UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist:

Is a craft a familiar object?

According to you, since all UFOs are "craft", that would make them all IFOs, wouldn't it?

Sure they are. Search "illusion" on the internet and you'll immediately find many examples you can sight. As for hallucinations, the experience of a hallucination is that it seems like a real experience. That's what a hallucination is. If you experience a visual hallucination, you can't tell that it's not real just from the vision alone.

Why is the UFO cultism still a fringe belief, if these "craft" are as well confirmed as you claim?

No. There's nothing in the USAF definition that you quoted that says that a UFO could not be the planet venus or swamp gas.

On the other hand, that definition is a little off, don't you think? For instance, I take issue with the requirement that the "airborne object" in question "cannot be identified". One possible reading of that is that identification must be forever impossible. A better wording would have been that the object has not yet be identified as a familiar object or, if you prefer, that the object cannot be identified as a familar object in the absence of further suitable evidence.

Do you agree this would be a better wording of the definition? Maybe you should forward my suggestion to to the USAF. I give you my permission.

Since nobody could ever know that something will remain forever unidentified, to read the original definition as requiring no possibility of future identification would be silly, wouldn't it? Still, it would be better to clarify the definition to eliminate the confusion. Do you agree?

It make a mockery of the word "resolved", if you ask me.

But let's sum up your position, shall we?

You say that all UFOs are "resolved" when nobody has any clue what they are. But, at the same time, you assert that they are all "craft", which suggests that you have a clue what they are. How is that not inconsistent?

Not according to the USAF definition you approved. That definition allows for the possibility that the object is familiar but cannot be currently identified. That is, unless you want to read the definition as requiring that identification be forever impossible.

At what stage in your investigation do you conclude that a given sighting is not a familiar object?

Is it possible for a UFO to be later identified as a familiar object, or does your preferred reading of the definition rule out that possibility before you start investigating the sighting at all?

Here's a hypothetical for you:

An eyewitness reports seeing a white object in the sky that she says is moving incredibly fast. She took a photo of it. The photo shows an out-of-focus white object of unusual shape. At this initial-report stage it is impossible to identify the object in the photo. Its shape does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type.
​

Is this an example of a UFO, or not? Or can't you say? If you can't say, what further information would you require in order to classify it as a UFO?

So it is possible for a familiar object to be a UFO at some point, then later to lose that status if it is found to be a familiar object?

Could the UFO then also transition from "craft" to "non-craft"?

Would you know from the start (e.g. initial eyewitness report) that a mistaken sighting of the Planet Venus was not a UFO? How would you know?

I don't know where you got that idea from. In this post, I'm trying to clarify your understanding and usage of the USAF definition.

Venus isn't very much like a 40 ft long tic tac, although I suppose it could be mistaken for one under suitable conditions.

The USAF definition doesn't have any requirement that a sighting conform to previous sightings in order to be called a UFO. Is this a requirement that you personally add to the USAF definition?

 

(continued...)

It sounds like you require that identification be impossible in order to classify something as a UFO.

How can you tell in advance that identification will remain forever impossible?

When you view a high-flying jet aircraft from the ground, does it take you only a few moments of observation to know that it has wings?

Suppose the aircraft in question appears as a bright light in the sky with a trail of something behind it as it moves across the sky. Please tell me how you manage to infallibly determine whether it has wings or not, through sight.

See, I think you're just making up this supernatural wing-spotting sense you claim that people have.

Tell it to the USAF. Tell them to stop investigating, because if they keep going they risk turning UFOs into IFOs. That would make Magical Realist sad.

Why have you been unable to produce any good evidence of such "craft" on this forum, if there's such a massive and well-confirmed body of evidence?

Everything people report seeing is de facto questionable and potentially unreliable. There's no guarantee anything is reliable until it is corroborated or confirmed. People make mistakes all the time. Human senses are imperfect. Memory is not a video recorder.

And yes, stories about what people claim to have seen are anecdotes. Look it up.

There's always some doubt, I agree. Basically, the more far-flung and wacky the story is (kidnapped by aliens!) the more cause there is to doubt the ancedote.

Imagine somebody saying they were kidnapped and probed by aliens over the weekend. Imagine the UFO nut failing to question the account at all because human senses are perfect and all accounts, no matter how insane-sounding, must be true.

Right! Why not believe the guy who says he went for a spin with the aliens in their spaceship on the weekend. Nobody likes a party pooper!

Interesting.

Tell me, Magical Realist. If you believe that people have to be "physically present" at the UFO sightings in order to identify anything, why do you bother posting account after account of such sightings? By your own admission, even you have no basis on which to decide whether the account describes anything real or not. You weren't physically present, so you couldn't know. This is your own standard of evidence.

And yet, time after time, you say you know the accounts represent "real" UFOs. How can you do that, without your having been "physically present to it"?

There are two things in play here. One is what the "physically present" witnesses know. The other is what you know. Since, by your own admission, you weren't "physically present", you can't ever identify what the witnesses saw. So how can you claim that they "actually saw the object"? That word "actually" implies that you know they saw it. How do you know? You weren't physically present.

 

Magical Realist:

I'll start with the the obvious problems with your definition of "UFO".

How can any investigation possibly hope to rule out the possibility of ever being able to positively identify a UFO?

The only thing I can think of is that the evidence that can be collected is of such poor quality and/or is so lacking that no definite conclusion can be reached as to the identity of the sighted object.

But what about future investigations? How can you guarantee that new evidence won't come to light to show conclusively that the sighting was of the planet Venus, or a weather balloon, or whatever?

It seems to me that, by your own standards, something is only a UFO if you decide in advance of any investigation that it will never be an identified or identifiable object. Which means, of course, that you're not really interested in finding out what these things are through investigation. I think you already have some beliefs about what they are, and you prejudge every case.

In case there's any future doubt about your position on this, I include your own words here, for the record:

What's also fascinating about this is the flow of causation: they "cannot be identified ... because they are ufos" (my emphasis). Not "they are ufos because they cannot currently be identified".

What this clearly shows is your prejudice that UFOS are all, as you say explicitly "40 ft long tic tacs, metallic discs, spinning tops, black triangles, etc.".

When presented with an eyewitness report of something he describes as "like a 40 ft long tic tac", it is clear that your methodology in the first instance is to say "Okay. That fits one of the objects on my Wall Chart of Acceptable Alien Spacecraft Shapes. So, it's a UFO. Therefore, it can never be identified as anything else." It cannot be identified because you've already decided it's a UFO (namely a "craft" whose apparent characteristics comport with your requirements about how alien spacecraft ought to look and behave).

To contrast: an unbiased observer would look at the same report and say "This is a UFO because it has not yet been identified as a familiar object. Let the investigation begin, to see whether we can work out what this eyewitness actually saw!" And then, later, when it turns out after suitable investigation, with high confidence, that the sighting was of the planet Venus, the unbiased observer says "This is now a 'solved' UFO case. We managed to identify it as the planet Venus." Note that this doesn't mean it was never a UFO in the first place. It started as an unidentified object in the sky; now we know it was Venus. There's no prejudgment in this; we just followed where the evidence led.

See how different the two approaches are?

----
Having removed any doubt as to your bias when it comes to categorising UFOs, I will move on to consider other matters raised in your posts.

 

(continued...)

As usual, you put the cart before the horse.

When an eyewitness reports seeing something in the sky that conforms to your prejudice about what a UFO ought to look like, you immediately discount the possibility that the eyewitness could have seen an illusion or that he could have had a hallucination. Your assumption is that if it conforms to your wall chart of alien spaceships, then an illusion or hallucination is impossible.

Once again, you have the causation backwards. The truth is that the sighting is unidentified. All we have is an anecdote about what the eyewitness says he saw, and we can't rule out illusion or hallucination until we investigate the circumstances of the sighting and the witness himself more closely. If it turns out that the witness has a history of mental illness, for instance, it could well be that his searching the skies did come up with a hallucination of one of your "alien craft". To discount the possibility out of hand, just because the report fits your preconception of what a UFO sighting is supposed to look like, is to reveal your own bias, again.

No. My argument is that prudent, intelligent, unbiased people who are suitably equipped to evaluate evidence, would be willing to accept that space aliens are visiting us, given sufficient evidence. My assertion is that there are many millions of such people in the world. My conclusion is that UFO fanboys such as yourself have not made a convincing case for the existence of your alien spaceships, or else those prudent, intelligent, unbiased people would agree that your little green men are real.

I ask you to consider what is more likely: that prudent, intelligent, unbiased people are all wrong about alien visitation, or that people with a proven bias who are reckless about evidence - such as yourself - are overzealous in their acceptance of (or wild-eyed enthusiasm about) the hypothesis?

Why do you now choose to rely on a pop-culture definition of UFO? Is it because you now realise that the USAF definition - limited as it is - is too restrictive to accommodate your biases?

Using your definition, as I summarised in my previous post, no UFO can ever be identified, because you define a UFO explicitly as something that has not and cannot ever be identified as a familiar object.

Here it is in your own words, again:

This confirms that once you, MR, have decided that a given sighting shows a "craft" of a description that you find acceptable, you will forever regard that sighting as an alien "craft", regardless of any investigation that might turn up evidence to the contrary.

If there's any doubt at all that this is your approach to this stuff, we need only refer to the many actual cases we have discussed on this forum. Once a UFO, forever a UFO, to you.

 

(continued...)

Let us now turn to my hypothetical as an example. I wrote:

An eyewitness reports seeing a white object in the sky that she says is moving incredibly fast. She took a photo of it. The photo shows an out-of-focus white object of unusual shape. At this initial-report stage it is impossible to identify the object in the photo. Its shape does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type.

Is this an example of a UFO, or not? Or can't you say? If you can't say, what further information would you require in order to classify it as a UFO?​

You said:

Keep in mind that all UFO are craft with pilots, that can never ever be identified, by your own definitions.

My follow-up question was:

So it is possible for a familiar object to be a UFO at some point, then later to lose that status if it is found to be a familiar object?

Could the UFO then also transition from "craft" to "non-craft"?​

and you, consistent with everything I've written about your attitude on sighting and UFO reports, said:

Now, I had in mind for my hypothetical that the eyewitness saw a funny-shaped cloud. You know, a regular cumulo nimbus fluffy white cloud.

What you have told us all, unequivocally, is that this cloud is a UFO, and that there is no possibility that it could ever lose its status as a UFO. In other words, you just decided that an ordinary cloud was an alien spaceship, and you're unwilling to change your mind about your initial assessment no matter what.

It says it all really, doesn't it?

"But what about the unusual flight characteristics that the eyewitness reported?", I hear you complain. Well, guess what? The eyewitness made a mistake. She saw the cloud in the sky and it was closer than other clouds and being blown along by the wind. Misjudging the sighting distance, she concluded that it was an object travelling at an enormous speed. And the photo doesn't help us to determine whether the reported speed was right or wrong.

Of course, in the Magical Realist universe, eyewitnesses never make mistakes, so probably my claim that this was an ordinary cloud is just a skeptical lie that I created to doubt the holy eyewitness. Once a UFO, always a UFO, according to Magical Realist.

 

(continued...)

Now you sound like you want to swap the USAF definition for a different one. Why did you bring that one up in the first place, if you believe it to be outdated and unhelpful?

I think you have realised that this one doesn't suit your purposes and biases, so you now want to shift the goalposts again.

Now, let's discuss your idiocies about the perfection of human senses, once again.

You make the idiotic assertion that all witnesses to UFOs automatically have a pair of binoculars at hand. But you and I both know that's just a lazy attempt to avoid addressing the question I asked.

The truth, as you know, is that if a jet aircraft is flying high enough above you, it can just look like a bright point in the sky. You can't see wings, and you certainly can't see them with "only a few moments of observation". Human sight is limited - just like all our other senses.

You must think your readers are stupid if you expect them to accept your assertion that human senses are all-powerful, perfect percievers of reality in every circumstance.

I also asked you, as a follow-up question:

Suppose the aircraft in question appears as a bright light in the sky with a trail of something behind it as it moves across the sky. Please tell me how you manage to infallibly determine whether it has wings or not, through sight.​

You couldn't even manage an honest response to that one:

Let's ignore the fact that you tried dishonestly to distract by mentioning sound when I asked about sight, because this response nevertheless gives us further insight into your methodology.

A sound can't tell you whether something has wings, under any circumstances, unless you make a whole bunch of assumptions in advance about what is causing the sound. So, what this response tells us is this: if Magical Realist hears something that sounds like a jet plane, Magical Realist will conclude that it must be a jet plane, and that no further investigation is necessary and no revision of this initial assumption is possible.

See how there is no room for mistake or misperception in this? There's no room for mistaking a thunderclap for the sound of a jet. There's no realisation that a high-flying jet might make no sound that is perceivable from the ground. The assumption is that the witness can't be wrong, and that all the witness's senses are perfect and infallible. But the main assumption - the one that overrides all else - is that the witness saw what Magical Realist wants the witness to have seen.

And so, we turn again the reliability and fallibility of witnesses....

If somebody says they visited their grandmother the Saturday before last, is that necessarily reliable? What if there's evidence from somebody else that they visited on Sunday rather than Saturday? What if you ask somebody if they have seen Jaws 3 and they say "I think so. That's the one where the guy on the boat ends up blowing up the shark by shooting a scuba tank in its mouth, right?" Is their recollection of seeing Jaws 3 reliable? Can you even be sure they saw Jaws 3?

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you think that people can never be mistaken about what they say they saw?

Of course you don't. This is just a desperate and transparent act you put on to try to prop up your own faith that aliens exist. You play the fool, but you're only fooling yourself in the end.

I think so. This is why corroborating evidence is so important in historical records, court testimony, biographical data, etc. - all the things you mention, funnily enough. But you already know this. You're still playing the fool.

Thinking you already know everything is a character flaw that is likely to hurt you in the long run. I'm aware of the traps. You pretend that you aren't, but I think that's an act. For whose benefit? is the question.

No.

People falling off ladders or running over rabbits are usually not remarkable stories. Besides, people who fall off ladders often have the bruises to show for it, and there are dead rabbits to be found if we want to go looking.

It's all well and good for you to pretend that seeing a 40 ft flying tic tac is as commonplace as falling off a ladder, but who are you really fooling? Is it really the case that your standards of evidence are the same for both experiences? If so, then you have a serious problem.

You're not telling us we should look into it. You're saying that in the first instance we should believe everything that an "eyewitness" claims to have seen. What's this sudden change in you that you're suddenly interested in investigating the claim?

Argument ad populum? Didn't you mention that earlier? Did you forget?

So the guy who comes into work and tells you he was kidnapped by aliens on the weekend is compelling and reliable evidence that he was actually kidnapped by aliens on the weekend. Because all eyewitness accounts are reliable and compelling. Got it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I consider all the evidence that I'm aware of, independent of what that eyewitness says she saw. I evaluate that evidence in light of my own experience in the world and in the light of the sum total of human knowledge and experience that I am aware of. I also consider the possibility that the eyewitness could be wrong, for many different reasons.

How do you do decide? No, no need to tell me. I already know. All eyewitnesses are perfect and people don't ever make mistakes or tell lies. Right. And no matter how bizarre the story, it must be true, as long as it's on the UFO wall chart.

 

One or two of them problematic...

There's the same problem with "cannot be identified" as in the USAF definition. Does it mean it can't currently be identified, or it can't ever be identified?

It does get it right that common usage of "UFO" often includes the unjustified assumption that it is from another planet.

I have no real problem with this one. UFOs are very much about what people claim, even if those claims turn out to be baseless.

Again with the assumptions!

This one is kind of okay. The only problem is that we can't call something a UFO until a full investigation has taken place, if we use this definition. What should we call reports of objects in the sky that haven't yet been investigated by technically capable persons?