A flying craft that did extraodinary things .
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
A flying craft that did extraodinary things .
C'mon, let it all hang out!Couple of jokes in there but will refrain
You ol' arm twister you
I have a image of a large robot laying back on the grass blowing smoke rings having just been........
Your welcome
I saw it the other day doing its Morning stretches.You ol' arm twister you
I have a image of a large robot laying back on the grass blowing smoke rings having just been........
Your welcome
Michael 345 said: ↑
You ol' arm twister you
I have a image of a large robot laying back on the grass blowing smoke rings having just been........
Your welcome
Until the Soot film builds up and gets so thick that this soot film interferes with the electronics and joints .( robots shouldn't smoke either ) .
Do you really think that a few guys asked to comment for an article amounts to a surge in scientific interest?
Speak of the devil...
If there's ever something new that looks worth studying, I'm sure there'll be scientists who'll take the opportunity to study it. As things stand, most of the evidence that's put up by the UFO nuts (see what I did there?) is of such low quality that it's hardly worth wasting time on. Certain skeptical hobbyists do a great job in debunking the low level noise from the UFO crowd. Meanwhile, jobbing scientists usually have better things to do.
Master at deprecating where convenient. It is of course far more significant than that - presuming you did bother to read the entire piece that much would be evident.
Back from the dead so to speak. All good things come to an end.
And your usual SF support crew will nod in approval of that hugely biased put down piece. We'll see how this latest development pans out over time. I've already stated in no uncertain terms nothing definitive will ever likely ensue, but for very different reasons to your own 'it's all low quality nut-job fluff'. Tell that to the personnel involved in the two US navy carrier groups. State-of-the-art high tech military multi-sensor + skilled aircrew observations at close range synchronized encounters spanning many occasions. Yeah, but James R just has to casually insinuate they really are all low quality accounts from nut jobs.
You misunderstand. It is doubtless the case that many witnesses who tell tales of UFOs are fine, upstanding people. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the accounts they give are of limited value in bringing us closer to establishing the existence of space aliens. It's not always the character of the people that is in question; it's often just about the quality of the evidence they bring.
It was Yazata, not me, who pointed out the obvious quite some time back. One could not hope to obtain better quality evidence for non-mundane UAP activity than that recorded by various synchronized state-of-the-art military grade hardware, corroborated by various highly experienced highly skilled aircrew. Accumulated over many UAP encounters within two widely separated US navy carrier groups.
Thanks to the courage and persistence of those prepared to buck heavy handed bureaucratic obstruction and peer-group censure. Good for them.
And btw, I note your endless persistence in defining the arena as limited to 'space aliens if not mundane'. Please yourself. Paranormal if not mundane is my preferred categorization. As you all well know.
I'm origin and I approve this message.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes one could.
Do we have quality evidence that penguins mate and nest in the Antarctic? Yes.
Do we have quality evidence that volcanos occur along fault lines? Yes.
Do we have quality evidence that ghosts exist? No.
Do we have quality evidence that UFOs are out there and flown by non-Earth pilots? No.
You are making a case for special pleading for UFOs. That because evidence is extremely hard to come-by, is low quality - and that repeatability and independent verification is zero - therefore we should cut it some slack - we should treat low quality evidence as if it is high quality evidence.
It isn't.
Last edited:
That in red dealt with last post on mine. Paranormal not 'space aliens' is by far the best assumption to make. Got it? You and like minded 'skeptics' here demand repeatability as 'solid evidence' when it's screaming obvious UAP events are by their very nature unavailable on-demand. The entire spectrum of UAP phenomena yells 'intelligent control' therefore subject to the whims and intentions of whoever/whatever is responsible for the accumulated huge number of independently witnessed encounters.
What fool thinking imagines agencies possessing evidently far greater abilities than human should confirm to naive expectations and assumptions the likes of you keep displaying? All this has been repeated ad nauseum but it's in one ear, out the other. Sigh.
As for independent verification - that is precisely what was obtained in the multiple UAP encounters by the two carrier groups. Among many others. But you will just keep lying and denying. 'Why don't they show themselves openly' and such stupid demands are your stock in trade.
Last edited:
Here's an easy way to get the UFOs on film. Have a bunch of American Navy Planes, carry lots of Torpedoes, over the Water of where ever their American Navy Bases are, whilst saying this on Loud Speaker; "Geee, I hope no one steals these Torpedoes."
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Does not change the point made.
Suffice to say 'Non-human'.
Again what you are saying is: the evidence we are getting is "the best we can hope for".
Which I don't disagree with.
But 'the best we can hope for' is not the same as 'high quality'.
Sometimes, the best conclusion is ' there's just nothing there'.
It is not we who are making up behaviors and motivations for these alleged pilots, it is you.
"We don't see them because they're hiding!"
"We don't see them because they're camouflaged!"
"...because they're too fast!"
because whatever.
How about this one:
We don't see them because they don't exist.
Look, for a moment, substitute the word 'unicorn' for 'UAP'.
You would argue that the evidence for unicorns "we currently have is the best we can expect", therefore let's go with it.
You would then argue that we unicorn skeptics have assumptions and expectations about how unicorns would behave.
In short, your attitude is that the existence of unicorns is a foregone conclusion, and you are lowering your bar of skepticism until it supports your foregone conclusion.
No. The evidence (specifically, crappy evidence) indicates that unicorns are unlikely to exist.
Actually, I've never posted any such question, and I'll thank you for not implying otherwise while you toss that word "lie" around so easily.
It is you who supposes to understand the motivations, capabilities and intentions of these alleged pilots.
I suppose nothing about that. I only go on have observable facts.
That's the difference between a rationalizing believer and a skeptic.
Last edited:
The difference is profound.
There are many multi witness recorded incidents of UAP objects splitting and/or merging, or displaying multi-colored often flashing lights, or suddenly accelerating to hypersonic speeds without any accompanying sonic boom, or accompanying failure of automobile engines that restart spontaneously when the UAP departs, etc. etc. None of which conforms to a reasonable expectation of physical craft piloted by presumed humanoid aliens from another planet.
But does fit quite well as just another category of paranormal phenomena of which poltergeist activity is probably the nearest one to UAP phenomena in general.
Which final comments are completely at odds with that 'best evidence'. Clearly you just don't want to accept the phenomena is real and very much not mundane in nature.
Wrong. I never allege pilots. Your lot keep that one going.
Your unicorn argument is just a silly waste of space and time.
OK you get to score that minor point. Sorry. My memory of which members endlessly repeat which refrain is not perfect. It is two (maybe more) other members who repeats that line (in so many words) often. But your own repeated line 'show us the evidence' contains 'why don't they show themselves openly' implicitly, as per this post of yours:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-212#post-3634451
Evidence of aliens can only really mean aliens showing themselves publicly, up close and personal. The continued implicit assumption being 'space aliens' as occupants of UAP 'spacecraft'.
You continue to misrepresent. I doubt there are any 'alleged pilots'. Read and deal with what I actually write. I have never claimed to truly understand 'their' motivations etc., but do point to the accumulated evidence strongly suggesting whimsical, mischievous, even malevolent or occasionally apparently benevolent paranormal behavior e.g. The Strange Case of Doctor X.
A more detailed account of which is at: http://www.aime-michel.fr/the-strange-case-of-dr-x/
Actually imo the difference between you and me is you (and similar 'skeptics' here) refuse to accept good evidence owing to a materialistic ideological commitment which I do not subscribe to.
Just after the above post I clicked on this video (another forum) which is 5 minutes showing pre digital age photos while other parts of the post insist there is more than just photos
Apart from the video there are some extreme sharp close ups of UFOs
The sharp photos are a puzzle. My sense of scale might be off but look to small to even go to the moon let alone travel interstellar as some claim
Why and how can you suggest that such a humanly logical demand is stupid? It appears to me that you are demanding that you have the right to openly suggest Alien controlled or piloted craft, or some obscure paranormal event, and at the same time demanding proper critique of such claims be approached by those critiquing, with their hands tied behind their back and gagged.
It is and will always be a reasonable demand for proper extraordinary evidence, that would answer mankind's greatest and most asked question.
I won't answer any more of your already many times answered "claims" and "suggestions", suffice to say and remind you that I have personally be witnessed to a UFO, or whatever new aged terminology you feel like applying, like UAP.
And that's what it remains, unidentifed.
And yes, I certainly agree that scientific research should be continued into a small percentage of the claims, that have remained unexplained by more mundane means.
IMO the greatest educator of our time, answered it as follows................
"I personally have been captured by the notion of extraterrestrial life, and especially extraterrestrial intelligence from childhood. It swept me up, and I've been involved in sending space craft to nearby planets to look for life and in the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence...
It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence. Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data. So, we have to be very careful. There have been a few instances in the [past]. We thought we found something, and it always turned out to be explicable...
So, a kind of skepticism is routinely applied to the radio search for extraterrestrial intelligence by its most fervent proponents. I do not see [in] the alien abduction situation a similar rigorous application of scientific skepticism by its proponents. Instead, I see enormous acceptance at face value - and leading the witness and all sorts of suggestions. Plus, the contamination by the general culture of this idea.
It seems to me there is a big difference between the two approaches to extraterrestrial intelligence, although I'm frequently written to [to] say how could I search for extraterrestrial intelligence and disbelieve that we're being visited. I don't see any contradiction at all. It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence."
Carl Sagan:
Or as he nicely summed it up, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-aurora-chasing-citizen-scientists-feature-steve.html
In 2018, a new aurora-like discovery struck the world. From 2015 to 2016, citizen scientists reported 30 instances of a purple ribbon in the sky, with a green picket fence structure underneath. Now named STEVE, or Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement, this phenomenon is still new to scientists, who are working to understand all its details. What they do know is that STEVE is not a normal aurora—some think maybe it's not an aurora at all—and a new finding about the formation of streaks within the structure brings scientists one step closer to solving the mystery.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/my-favorite-ufos/
I read about UFOs a lot as a kid. Enough to learn to make a cheapie lookalike. Back in 1967 a friend tossed a garbage can lid into the air as I photographed.
Bob King
The red and green flashing lights of an airplane, seen here in a short time exposure, can also be misinterpreted as an unidentified flying object. Ironically, the flashing lights are often a dead giveaway that we're seeing a plane. Distant planes over a major flyway can look like several lights moving as a group. Flashing or otherwise, satellites can also be misunderstood, especially to those not familiar with manmade and natural sky phenomena. Iridiums, with their spectacular flares, can throw the uniniated for a loop.
Internal reflections of bright light sources — car headlights, ceiling fixtures — in multi-paned glass, especially against twilight, can appear single, double, or multiply-imaged, as if the source is hovering in the distance. This is a ceiling lamp reflected in a window.
https://www.loveexploring.com/galle...-phenomena-in-the-world-and-where-to-see-them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_optics
Atmospheric optics is "the study of the optical characteristics of the atmosphere or products of atmospheric processes .... [including] temporal and spatial resolutions beyond those discernible with the naked eye".[1] Meteorological optics is "that part of atmospheric optics concerned with the study of patterns observable with the naked eye".[2] Nevertheless, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
Meteorological optical phenomena, as described in this article, are concerned with how the optical properties of Earth's atmosphere cause a wide range of optical phenomena and visual perception phenomena.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
We have plenty of evidence for UFO's/UAP's and the proposition/claim is certainly worthy of scientific study and research.
The question as to whether they are Alien controlled/piloted, manually or robotically, or whether it is some paranormal activity is unanswered.
In 2018, a new aurora-like discovery struck the world. From 2015 to 2016, citizen scientists reported 30 instances of a purple ribbon in the sky, with a green picket fence structure underneath. Now named STEVE, or Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement, this phenomenon is still new to scientists, who are working to understand all its details. What they do know is that STEVE is not a normal aurora—some think maybe it's not an aurora at all—and a new finding about the formation of streaks within the structure brings scientists one step closer to solving the mystery.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/my-favorite-ufos/
I read about UFOs a lot as a kid. Enough to learn to make a cheapie lookalike. Back in 1967 a friend tossed a garbage can lid into the air as I photographed.
Bob King
The red and green flashing lights of an airplane, seen here in a short time exposure, can also be misinterpreted as an unidentified flying object. Ironically, the flashing lights are often a dead giveaway that we're seeing a plane. Distant planes over a major flyway can look like several lights moving as a group. Flashing or otherwise, satellites can also be misunderstood, especially to those not familiar with manmade and natural sky phenomena. Iridiums, with their spectacular flares, can throw the uniniated for a loop.
Internal reflections of bright light sources — car headlights, ceiling fixtures — in multi-paned glass, especially against twilight, can appear single, double, or multiply-imaged, as if the source is hovering in the distance. This is a ceiling lamp reflected in a window.
https://www.loveexploring.com/galle...-phenomena-in-the-world-and-where-to-see-them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_optics
Atmospheric optics is "the study of the optical characteristics of the atmosphere or products of atmospheric processes .... [including] temporal and spatial resolutions beyond those discernible with the naked eye".[1] Meteorological optics is "that part of atmospheric optics concerned with the study of patterns observable with the naked eye".[2] Nevertheless, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.
Meteorological optical phenomena, as described in this article, are concerned with how the optical properties of Earth's atmosphere cause a wide range of optical phenomena and visual perception phenomena.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
We have plenty of evidence for UFO's/UAP's and the proposition/claim is certainly worthy of scientific study and research.
The question as to whether they are Alien controlled/piloted, manually or robotically, or whether it is some paranormal activity is unanswered.
Last edited: