UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Thanks again to sweetpea for reminding us all of the truth.

You say UFOs are "technologically advanced craft beyond anything we have invented yet". You say these craft are saucers, ovals, cigar-shaped, or black triangles, although it seems to me that you'll allow pretty much any shape in practice. You say these craft are time-travellers from the future, or interdimensional travellers (whatever that might mean), or ... extraterrestrials, by which I assume you mean ... aliens. You tell us there is no other possible explanation. You also specify that these "craft" have "occupants".

I'd say that's all fairly specific. Certainly, alien spaceships piloted by little green men fits your definition of "UFO" to a T. So do giant flying cigars carrying interdimensional time travellers, of course, but in practice that's not so very different.

Obviously, the main thing to point out here is that you don't actually believe there are any unidentified flying objects. All of them are "craft", complete with "occupants", who may well be aliens. There is no other possible explanation, you tell us.

Clearly, it's quite mad to jump to the conclusion that an unidentified light in the sky couldn't possibly be the planet Venus but must instead be an interdimensional craft piloted by Iggy the Alien, but this is what you do time and time again.

 

My point is a simple one. Most of what we know, individually, is not confirmed by our personal observation. I know that DNA has a double-helix chemical structure. Have I checked that for myself? No. I don't have an x-ray spectroscope handy, and even if I did I probably wouldn't know what to do with it. Nevertheless, I am confident that the structure of DNA is as it is described by other people. One reason I believe that it is the knowledge is not inconsistent with everything else I know about the world; actually this particular fact complements and supports other things I know about the world, in all kinds of ways. Some of those things I even have direct personal experience of.

Similarly, I am aware there is a place called Athens. I have never been there, but I believe it exists. Its existence is consistent with many other things I know about the world, including some things that I have directly experienced.

In contrast, the actual evidence that alien spaceships are currently visiting Earth is weak and unconvincing. Moreover, there are good reasons to conclude that no such visitations are occurring. The general unreliability of the supposed evidence for these "alien craft" puts up a great big red flag that tells sensible people to be very cautious about buying into the bunk.

The evidence that DNA has a double helix is not anecdotal. If I wanted to, I could, in principle, search through the relevant scientific papers in which the evidence for its structure is set out in black and white. Mind you, I might need to learn a whole lot of other stuff first in order to understand what I was reading. I could also, in principle, repeat the experiments that verify the structure of DNA, though that would be costly and time consuming.

In contrast, the vast majority of so-called evidence for alien craft is either purely anecdotal or unreliable and unreproducible. These features add together to make a very weak and unpersuasive case for alien visitation. Moreover, the kinds of things we would expect to know about if aliens really were visiting are not observed in the world.

 

It's one possibility you allow. You're directly quoted saying that, above.

Remind me who is lying, now.

OK. Let us be clear.

You are now telling us that no UFOs are extraterrestrial aliens.

Is that correct? Can we hold you to that, then? Or will you flip flop back to "it could be aliens"?

The "characteristics" you list are given above: "technological craft" of various shapes that are "beyond anything humans can make", which have "occupants". These occupants, we now learn, cannot possibly be extraterrestrial aliens, despite your previous claims to the contrary.

Oh, and apparently the occupants are interested in soil samples, at least some of the time.

 

All such evidence that I am aware of has mundane alternative explanations, or else is of such dubious quality that no definite conclusions can be drawn.

 

Thinking about the particular "sighting" in the news video that we have been considering, where can I find the relevant field examinations by the experts? What effects were there on vegetation? Was the radiation measured? Were there any physical effects on eyewitnesses?

For that matter, were there any eyewitnesses, or is the video all we have? Is there any evidence at all that there was ever anything in the sky, as opposed to merely some reflected light in a camera lens?

In short, is there anything apart from the visuals in the video themselves that backs up the idea that what is seen in that video is a "technological craft" with "occupants" who like soil samples?

The problems with the visuals themselves have already been examined in some detail, and the reasonable conclusion is that we can safely put this down to lens flare unless there is compelling evidence for "technological craft" etc.

 

But you're convinced there is a "who". After all, you know all UFOs have "occupants", by some magical knowing process that you have yet to explain. I'm sure you assume that these "occupants", whoever they are, must be intelligent - at least intelligent enough to build a "technological craft" and fly it purposefully.

Tell me: in the video we have been examining, what is the evidence for "occupants" of the "UFO"?