UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy_pilots_2004_ufo_a_comedy_of_errors/

Navy Pilot’s 2004 UFO: A Comedy of Errors

by Joe Nickell

....
To recap, we suggest that several things were going on during what was, after all, a training mission of the USS Nimitz carrier strike group. We believe the churning water Fravor first saw was caused by a submerging sub; that the sightings of a UFO above the water (variously reported)—which hovered, then came toward one pilot—could have been those of a reconnaissance drone; that there may have been confusion (then and later) over the object or objects caused by the admixture of visual sightings with infrared video viewing; and, finally, that one video image showing an object suddenly zooming off screen was likely caused by the plane’s banking while the camera was stopped at the end of its sweep.

If UFO proponents claim inconsistencies in our scenario, we shall point out confusion and incompleteness in the reports. Apparently not only had the incident not been considered serious enough to have warranted a debriefing of Fravor—let alone of the several other pilots and radar operator—but most of the carrier group’s personnel at the time regarded Fravor’s response as laughable.​

 

Yazata:

One problem with this is that there are multiple modes of observation in play, and a few different witnesses. You think that's a strength; I see it as a weakness in this case. It is very easy to assume that whatever it was that was seen on somebody's radar screen must have been the same thing that was reported by an eyewitness in an aircraft, or the same thing as appears in the footage from the IR camera on the aircraft. But there's no a priori reason to assume that any of these things represent the same object (if it was an object) or as having a common cause (if it was something else).

We know that the radar can produce spurious returns. We know that eyewitnesses can be mistaken, especially when they are far away from the object they are observing and moving at speed. We know what IR cameras on fighter jets can produce weird-looking images when they are observing, for instance, the exhausts of other aircraft. All of these effects are potentially in play in the situation under consideration.

You talk about "rapidly moving aerial objects", but the evidence that there actually was any rapidly moving aerial object (other than the military aircraft in the area) is weak. As for the "characteristics", you are deducing those from poor-quality data and dubious eyewitness statements.

To reach the conclusion that all this adds up to objects that "may arguably exceed any currently known aircraft technology" is to jump to an unwarranted conclusion on the back of shoddy information.

You don't know the Navy's thinking on this. There is classified information you don't have access to.

Also, we do have several clues as to what it might have been. A number of eminently reasonable hypotheses have been put forward. If you choose to ignore those in favour of the LGM hypothesis, you're just jumping onto the bandwagon with UFO nuts like MR.

It is far more likely that this was a result of a series of mundane occurrences coming together and being misinterpreted. Then, that misinterpretation was publicised, while potentially disconfirming information was withheld or simply not available to the public.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. It ain't here.

Evidently, some people would prefer to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, too.

What matters is the evidence.

 

MR is a laughing stock. He's absolutely useless when it comes to talking about UFO reports, because he is completely uninterested in examining them for veracity. Really, he's only good for bringing stuff to our attention with his cut and pasting from youtube. He's a passive consumer of the nuttery, albeit also an active promoter and diseminator.

That, right there, should tell you something.

If such poor data is the best the UFO proponents can come up with, what does that suggest to you about the reality of aliens visiting Earth in their spaceships?

It's no different with the ghosts, or bigfoot, or psychic powers, or any of the other woo pushed by MR and his peers. Invariably, the available data is on the fringes of sensitivity or usefulness of the detectors. Video footage is invariably of low quality and/or doubtful provenance. Eyewitnesses far too often turn out to be self-promoters. Outright fraud is rampant.

Also, inserting the word "military" into a UFO report doesn't make it more reliable. It's not as if everybody in the military is an Einstein, or has the observational powers of Sherlock Holmes. The military and its personnel make mistakes and blunder around just like everybody else. The people in the military are people just like you and me, only they have guns and stuff.

You're trying to reverse the onus of proof. Why is that?

Suppose that no mundane explanation is forthcoming regarding a particular sighting. Does that mean it was aliens, then? Don't you think that the people who say it was an alien craft need to provide convincing positive evidence of their positive claim?

The onus is not on skeptics to debunk everything the UFO nuts put up. It is for them to make their case.

Having said that, we have seen lots of reasons to doubt the alien spaceship conclusion in this particular example. Those doubts do not prove that it wasn't little green men, of course. But if the UFO pushers say it was, it is up to them to make the case, and so far they are doing a bad job of it (as usual).

But the picture you're emerging is speculation, too. Worse, it is quite extraordinary speculation, unwarranted by the quality or quantity of the available data.

Maybe. Maybe a submarine and a drone and some other fighter aircraft. Or about a hundred other possible things with quite ordinary explanations. On the other hand, it could be glitches in the new radar system, compounded by a mistaken sighting of a whale or submarine, and dubiously tied to IR footage of jet exhausts. It could be a man looking for his 15 minutes (or longer) of fame. It could even be the Navy trying to divert attention away from something they'd rather we didn't know.

 

As previously noted, the radar system was a newly-installed system and the operators were not very experienced in interpreting it.

I also point out that you have no idea if the radar was not in error that day. So, who's "making shit up", again?

 

Because the existence of the Bears is consistent with everything else we know about military aircraft and the countries and people who build and operate them, whereas the existence of alien tic tacs is not consistent with what is known about aircraft, about aliens, about history, or anything else.

 

Nickell has years of on-the-ground experience investigating reports of the paranormal, including UFO sightings. He is an educated man, but has made his name as an investigator. Where possible, he visits scenes, he interviews the prime witnesses himself, he reviews available and relevant documentation - basically does all the things a detective does in trying to solve a case.

Your opinion of him sounds like sour grapes or something. For some reason, you've decided you don't like the man, which is all well and good, but it does nothing to diminish his work.

It doesn't much matter that Nickell's PhD is in Literature. As you will be aware, anybody with a PhD has necessarily developed certain research skills, and skills in critical thinking - both good training if you want to be a detective. When you say Nickell has no technical background that you're aware of it, that is only saying what you're aware of. You don't know how much time and effort Nickell has put into gaining technical expertise. I might also remind you that one does not necessarily have to have a formal qualification to be highly skilled in a particular field. Some people gain specific technical knowledge as a hobby. Moreover, Nickell doesn't rely only on his own knowledge and skill set in his investigations; he consults experts and interviews the people who do know what is relevant.

Clearly, you don't like people questioning Fravor's motives or competence, for whatever reason. Perhaps, like MR, you think that all eyewitness accounts should be taken at face value.

It sounds a bit like you think that Nickell has no right to go in and investigate this incident independently. Do you think he should have more respect for the military and its personnel, perhaps? Maybe we should also just trust that people in the military are always right about everything. How presumptuous of Nickell to dare to question a highly experienced squadron commander, who could never make a mistake!

 

In ordinary circumstances, yes. But when it comes to UFO reports and ghost encounters and the like, we're usually not dealing with ordinary circumstances. In such circumstances, people are often emotionally charged. In some cases they are actually primed or predisposed to interpret mundane effects as extraordinary. In other cases, we find eyewitnesses operating in conditions that are unfamiliar to them. Often, they are asked after the event to interpret happenings that they actually did not have a high quality sensory perception of. Often, memories are re-worked to fit a presumed narrative - either invented by the eyewitness himself or suggested to him by somebody else. Over time, we often see stories shift. New details appear that weren't there in initial interviews. Details change. The elements of the "story" tend to be made more coherent with repeated tellings, and the witness will often stridently insist that he has never changed any part of the story, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary.

People are reasonably well equipped to get through their daily lives, relying on their senses and cognition. In the process of living, we are usually blissfully unaware of just how many pieces of sensory information we completely ignore or fail to register. Our perception is a construction of the brain; it is not a high-fidelity video recording. Memory is fallible, malleable and at least as much constructed as recalled.

These are all reasons why individual eyewitness accounts should be treated with very large grains of salt, especially when they involve supposedly extraordinary happenings.

 

No. You missed the point. Perception and memory are far from perfect, all the time. The original point was that they are often good enough to get you through your regular day, and I don't disagree with that.

It's not a battle of my word against yours. This isn't a trust exercise.

Frankly, I have far better things to do with my time than to attempt that.

Quick! Somebody record this! Magical Realist is accusing me of lacking objectivity when it comes to UFOs.

You couldn't write this kind of comedy.

Nope. If what you said was accurate, then the overwhelming consensus would be that aliens are visiting Earth in their spaceships. Instead, what we see is a fringe group of mostly Americans who have a sort of fan-boy fascination with this stuff, and a further group of creduluous people who think it might be real but haven't really given it much attention (again, many Americans. Why is this an American thing, by the way? There's an interesting question, right there, with an informative answer).

I agree. They don't see that.

That's not what they say. Usually they say they don't know what they saw. Go figure.

No, it basically doesn't. It isn't my word against yours, or Fravor's vs Joe Nickells'. It's a matter of evidence.

It irks you, I know, but the evidence for little green men is very poor.

How do you know Fravor has/had no agenda? This is just what you want to believe. His fellow pilot has kept very quiet, in comparison, I note. I wonder why.

Yesterday, I watched Peter Pan with my kids. It was okay. In it, there were a bunch of kids flying. I've also watched the Harry Potter movies, where there were kids doing magic with wands and flying on brooms. You know what? None of that upset me in the slightest. I didn't feel a single twinge about movies promoting the existence of magic. I think it would be cool to be able to fly around like Peter Pan. It didn't occur to me once that I ought to "debunk" Harry Potter.

The thing is, I'm able to distinguish fact from fantasy. With that ability, protecting my "mundane worldview" really isn't that hard.

 

Yeah, a bit like "maybe it was aliens", only the alien explanation is way more Out There.