculations (that's all they are) lean towards some secret aircraft type.

I'm inclined to agree. Though it might be more defensible if it's merely somebody's criterion for whether they personally will accept it as being space aliens. Their criterion may or may not be reasonable, but it's theirs. Hard to argue with that.

Of course, assuming that UFO's in the unknown phenomenon sense don't exist unless they can be shown to be space aliens prejudges the nature of the phenomenon inexcusably in my opinion.

 

"The children then ran back to the school in a panic and explained the bizarre series of events to the adults, who were at first apprehensive and not a little skeptical about it all. The children were then asked to separately draw pictures of what they had seen, and spookily what was depicted on paper was eerily the same across the board. It was at this point that the adults began to believe that perhaps something really unexplainable had happened out on that rural schoolyard, and that it was not merely the imaginations of a bunch of scared kids."---- https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/02/the-mysterious-mass-alien-encounter-of-zimbabwe/

 

Proper Alien decorum?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How many times would these Aliens need to resort to deceitfulness do you think?
Are they all [the scientifically unexplained claims] the same species of Aliens?
And obviously they all make sure that they leave nothing that points to there existence behind...you know, like Alien containers, some urine, some excreta, needles or any number of other things...perhaps some experiments like we left on the Moon. So other then projecting my limited ideas on how Aliens would or should act, which you seem to have a problem with, you prefer to accept eye witness accounts of Alien piloted UFO's and simply rule out all the other mundane possibilities, like weather and cloud phenomena, some possibly unknown, mirages, illusions etc.

Oh, and you failed to tell me why scientists that speculate we should not be alone, would not jump at the chance of conclusive evidence that ETL does exist.

And just as an aside, thanks for the polite exchange on this matter.

 

One raindrop? Where are the other raindrops? Why is it black? Why is it shaped horizontally relative to the windscreen? Why is it not streaking upward? Why does the car move past it along with the trees?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.rt.com/viral/339770-ufo-ohio-flying-saucer/

 

You mean like trained and experienced Navy pilots mistaking the flare of a jet for a rotating ufo on their FLIR camera or mistaking a flock of seagulls for a 40 foot long tic tac or multiple radar systems all picking up a fleet of targets that aren't really there at the same time? Nobody considers that explanation because it is so obviously unlikely and contrived that it only exposes the ideological bias and denialism of the skeptical mindset. It's nothing more than deliberately made up excuses to dismiss ufos as real phenomena. That's why your "explanations" don't even make the news headlines. People would laugh if they read such blatant BS.

 

This is a science board. Derision of skepticism is utterly antithetical to science.

You are anti-science.

You provide the reports - let us handle the analysis.

 

I'll post whatever I choose within sci forum guidelines.

 

Indeed. You could use a refresher, particularly of this bit:

"... respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument..."

 

I never mentioned the scientific method. Ideological skepticism has nothing to do with science. It's more of a blind faith in a naturalist worldview. It is the fanatical and emotionally-based attempt to protect disbelief in the face of all contrary evidence.

 

No you need physics for that

Nor do they come into existence because we think they exist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think you well understand what I was parodying there - a style of argument for want of a better word, that is hollow and lacking any genuineness.
Technically, by enclosing words in "", it should have been an actual quote of me but wasn't and as it reads doesn't even make complete sense. But that's not the real issue as I have already pointed out.