UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Apparently it can be.

Apparently they do both.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not convinced that it's modus tollens with 'should' in P1 and 'are' in P2.

Don't we need another premise?

P1*: The military are behaving as they should

 

Should these be mysterious references for the few who don't venture far from home, or have lost track of the aforementioned Q-reeus, including the latter's saber-rattling...

What I DON'T believe re UFOs but have been made out to! (at Sciforums)
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-12381-post-51117.html#pid51117

 

People can decide for themselves where Q-reeus is coming from:

 

I wonder what made them ''decide to reveal themselves'' ?

My bold.

 

Folks I think we have a winner!

 

Or just change it to "would". Keeps it simple.
But good spot, I blame laziness on my part.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, benchmark for Magical Realist is '' UFOs ARE craft'' with the ability to'' decide to reveal themselves.''
Benchmark for some is ''Let's look at the evidence before making up our minds'', and leaving it at '' I can live without knowing what it is''

 

Something can only be evidence when it justifies a true belief?

That kind of move is going to be problematic if we have no way of knowing whether or not there is a tree apart from our observations that justify our belief in the existence of the tree. The problem is that we don't have access to any absolutely veridicial "God's-eye" view of what is and isn't reality. So truth isn't something that can just be intuited. Which suggests that all we have access to as human beings is beliefs and the evidence (observations if we are empiricists) that seem to us to justify the beliefs.

Yes. Despite the existence of evidence, the conclusions that we draw from that evidence might still be mistaken. That's the human condition I think.

True. But observation of a metallic appearance is still evidence that whatever was observed was metallic. Some (MR) might think it's rather good evidence. Others (you) might think that it's laughably weak evidence. My point here is simply that it IS evidence.

Very true. But to make a plausible argument that the metallic appearance (or whatever it is) was a false appearance, will seemingly require convincing evidence that it was a false appearance. Merely pointing out the possibility that it might have been a false appearance doesn't justify the conclusion that it was, merely that it might have been. If we are fallibilists (like I am) any of our beliefs might possibly be false.

I think that evidence is anything that seems to support a conclusion. It needn't be a true conclusion.

Many open scientific questions pit incompatible hypotheses against each other. Presumably no more than one of those hypotheses can be correct. But typically proponents of all of the competing hypotheses can point to evidence that seems to support their favored versions.

 

I do feel it is rather good evidence. People on average overwhelmingly correctly see and believe in what is presented right in front of them. And even moreso do they see something when the object seen is unusual or extraordinary. Could they be mistaken? Ofcourse they could. But when said object is witnessed by several people and stands out as something strange or weird then the likelihood that they are mistaken goes down dramatically. That's why multi-sensory accounts of UAPs are so compelling and, quite frankly, well-evidenced.

 

If you had to guess MR (and anyone else who feels these UAP’s could be crafts of some kind) - why aren’t more scientists jumping on board in agreement?

I suppose there is truth in numbers, but they could be mistaken. Is this a matter of perspective? The pilots who witnessed the tic tac image, we’ve been over this but they have seen it all to know (perhaps) what to rule out.

For example, I’ve never heard of “ball lightning,” so at first glance at a glowing globe in the sky, I could easily believe that it’s a UAP. Because of my lack of weather knowledge, it might be easy to leap to concluding that things I’ve personally never seen before (or have knowledge of) are UAP’s. I’m not dismissing that it could be a craft of some kind, but there could be legitimate mundane reasons that we simply aren’t aware of, for whatever the reasons.

 

Because ufos/uaps have up till now been dismissed by the majority of scientists as nothing but bunk. That in turn keeps the subject taboo and dangerous to one's career as a reputable scientist. I can only hope that the Pentagon's recent research in the matter will help the topic acquire credibility and importance as time goes by.

 

That’s fair, and I agree in that many UAP sightings are ridiculed as being absurd hoaxes etc…but can you also see what I’m saying? Ball lightning sounds believable to me as a mundane “alternative” to what those witnesses were claiming to see. I don’t discount that they saw something really unusual in the sky, but it could be that it’s unusual to them. To us, even. It wouldn’t be to a meteorologist. Just food for thought.

 

Ball lightning lasts, on average, 10 seconds and is relatively small, ranging from basketball size to a few feet. The UAP witnessed near Levelland was seen and reported over a 2-3 hour period and was described to be around 100 feet in size. There was also no thunderstorm at the time. All these factors discount ball lightning as a viable explanation imo.

"Ball lightning is typically described as a luminous ball one to 25 centimeters in diameter having about the intensity of a 20-watt incandescent lamp; the phenomenon usually occurs after a lightning strike. It almost always moves, has a top speed of about three meters per second and floats about one meter above the ground. The motion can be counter to the prevailing breeze and can change direction erratically. Ball lightning may last up to 10 seconds, whereupon the ball extinguishes either noiselessly or with a bang. There have been many observations of ball lightning inside of houses and even in airplanes. There have also been a number of observations of ball lightning passing through closed glass windows, with no apparent damage to the glass. Usually there is no discernible heat production, although a recent observation reported a wooden plank that was singed. Several people have reported the smell of ozone and nitrogen oxides associated with ball lightning and also static in a transistor radio."--- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/periodically-i-hear-stori/#:~:text=In some cases, ball lightning,size and decrease with brightness. -

 

about 3 times i have seen saint elmos fire

1st time was the best
massive great thunderhead cloud roughly 1 kilometer wide and sitting like a low hanging thunderhead cloud with massive lighting strikes rippling through the leading cloud head with absolutely no sound
i wondered if it might be a ginormous UFO using cloud to cover its self with.

when i first spotted it it was 2.5 kilometers away & i watched it slowly move towards me for about 20 minutes

i then saw a smaller version of the same phenomena 2 more times over several years

i love lightning storms

 

It is important to acknowledge that, while it is generally accepted that ball lightning is a thing, it is still an area of active research. As such, it would be foolish to try to use our current limited experience with it to try to constrain its limits.

We have no reason to think we know how big it can get or how long it might last.

And, objectively, an unoccupied weird thing is vastly more probable than an occupied weird thing.