UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

This approach means basing your conclusion on superficial appearances only. It certainly takes less effort than any other approach, but it's also far more prone to error. This is certainly not a scientific approach.

Also an unscientific approach. It would be wrong to dismiss things out of hand, without any investigation, just as it is wrong to accept appearances out of hand, without investigation.

Options 1 and 2 are for lazy people who don't want to have to hoist themselves off the couch long enough to put any real effort into finding the correct answer.

Similarly, the conviction that the reports describe things previously unknown to science (option 1) results in people generating speculate scenarios (undersea superhuman bases, anyone?) acceptable to them in their estimation might have resulted in the report.

What I find intriguing is why you, Yazata, concentrate your criticisms on lazy skeptics, while giving a free pass to lazy believers. Perhaps you can explain.

There's a problem with your insistence of "consilience", which I have pointed out to you before. You insist that all aspects of a complicated "sighting", which can involve multiple witnesses (possibly but not necessarily independent) and/or multiple modalities of "detection" (radar, eyesight, infrared camera etc.), must necessarily have the same single cause, every time. In other words, you insist that if person A sees a blip on the radar, and person B sees a blip on the infrared camera of his fighter jet, then blip A and blip B must be caused by the same thing. That is, you assume "consilience". But that is an assumption just like any other. Correlation does not imply causation. Events that are close to one another in time can often have different causes.

"Complex" sightings are usually complex precisely because there are multiple pieces of evidence to be examined. Very often, in UFO cases, pieces of evidence are actually found to contradict one another, or to raise other inconsistencies. Multiple eyewitnesses report seeing "the object" at different times, or in different directions in the sky. Pilots disagree with radar operators on what "the UFO" did, in terms of manoeuvres. Two eyewitnesses describe different shapes for "the UFO". etc. One possible resolution of these difficulties is that different witnesses and/or different instruments, observed different objects (if they were, in fact, objects).

You might respond that "consilience" has simplicity as a guideline - a kind of Occam's razor. What are the chances that two independent witnesses both saw something strange at around the same time, but not the same strange thing? There are lots of possible answers to that one, too, but since you don't seem to want to talk with me I won't waste more time.

Again, I see a double standard here. You are quite willing to assume that the "conditions" for an alien visitation always exist, despite that being "hypothetical" in the extreme. Yet when it comes to conditions where, say, birds might fly over a school of fish out in the ocean, that's apparently too far fetched for you.

Okay. All good, then! I look forward to seeing you actively seeking out more information in future posts on UFOs.

 

Note the weasel words again from MR.

"Unknown as to its origin". You see, MR is sure that he already knows what it is. He just doesn't know where it comes from. It could be a superhuman base under the sea, or from another dimension. But at least he's sure it's a craft with pilots.

He is also trying to get you believe that skeptics consider a UFO to be "officially identified" if they can come up with a speculative scenario that fits the available facts.

Hopefully, wegs, you're starting to read MR's posts more carefully, so you're better equipped to spot this sort of mendacity.

What MR means is that if any eyewitness describes a "craft", he's happy to "stick to" that description. After all, it's what he wants it to be. Note also the assumptions built into the term "flight manoeuvers". MR is, again, jumping the gun by assuming that there is a "craft" that flies and can "manoeuver" under the control of "pilots". That is not established, in most cases. Rather, it is very much a central question that requires evidence in support.

MR takes Yazata's approach number 1, detailed above. That is, he assumes "piloted craft" based on appearance.

He is usually telling lies when he claims to have data on "performance" of these things. Usually it turns out the eyewitnesses don't even have hard data on "performance". Much more often, all they have are guesses. DaveC discussed that above, regarding the speed, size and distance to objects in the sky.

This is the starting point of all of Magical Realist's problems. He starts by assuming the paranormal and the fantastical. Then, he generalises all sightings to group them all under the heading of "paranormal superhuman beings piloting advanced craft with amazing flight characteristics".

The better approach is not to start with poor assumptions, but to follow the evidence.

 

wegs:

One of the problems with MR's dishonesty is that he constantly mixes his opinions with the facts and therefore tries to pass off his opinions as facts. He tries to slip his assumptions into the discussion, hoping that they won't be questioned, but just subconsciously accepted.

Insisting on referring to a light in the sky, or a blob on an IR camera screen, as a "craft" is an effort to skew people's thinking into the undebated assumption that it is, in fact, a vehicle of some kind. An honest interlocutor, in contrast, would just call it what it is (a light in the sky, a blob on the radar screen, etc.).

Well, it could be that. But it could also be lots of other things. One piece of advice: don't get too attached to a theory just because it's yours. Be open to following the evidence where it leads. Sure, keep "advanced technology aircraft" in the mix of possibilities you're willing to consider. Keep "alien spacecraft" in the mix, too, by all means. But don't over-egg the evidence to try to make it fit the explanation you think is most likely. This, by the way, is something that Yazata obviously has convinced himself that many/most skeptics do out of a desire to "debunk" the idea of aliens. I say he's wrong about that, but you can decide for yourself. One thing's for sure, though: MR is indisputably willing to ignore facts (or a lack of them) to make the evidence fit the mould he wants for it. He's also willing to tell lies.

I would hope it is because there are clear and sensible rules of engagement for the military. One of those sensible rules would be not to attack something until you know it's a threat.

I don't know about you, but I don't want a trigger-happy military. That might get me killed by accident.

Personally - and I've said this before - I think that the US military might have some good ideas about what the "tic tacs" might have been, but they aren't making those ideas public. On the other hand, it could be that they really don't know. Perhaps they should watch Mick West's videos, for starters.

Most UFO sightings are one-offs. There's no point in the airforce sending out some planes to where somebody saw a UFO yesterday, because in most cases they will probably find nothing useful. In other words, the time for meaningful intervention is probably past by the time a UFO report comes to light, usually. That's also a problem for investigation; the evidence is often ephemeral.

I would suggest that people in the military are still people. Also, they are not necessarily trained UFO investigators, and so not necessarily aware of how the skeptical community, say, would usually approach a UFO investigation. Being in the military certainly doesn't give you some kind of immunity to believing in woo, either (ghosts, little green men, pyramid power, whatever). There's no test that excludes believers in woo from joining the air force.

Be very careful about claims about the speeds, distances and sizes of objects in the sky. See DaveC's post, above. Estimates of the size, speed and distances of objects in the sky - especially if they are done just by eye - are notoriously unreliable.

Of course. Every narrative brought to this thread - especially by MR - is one that has done the rounds of the UFO believer community already. You can be sure that all the usual spooky elements will be present in any story MR brings here. He won't bring the thousands of cases where UFO sightings have been positively IDed as weather balloons, the planet Venus, ordinary aircraft, etc. This can make it seem like inexplicable UFOs are common. They aren't. The vast majority are explained/explainable.

Were they, though? My impression is that they were met with a lot of credulity and not enough skepticism.

One thing to consider, perhaps: how many US airforce planes have crashed/been shot down/been lost in association with all UFO sightings? The answer would be very close to zero, I think. If that's the case, then UFOs don't seem to be a threat. Agree?

 

MR hasn't done any research. He has zero interest in that. This is just another fantasy of his.

But you avoided my question, which was: what would it take for you to be convinced that an oceanic base with an unknown superhuman species exists?

It sounds like you're not willing to just take MR's word for it, which is a very good sign that you're able to think rationally about this. Exactly the same thinking applies equally to claims of alien spaceships, to the existence of Bigfoot and to lots of other things. In fact, it's also extraordinarily useful in analysing what politicians tell you, what "news networks" tell you, and what scientists tell you, to mention just a few applications.

That's probably where MR got the idea. UFO sightings tend to increase following the release of blockbuster movies about alien invasions. Coincidence? You decide.

No. We can usually all agree on the basic data, such as it is. We agree that somebody saw a light in the sky. We agree that there's a fuzzy blob in somebody's photograph. We agree that a pilot reported an unidentified object that he thought was moving extraordinarily fast. All of these things are UFOs ... until they aren't. Pilots are a different matter. I'm willing to believe in pilots just as soon as somebody produces some evidence for them. (I already believe that regular aircraft have pilots; I'm just not convinced that UFOs have pilots, yet).

 

Who would have thought?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Notice the attempt to distract from the discussion, yet again. Notice the failure to address any of the points recently made.

Notice the attempt to mislead, by suggesting that it's an established fact that "they" ("craft" is implied) can teleport, cloak, morph and split. These matters are very much in dispute. MR hasn't even cleared the "craft" hurdle, so far.

 

Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for posting videos without analysis, commentary or any particular thoughts of his own. He is a repeat offender in this regard, and is well aware of what is required of him. Spamming of random youtube videos will not be tolerated.

Due to accumulated warning points, MR will be taking a day off.

Admittedly, I have been a bit slack on policing him in this regard for the past few months. I will try to be more attentive.

 

Experimental change of the title of this thread. Opinions? Suggestions?