UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

UFOs can be alien spaceships. We just don't know that yet. That's why we call them ufos.

No..by eliminating the mundane and knowing it is not a familiar object, you have not thereby identified it. It is still a mystery, a ufo, and a non-mundane one at that.

Not every ufo is necessarily a craft. Witness the foo fighters of WWII, But going by the many sightings of occupants seen exiting ufos and windows seen on the side of ufos, it's probably safe to say many are craft of some sort. See the Lonnie Zamora case previously posted at #1678.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"probably safe to say", i.e., confirmation bias in action.

 

No..if there remains no mundane explanation, then we are justified in positing a non-mundane explanation. I'm not going suspend explanation in the hopes that one day in the future a new mundane explanation will be found, especially when the details of the ufo itself lead us beyond anything we currently know of.

No..I have the total right to speculate on what ufos are without evidence just as you speculate that they are the planet Venus or a weather balloon or a breaching whale without evidence. That's my privilege as one who has studied this phenomenon for many years now. I still don't know what the ufos are, but I can offer speculative explanations just like you do.

At which point they cease to be ufos.

Metallic in appearance: silver or gray and reflective of light.

↑

And your willingness to write off our overwhelmingly reliable human perception, which enables us to survive everyday, reveals your own underlying agenda to not believe in ufos. Lead by example..

Venus isn't a ufo. I thought you knew that.

No it isn't. Many ufos show themselves to be some sort of structured craft with occupants. This is just a matter of examining the many cases of them showing those characteristics, like the Lonnie Zamora case or the Zimbabwe schoolchildren case.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Encounter

Many ufos are seen hovering in place. See the Chicago O'Hare disc of 2006 and many other cases.

At which point we have a real ufo on our hands.

Nothing's at stake. I just follow the evidence and reach the natural conclusion. Just as I do with the existence of black holes, or ball lightning. There's no "need" for ufos to exist. I just find that they do exist, and go from there. Which makes for a really complicated and uncertain reality!

Yeah.. this is your faith in scientism again and your belief that you can magically reach the truth if you perform your thinking critically enough. Except that you don't and only twist the evidence to fit your preconclusion that all ufos are really just ifos.

I know compelling when I see it. And any eyewitness account of a ufo is always compelling.

 

You know many of these people personally?

 

It isn't. I wish they did exist.

I guess you're more easily compelled than I am. Take the Roswell incident for example. I was surprised at how utterly baseless the woo-claims are.

 

Yes...we can rule out every mundane explanation. There's not really that many. And once those are ruled out we can posit non-mundane explanations.

That's why we call it a ufo. But even as a mystery, it has certain features in common with other ufos. It is disc shaped or ovoid shaped, it appears metallic or glows at night, it hovers silently and speeds off, and even vanishes to reappear in another part of the sky. So it's one of those things that have been seen thousands of times and recorded on cameras and film.

Yes you are. I have already cited numerous cases of ufos being disc shaped or tic tac shaped and being able to fly at tremendous speeds. That's not any technology we presently have. It points us towards the non-mundane---of a technology beyond anything humans have attained.

No you don't. Take the meteor you claim happened that night in Ravenna county. If a meteor like that actually exploded, being described by the officer as bright as the noonday sun, it would have been reported the next day in papers all over that area. And yet it wasn't. The evidence, or rather the lack of it, speaks against your speculation.

No I don't. I rarely discuss the actual pilots of the ufos. I keep the issue on the ufos themselves and their observed attributes and behavior.

Right...like a flock of seagulls and a breaching whale and a radar glitch all being mistaken by multiple eyewitnesses for the same ufo. That's pretty extraordinary. And you never offer any evidence for these coincidences.

Yeah...we can jump from metallic appearance to metal. We do it all the time in everyday life. Metallic appearing objects are usually made of metal. It's a fact of our experience.

Human perception can tell when something is unfamiliar and strange in our experience. And it does this on a daily basis. If perception were as unreliable as you make it out to be, we'd have gone extinct as a species ages ago.

Something doesn't have to be flawless to be very reliable. Cars aren't infallible, yet we rely on them all the time.

Cuz people over the past 70 years didn't walk around with cameras all day. What we DO have are hundreds of accounts of ufos associated with humanoid occupants being seen exiting and entering the craft. This is a compelling record as to the nature of ufos.

No...there are many reports of discs hovering in place and then taking off immediately at high speeds. The Chicago O'Hare incident for instance.

You edit the eyewitness account to fit your conclusion that it was mundane object. You say one detail they perceived correctly, while another detail that contradicts your thesis is a false memory or a mistake. That's not sensible. That's confirmation bias.

That's what you call the scientific method. This sort of magical oracle scientists allegedly use to reach the truth. Only real scientists don't use that.

Right..because ufos existing tells us something about the world we live in, and that we are not alone in this reality. That's a compelling implication in it's own right.

 

Right..because the more I explain and answer your questions the more you find things to not understand and ask more questions about. That's not conversation. It's some kind of weird disingenous game of one upmanship. I think I've made my points abundantly clear. I'm tired of repeating things that you only deny and quibble over. And I'm not about to play your therapeutic whipping boy again. May the force be with ye,..

 

Do you hear that all readers of this thread?

It's the sound of one hand clapping and counting up a WINNING

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's funny to see a claim that we have "ruled out every mundane explanation", when there are numerous mundane explanations that the average civilian simply isn't even privy to; as though we can, somehow, know for certain, that we A) know every mundane explanation B) have the knowledge to test each one C) have (access to) the evidence to test each one D) have the equipment and resources to test each one and E) have the time to test each and every one.

I can say, with absolute 100% certainty, even though I've never met him, that Magical Realist lacks, at the absolute least, categories A, C, and D.

And all this is before we even contemplate the possibilities of other nations acting maliciously - spoofing radar contacts, launching decoys and drones, targeting networked systems and computers, etc... lets face it, when you throw the potential for cyber warfare into the mix (because what better way to undermine the public's support and faith in their government then by convincing them their government is covering up some massive conspiracy and/or discovery?) things become a LOT more complicated.

So, no... we have not ruled out every mundane explanation - for the simple fact that we can't even be certain we know every mundane explanation.

 

Just another bald assertion in a long string of bald assertions.

 

Don Berliner, UFO researcher, author, FUFOR (Fund for UFO Research), “Is There a Case for UFO’s?”

http://www.ufoevidence.org/NewSite/Papers/UFOQuotes.htm


”If every UFO report could be convincingly credited to some conventional astronomical or atmospheric phenomenon, there would be no UFO mystery. It is precisely because so many UFO reports cannot logically be blamed on stars, planets, satellites, airplanes, balloons, etc., that a UFO mystery has existed since at least the mid-1940s.


The most convincing UFO reports were produced in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s by airline pilots, military pilots and ex-military pilots. These men had the training and the experience to be able to distinguish between normal sky sights and highly abnormal sights. They knew what airplanes looked like, and what meteors looked like, having seen them many times. Their visual observations were frequently supported by radar data which showed essentially the same thing. They were therefore able, on many occasions, to methodically eliminate conventional phenomena from consideration when trying to identify UFOs.


In those same decades, most UFO sightings were made in the daytime and frequently at close range, when shapes and surface features could be distinguished, thus making positive identification of normal sights easier and the descriptions of unusual sights more detailed. When all normal explanations had been eliminated, the witnesses could concentrate on those aspects of the experience which were most abnormal.


These abnormal aspects included the shapes of UFOs and their behavior. Most of the UFOs seen in the daytime were said to have had simple geometric shapes--discs, ovals, spheres, cylinders--and surfaces that looked like metal. Such shapes are not only nonexistent among known aircraft, but contrary to all known theories of flight, in most cases offering control and performance disadvantages rather than advantages.


Even more unusual were the specifics of their flight performance: silent hovering, silent high-speed flight, extreme acceleration, supersonic flight at low altitude without sonic booms, and violent, very high-g maneuvers. The actions of many UFOs have suggested that they fly independently of the air and even of the force of gravity. The accomplishment of these maneuvers has been among the major goals of the world's aerospace industry for decades.

On the basis of their appearance, behavior and frequent well-kept, tight formation flights, we must face the possibility that some UFOs may be manufactured, high-tech vehicles….


At first glance, the idea that some UFOs may be vehicles from outside the Earth seems utterly preposterous, the baseless result of wishful thinking by highly unscientific minds.


When authoritative reports of radical-design craft having spectacular performance are viewed in the light of a stream of astrobiological discoveries, the possibility that some UFOs are alien does not seem quite so farfetched. Serious-minded scientists in astronomy and other disciplines estimate there could be billions of planets in the universe, and millions that could harbor life. If even a few of those planets were occupied by technological civilizations, their ability (if not desire) to explore other worlds, such as ours, must be a possibility.


Hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings have been made by persons in all walks of life, in all parts of the world. Tens of thousands of UFO reports have been made to governmental and private agencies in the past 55+ years. Thousands of these reports have withstood careful scrutiny and appear to represent real objects having a novel nature.


Patterns of these UFOs' appearance and behavior suggest a limited range of sizes and shapes of unidentified craft, despite the often-desperate efforts on the part of the American and other governments to discount them as nothing more substantial than mistakes made by naïve individuals. Their performance, observed repeatedly by expert witnesses, remains as far off the scale today as it was in the 1940s.


If even one of these unidentified UFOs turns out to be an alien craft, the impact on all aspects of our nation's culture--economic, political, personal--will be limited only by what is learned from an open, serious, objective study of the subject.”

 

How many of them can't be explained by mundane physical phenomena because they just weren't there? The world wonders.

 

The eyewitnesses were there..

 

And those eyewitnesses had access to radar, ladar, and magnetometric scanners available to them, had an astronomy background to rule out potential mundane light-sources, have access to military deployment records of all major nations, and are all sober, I'm sure.

 

And once again, why do you believe they saw what they claimed they saw?

 

YEHAWWWWWWW!!!!!!