UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

What if the ''object'' is a sundog seen in a strange setting. A sundog is not an object but a phenomenon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_dog

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I’d prefer sticking with UAP/UFO’s for this thread. Just my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If identified as Sun dog it, phenomenon, has obviously lost its U

Don't know how many different phenomenon would be out there ready to be mistaken for UFO but really would it matter?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Taking a hint from foghorn what about the going underwater (yet to be confirmed they actually went underwater) tic tacs?

Think KISS applies, UFO applies until it losses the U

'Twould be easy to add numerous U acronyms, using KISS - keeps numerous to one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Maybe then ''Unidentified Phenomena'' but, I'm hesitant to include any and all “unsolved mysteries” like ghost encounters, Big Foot, etc...

Just my $.02

 

It's a thread title, not a synopsis. It doesn't have to cover everything.

I like foghorn's sugg: UAPs explanations


I confess, one of the primary reasons why I'm partial to shorter subject lines is this:

Long subject line trample on the very buttons I need to exit the screen:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agree

Ghost and the rest - get your own thread(s)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just call the thread "UFOs/UAPs".

Lose what comes after the colon: "aliens, ghosts, time-travelers or weather balloons". Those words are tendentious and tend to bias the discussion.

 

What?? You and I must have a very different idea of what "evidence" means.

My view of evidence is basically how Wikipedia describes it:

"In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what makes it rational to hold a certain doxastic attitude. For example, a perceptual experience of a tree may act as evidence that justifies the belief that there is a tree."

I couldn't disagree more. A perceptual experience of something that couldn't be identified, is evidence of something that couldn't be identified. A perceptual experience of something that appears metallic is evidence of something metallic. Something perceived to move in a particular way is evidence that something moved in that way.

Before the shrieking becomes deafening, let me hasten to say that this isn't irrefutable evidence. It might indeed be false or mistaken. In many cases it is.

But the assertion that whatever proposition the evidence is supposed to support or justify is in reality a false proposition is itself a proposition that requires evidence. In this case, what's called counter-evidence.

So I'm inclined to think that there's a huge body of evidence for the existence of UFOs. Literally thousands of observation reports. I think that's indisputable.

Where the controversy arises is when we try to pronounce what these UFOs really are. Assertions about what they really are will typically require additional supporting evidence to make that connection. (Speculative hypotheses about what they might be don't seem to require as much evidence, though the speculations should be consistent with the observation reports.)

I think that these kind of epistemic scruples apply just as much to the "skeptics" as to the "true believers".

 

You mean like this?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/uf...weather-balloons.160045/page-314#post-3698971

 

Given the light touch modding on this site, i.e. allowing continuous lies and weasel worded posts, then I go with JameR's new suggestion.
''UFOs/UAPs: aliens, ghosts, time travellers, or weather balloons ''
That's the one for me James.

 

How does a balloon or a chinese lantern have the kind of forward thrust to skim the surface of the water like the video shows.? Also, how does it split off into another one? A balloon or a chinese lantern would also continually rise. This object rises and then descends as it approaches the water.

 

Screenshot of Mirriam-Webster's dictionary definition

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

b - something that furnishes proof

I'll agree up to the PROOF UFOs exist with emphasis on the U

Beyond that, the rest speed, manoeuvrability, origin etc etc speculation NOT proven

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think @Michael345 is conflating evidence with hard evidence.
An eyewitness report is evidence (though that says nothing about the value or quality of the evidence).
A piece of hull metal is hard evidence.

 

I can't imagine why you would go for such a fabulist explanation when there is a super simple mundane explanation at-hand.

It's pretty trivial for one object to occult and then de-occult another - easier when seen at a range and all fuzzy.
(A terrible example but you get the idea).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can you justify jumping to "splitting off" when there is such a simple explanation at-hand?

 

I can live with that

Another screenshot - Mr Google

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is always a problem when quoting a generic definition from a generic dictionary.
Scientifically, evidence has a more nuanced meaning.

 

You're saying that the second object was perfectly occluded by the original object for most the time and only separated and came into view the short time it reached the water. Not likely imo..

 

Well I don't know about that

After all pilots evidence appears pretty generic to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As does much of UFO evidence

Generic - never hard as you stated

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1. In the context of that horribly artifacted video, the term "perfectly" is self-evidently inapplicable. The quality so bad the images of the bogeys actually get lost briefly but frequently in the noise.

2. Whatever they are, it is certainly in the best interests to say in formation. Birds do it, planes do it - so they don't crash into each other at speed.

3. I have just explained how, exactly, the occlusion works. Can you explain as clearly how "splitting off" occurs? And why you think it's more plausible?