UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,767
    You mean as opposed to the other overwhelming consensus that God was born as a baby 2000 years ago and was crucified on a cross 32 years later?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Doubtful that is correct except in local regions ie Vatican

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Aliens, time-travelling spacemen, interdimensionals being of pure light, followers of Xeno from the planet Zog, ghosts in spaceships ... it doesn't make much difference what you imagine they are (I'm sure you have something in mind). Most of your UFO friends will say they are aliens.

    You conclude there is a who behind every UFO. There's your first mistake, right there.

    No. You do not simply claim that. You claim that UFOs are "craft" with extraordinary manoeuverability, with capacities far beyond human technology. You claim these UFOs are "piloted". And more. All with zero evidence.

    Your little act where, when it suits you, you pretend that you're just talking about random lights in the sky, while at the same time you slip in claims of intelligent pilots and extraordinary technology, won't work here. I'm onto your game.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    When did somebody compellingly establish the reality of that?

    That was your claim in respect of UFOs, remember? If you don't, it's up there in black and white in your post #2955.

    Why don't you believe in God, though? You never did tell us.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,767
    Didn't have to. That's how easily swayed your beloved overwhelming consensus is.
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,767
    Yeah..that's all part of the well-evidenced phenomenon of ufos. They all show those characteristics. But I leave the speculation about who they are to others. I prefer waiting to find that out when they decide to reveal themselves to us. Does it frustrate you that you can't attack the alien assumption with me? Suck it up son.
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Soooo there is a them OK

    And you are waiting to find that out when they decide to reveal themselves which would be, what's the word? on the tip of my tongue, we ev.. evi... evident? nooo, evidence that's the word

    You are waiting for evidence

    Look forward to your adherence to this aspect of your postings

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Yep, "Everybody was out of step except Johnny."
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    It's actually not a strawman. The thread title is "space aliens".
    While you personally may have a pet theory, that's not really the primary focus here.
    Consider starting a new thread.
     
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,909
    Wouldn't the argument implicit in your view also be an argument against scientific confirmation and peer-review?

    In both science and everyday life, the likelihood that a reported observation was in fact an observation of something in objective reality (as opposed to a subjective error or delusion) goes up when others are able to observe it too. The likelihood that the observation was the result of a defect in a particular mode of observation goes down when the variety of modes of observation all agree. Convergence of evidence.

    The aircraft had been directed to that specific point by the controllers on the cruiser on the basis of their radar. Just in the course of normal military procedure, if an unknown radar contact is observed and pilots are vectored to investigate it, when they visually sight a flying object in that specified location and proceed to photograph it, we wouldn't be insisting that what they saw and photographed had nothing to do with the radar contact. (Certainly not merely on the basis of speculation alone.) The aircraft intercept and the ensuing observations would be interpreted as confirming the radar sighting.

    It's conceivable that there was more than one UFO. The 2015 sightings over the Atlantic observed a number of them. But there's probably no need to multiply them in the Nimitz case unless there is persuasive reason to do so.

    The initial jets were vectored to the location by data being fed them from the cruiser's radar. As I just argued, I believe that in normal military procedure that would be interpreted as a single contact.

    In concert the multiple modes of observation seem to me to be mutually reinforcing, reducing the possibility that errors peculiar to one method of observation are infecting the entire encounter.

    When I say "aerial objects" they were obviously objects of attention by the pilots. They were objects on the radar screens and the videos.

    Admittedly the inference that there was something in physical reality that these objects correspond to is indeed an inference. I think that it's a very strong inference, but still not 100% certain. (I remain a fallibilist, and think that pretty much all of our beliefs might possibly be wrong.)

    And I argued in a post up above that the ever-present possibility that we just might be wrong shouldn't be pushed so hard that it entirely subverts the idea of knowledge itself.

    We will just have to agree to disagree on this stuff.

    If we assume that the object observed was indeed a physical object (and unlike you, I think that the evidence is very strong that it was) then if the physical object was indeed an aircraft (a reasonable hypothesis) it would seem to exceed currently known aircraft technology. (Known to the public anyway. Hence my secret-project speculations.) It's easy for people like Nickell to glibly talk about "reconnaissance drones", but does he actually know of any that perform like this thing seemed to? Does he know of any aircraft propulsion method capable of producing that kind of performance without leaving an IR signature? (Jet or rocket exhaust or whatever.)

    Of course. (Just like Joe Nickell.) But I can read the Navy spokesman's public statements on the matter. See post #2948 up the page. The Navy does seem to be taking the matter seriously, as indicated by their redesigning their UFO reporting procedures and their encouragement of their aviators to report whatever they see out there,even if it's unidentified.

    Whales? Submarines submerging? That show up on the Princeton's radars like ascending and descending ballistic missiles? That are observed hovering, flying, chased and photographed by multiple jet aircraft? That might arguably have traversed 40 miles in less than a minute (suggesting upwards of 2,400 mph)?

    My argument is that there's a broad gap between your "LGM" and flat Nickell (and JamesR) style debunking and dismissal. What if something is out there, probing US air space and Naval defenses, and it isn't "LGM"?

    You're speculating there, aren't you?

    False and intentionally misleading analogy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2019
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    But they don't all agree.
    Radar saw something, but it didn't corroborate the nature of what the pilots saw.

    Multiple things in the air, at separate locations is perfectly mundane. It is far, far more plausible than one thing moving at an impossible speed.


    That would make little sense, seeing as there's no way the two sightings could be of the same craft. An I think you're speculating.



    The hypothesis that both sightings were the same craft - and therefore the alleged high performance - is not yet granted. So this is hasty.
     
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,767
    Ofcourse blatant fiction depicting magic and the supernatural poses no threat to your worldview because they are make-believe. It is only when the extraordinary and unexplained breeches your mundane worldview as actual sightings and encounters that you are thrown into a tizzy prompting feeble attempts at debunking and dismissing them. Everything in order and easily explained in your little universe. No mysteries or thresholds beyond the mundane to acknowledge or explore. It's a sort of faith-held assumption on your part much like religious belief is for other people. In your case the religion is scientism and the overall consensus view of contemporary scientists.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2019
  16. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    And you're immune to reality, so you're blissfully happy.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    Everything here is straight up ad hom; there's no on-topic content here.
    This is not a thread about your views on skeptics; it is a thread about UFOs and space aliens. If you have nothing further that's on-topic, please stop cluttering the thread with off-topic complaining.
     
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,767
    Nobody said perception and memory are perfect. They're just very reliable and accurate enough to get us thru our daily lives. There's absolutely zero evidence that those pilots suffered some glitch in their perception or memory that made them see something that wasn't there. The encounter is detailed enough and objective enough to indicate it was a real albeit unknown object that they sighted and that performed in ways defying any manmade craft. These are the given facts of this case.


    Yes it is or you wouldn't appeal to authority by using Joe Nickell as some sort of expert to validate your version of events. It always comes down to who is exercising the least bias and not making assumptions that are not backed up by evidence. In this case that would be the pilots who were there and the radar operators.


    Noone who devotes the amount of time and effort in trying to debunk ufo sightings that you do appears to have better things to do.

    Argument ad populum? That's rather desperate even for you.


    Because you know better what they saw than they do? Is that your claim?


    Seeing a 40 foot long tic tac isn't nothing. It's a very specific and unidentified something that they claim they saw.

    The evidence lies in the accounts given based on eyewitness testimony, radar video, and camera video. You provide no evidence whatsoever. Just specious speculations based on your unwarranted assumption of the implausibility of ufos.

    Because he's a Navy pilot simply reporting what he saw that day. There are no interpretations by Fravor of the object as aliens or even as a ufo. He describes it exactly as he saw it. That's how we know he has no agenda to push like you do. His fellow pilot likely kept quiet to avoid public ridicule and defamation by people like you and Joe Nickell.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2019
  19. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    ''In defence of space aliens''
    So why do you think it's space aliens Magical realist?
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,960
    Yes there is.
    You just finished saying that perception and cognition are not perfect. That is evidence. It happens.
    It is not necessary to produce evidence that it actually did happen in this specific situation to make it plausible that it happened.
    It simply leaves room for doubt.

    We are providing evidence that it may not be as extraordinary as you insist. Nobody is trying to prove it didn't happen.

    It is a very warranted assessment.

    You don't know that. It is an unwarranted assumption.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,767
    It isn't plausible when the pilot's perceptions of the object are backed up by another pilot, radar video, and infrared camera video. You'd have to know there was nothing there for you to claim error in perception, and you simply don't know that. You're just making shit up because you don't want to believe in ufos. Basic confirmation bias.

    UFO's would only be implausible as an explanation if UFO's were never seen or photographed by anyone. Fortunately we have a long enough history of UFOs being sighted and photographed and being picked up on radars to say UFOs are a very plausible explanation for what those pilots saw that day. There's even a history of USO's (unidentified submersible objects) being sighted and picked up on sonar:

    http://www.openminds.tv/mysterious-...-to-believe-navy-has-secret-ufo-program/40993

     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2019
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,767
    Where did I say they were space aliens?
     
  23. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Quibble hooooo!!!!!!
     

Share This Page