UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Magical Realist]

I get the impression that all that skeptics want to do is create doubt about the evidence and accounts of the event like some sleazy defense lawyer would. There is really no attempt at gathering real evidence of an alternative explanation. That's why they deny that they are offering any story or claims to the contrary of the eyewitness's testimony. They know the minute they commit to an explanation they are going to have to support it with evidence. And they have no evidence.

It's also why almost every time they poison the well by attacking the eyewitnesses personally, hatefully alleging motives for fame and book deals and preexisting agendas about aliens when they have no evidence of such.

It's also why they are all over the map about what happened. From whales to birds to jets to submarines and drones to faulty memories and radar glitches, any old speculation will do in order to create doubt about the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Unfortunately they remain little more than unevidenced speculations that never rise to the level of epistemic certainty that the official accounts do, especially when motivated by the assumption that the official accounts are just given as false. That's because the official account is based on what the people who were actually there observed and inferred, which isn't called into question by whatever speculative alternative account the skeptic can pull out of his ass. The skeptic would have to present other eyewitness testimony conflicting with the official account in order to raise doubt about it. And they can't do that because such doesn't exist. It's all just a disingenuous ploy to create the illusion of doubtfulness where there really isn't any.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

 

[James R]

Yazata,

I don't want to get sucked into an endless 'James vs Jan Ardena' style confrontation that runs for hundreds of posts with no hope of resolution. James apparently enjoys it but I don't. I don't enjoy reading it and enjoy being part of it even less. So James and I will just have to agree to disagree.

You know, I'm seeing a lot of this lately: people making excuses as to why it's okay for them to ignore important content in my posts that they'd rather not have to grapple with, or respond to. Those parts, apparently, can be consigned to the "too hard" basket, and we can all go on our merry way as if they were never posted in the first place.

The concerns you raise in your latest post, which is ostensibly directed at Magical Realist rather than as a response to me, and which talks about me as if I'm somewhere else, were mostly addressed by me in my posts, numbered #2986 and #2987. Apparently, you have decided, for whatever reason, that you don't want to, or don't need to, respond to anything I wrote there. Why is that?

There's a huge amount of defensiveness and ego-protection going on around here lately. I'm not sure why that is. I'm disappointed that you're apparently going down that route, too, because for the most part I find your perspectives interesting. Unfortunately, it seems that you're unwilling to face this point of disagreement head on.

It seems unlikely that you'll go back and respond to what I wrote previously, so I'll settle here for extracting one or two of the most relevant statements:

In this case, there is no obvious agreement between different modes of observation, or between different observers. The relevant observations tend to be separated in both time and space - i.e. they were made by different witnesses in different places at different times. There's no way to guarantee that all witnesses were observing the same thing(s).
....
When it comes to reports of mysterious objects apparently violating the laws of physics, or at least vastly outperforming any known human aircraft, caution demands that we take more than the usual amount of care in checking that we are, in fact, dealing with a single object rather than several different and unrelated observations.
....
I think that you are I only disagree on the weight that we give to the available evidence in this case. We both agree, I hope, on the need to collect reliable evidence and such - something that Magical Realist has no interest in.

I have seen enough of these kinds of cases, and I have enough background knowledge, that I'm not about to jump to the conclusion that there was a mysterious object with superhuman manoeuvering ability until there is very strong evidence for such a thing. Besides that, the possibility that aliens are visiting Earth is extraordinarily unlikely, which is all the more reason to demand strong evidence from anybody claiming that such a thing is occurring.
....
From my point of view, I can't be sure there was an object. Regarding the sighting in the ocean, a submarine or a whale both seem very likely possibilities. Regarding radar images, the fact that this was a new system with unfamiliar operators and possibly with software glitches, makes me suspicious of the radar evidence. Regarding IR footage from jets, the explanation that they were filming ordinary jet exhausts seems very likely.
....
My point is: our motives for arguing one or the other side in this matter aren't the important thing. It doesn't matter how fervently MR wishes aliens were real. His wishing alone doesn't move the evidence any further towards the alien side. Nor does my wishing that all the alien nonsense would just go away (assuming that's what I wish, which might not be the best assumption) sway the evidence towards my side of the argument.

Turning to your most recent post...

I personally think that these 'tic tac' episodes are perhaps the best UFO cases that I recall ever seeing. That's not a question, it's a statement.

That ought to tell you something about the "UFO phenomenon" right there. The evidence for aliens, or even superhuman "craft", here is virtually non-existent. And yet I agree with you that this, compared to a lot of UFO cases, is quite a strong one.

I'm impressed by the fact that radar observed something, that when aircraft were directed to the coordinates specified by the radar, they visually saw something. (Thus confirming the radar sighting.)

I disagree that seeing something in the general vicinity the radar led the planes to is a confirmation of the radar sighting. Obviously, the pilots were looking for something. They were actually looking for something in the air, but when they saw something in the water you invent the ad hoc explanation that whatever it was they saw in the water must have been the same thing that was supposedly in the air before.

Don't you see any problem with that kind of assumption?

What I think is much more important is that the radar of the fighter jets never picked up anything in the air, and specifically it didn't pick up the thing indicated on the ship's radar. Also, there was another plane in the area - a special-purpose radar surveillance aircraft. And it didn't see anything on its radar, either.

I'm impressed by the fact that multiple pilots in multiple aircraft saw it from various perspectives.

I can't be sure they were seeing the same thing. The guy who saw the disturbed water (Fravor) was not in the same plane that took the video, miles away, for instance.

And I'm impressed by the fact that it was captured on video imagery. (Another confirmation of its physical reality.)

Again, you speak of "it", as if "it" is confirmed to be a single object. But "it" was not observed continuously. Sure, the video shows something, but where's the connection to the disturbance in the water, for instance?

Also, questions have been raised about the authenticity of the video itself.

As it what it was, I have no idea. That's not a question, it's a statement.

As I understand it, you are opining that you think it was an aircraft of some kind with superhuman maneuverability. That is not the same as saying you have no idea.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

JamesR referred to me as "alien-believers like yourself" (post #2987 near the bottom), just because I'm not prepared to agree with his entirely speculative hypothesis that this was a whole collection of psychological, perceptual and technical faults, that all mysteriously converged in one time and place in the form of one reasonably coherent "sighting". For James, the idea that this UFO physically existed in objective reality is somehow equivalent to "alien-belief". Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is a mistake.

What I said was the conclusion that this set of phenomena represents a "craft" with "pilots" and superhuman manoeuverability is unwarranted, given the evidence. My "alien believers" comment was in reference to a more general discussion that you started about the supposed motives of skeptics, and their (our) personal preferences.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that James is even arguing with me when he quotes my words. His perceived opponent is his "alien-believer" straw-man.

No. My perceived opponent is the person who jumps to conclusions when the data is not yet in.

There's no denying that Magical Realist is an alien believer. That's no straw man.

I do think that 'aircraft of some unknown type' is the most plausible assumption...

See? You do have an idea what it was, after all.

But why make that assumption? Why can't you actually say you don't know what it was? You admit (or at least say) you're making an assumption, but why do that?

You might argue that I'm making the assumption that it wasn't green men from Mars. But I'm really not. I'll happily admit to making the assumption that the a priori likelihood that it was LGM from Mars is low, but that's not the same thing. If somebody brings sufficient evidence, I will agree that it is LGM. To do otherwise in the face of persuasive evidence would be irrational.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

All of my remarks in that regard have clearly been labeled "speculation".

Similarly, all of my suggestions have been couched in the same careful terms. Maybe it could have been this. Maybe it was that. Here's what the available evidence tells us about X or Y. And so on.

A few posts ago, Magical Realist referred to my "story". I told him that I don't have a story. It is not my claim that this wasn't an alien spaceship. I just refuse to accept that it was an alien spaceship in the absence of convincing evidence of such. This is what skepticism is. It's not the same as cynicism.

But when Joe Nickell speculated (that's all it was, despite Joe saying that it's what he "believes") that this was what Joe termed a "drone", James suddenly seems to have started approving of that idea, believing that coming from Joe's mouth it's ammo against people like me. Despite my having been the first in this thread to raise the possibility (which James initially dismissed).

Actually, if you look back at what I wrote, all I said was that I wasn't previously aware that there were military drones in the area at the time. According to Nickell's research, there were. Therefore, we need to consider that datum as another possible piece of the puzzle.

I "approve" of the idea in the same way that I "approve" of gathering all the relevant evidence that might help us solve the case.

Interestingly, Joe Nickell's "drone" speculation isn't entirely consistent with the rest of James' shotgun-style "skeptical" case...

I agree. If one or more of the observations were of a drone, that might actually simplify things to some extent.

Can we be sure that the pilots really saw anything and weren't experiencing perceptual and memory defects?

We can't be sure. However, disturbances in the water aren't too unusual. As for the "tic tacs", those are unusual in the extreme. We do need to bear in mind that these pilots had a lot on their minds, not least of which was keeping an aircraft airborne.

Can we be sure that what they think they saw was the same thing?

Clearly not.

Can we be sure that whatever they arguably saw had anything to do with the radar returns?

No, we can't. It's a glaring weakness in the case.

I'm not exactly in any position to 'explain' things. All I'm doing in this thread is stating my own opinions and my reasons for holding them.

Mostly what I am doing is not so much expressing opinions as asking questions, particularly ones along the lines of "Is it reasonable to conclude X from data Y and Z?"

But applied to everyday life, to common perception and cognition, it becomes a highly corrosive sort of skepticism (in the strong philosophical sense, the denial that any sort of knowledge is even possible). If every belief that we hold raises questions, and if every justification for our belief raises its own questions, then an infinite regress problem seems to ensue. That highly corrosive skeptical compound can be used for dissolving scientific beliefs just as easily as UFOs.

My position here is not one of extreme philosophical skepticism of the sort that asks "How can we know that anything is real?" Characterising it as such is erecting a straw man of your own.

You seem to want to treat observation sentences as foundational, as not requiring further justification: The pilot saw the 'tic tac'. That's our initial given, not an intermediate lemma that needs its own justification.

Magical Realist makes much stronger assumptions than that. They include:

1. All observers are impartial.
2.Human perception is infallible.
3. Human memory is infallible.
4. Eyewitnesses never make mistakes.
5. Eyewitnesses never tell lies.

and more, besides. But only when it suits him, of course. Joe Nickell's in-person investigations, or interviews with witnesses, don't count as reliable testimony, even though Joe Nickell was there and Magical Realist was not (as he would say). That's because Joe Nickell is an evil alien denier with an agenda to debunk the Sacred Truth.

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist makes much stronger assumptions than that. They include:


1. All observers are impartial.
2.Human perception is infallible.
3. Human memory is infallible.
4. Eyewitnesses never make mistakes.
5. Eyewitnesses never tell lies.

Cite where I stated any of those views or admit you're lying.

 

[James R]

MR:

A pointless exercise. I invite readers to read through the thread. They can decide whether my comments are fair or not.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR:

A pointless exercise. I invite readers to read through the thread. They can decide whether my comments are fair or not.

So IOW you lied. It's not others' responsibility to try to confirm your baseless statements.

 

[DaveC426913]

I invite readers to read through the thread. They can decide whether my comments are fair or not.

They're fair.
I've stated the same list several times. where MR has freely and proudly admitted them.

 

[DaveC426913]

I personally think that these 'tic tac' episodes are perhaps the best UFO cases that I recall ever seeing.

Granted.

And - as someone who really really wants to find UFOs - I am very disappointed at that.

 

[Magical Realist]

They're fair.
I've stated the same list several times. where MR has freely and proudly admitted them.

Good. Then cite where you stated that same list, and then cite where I freely and proudly admitted them, or admit you are lying too.

 

[James R]

Let's test then, Magical realist.

Commander Fravor says he saw a tic-tac shaped UFO hovering over the water. Questions for you:

1. Is it possible that Fravor has a bias in favour of believing in alien encounters, and had one prior to his sighting?
2. Is it possible that Fravor didn't see what he thought he saw?
3. Is it possible that Fravor's memory of what he saw is not 100% accurate?
4. Is it possible that Fravor mistook something mundane for a flying tic tac?
5. Is it possible that Fravor made stuff up about what he saw? (not necessarily the whole thing, but certain details, perhaps)

Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

 

[James R]

I get the impression that all that skeptics want to do is create doubt about the evidence and accounts of the event like some sleazy defense lawyer would.

No. Skeptics want to get to the truth, because they care more about what is true than what is comforting or desired.

There is really no attempt at gathering real evidence of an alternative explanation.

Nonsense. For instance, the example of Joe Nickell was put right in front of you. You remember, where he interviewed witnesses and gathered information from various source?

That's why they deny that they are offering any story or claims to the contrary of the eyewitness's testimony. They know the minute they commit to an explanation they are going to have to support it with evidence.

Why is it that when you commit to an explanation, the same standards don't apply to you?

It's also why almost every time they poison the well by attacking the eyewitnesses personally, hatefully alleging motives for fame and book deals and preexisting agendas about aliens when they have no evidence of such.

It varies from case to case. Sometimes there is excellent evidence that a particular eyewitness is an attention seeker who stands to gain financially and/or in terms of raising his or her profile by making stuff up.

It's also why they are all over the map about what happened.

All hypotheses are possible unless and until they have been excluded by the evidence. That's what having an open mind means. A foreign concept to you, obviously.

From whales to birds to jets to submarines and drones to faulty memories and radar glitches, any old speculation will do in order to create doubt about the testimony of the eyewitnesses.

No. Speculation is constrained by the evidence. If it doesn't fit the facts, it's back to the old drawing board.

Of course "God did it" fits any facts. So does "Forces beyond our knowledge or control did it". So does "Aliens with unknown powers did it". That's why all of those are very weak explanations - or, rather, non-explanations.

Unfortunately they remain little more than unevidenced speculations that never rise to the level of epistemic certainty that the official accounts do...

Official accounts? Who are these officials giving the rubber stamp of approval to UFO stories?

That's because the official account is based on what the people who were actually there observed and inferred, which isn't called into question by whatever speculative alternative account the skeptic can pull out of his ass.

People can never be mistaken about what was observed. And people always make correct inferences. Got it.

(*adds to list of confirmatory posts from MR as to items 2, 4 and 5 on previously-provided list of MR beliefs*)

The skeptic would have to present other eyewitness testimony conflicting with the official account in order to raise doubt about it.

What? Who gets to decide what the "official" account is? Who are these shady "officials"? Are you an official who gets to decide what's true and what's not, perhaps? Who put you on a pedestal?

Also, is this an argument from authority that you're making? We have to accept it was aliens because an "official" source told us so?

Also, is it at all important that the evidence supports the "official" account, or is it the fact that it has been rubber stamped sufficient?

Also, is it ever the case that the "official" answer is "we don't know whether it was aliens or something mundane"? Or must the official account always come down on one side of the fence or the other?

Also, why must the skeptic produce eyewitness evidence in order to question an "official" account? Why is eyewitness evidence better or more important than any other kind of evidence?

Also, can official accounts ever be wrong, or are all officials infallible?

Also, what happens if the "offical" account is based on unconvincing, weak evidence? Who is the onus of proof on, then? Do the "officials" have any responsibility to make their case, or is their official feat sufficient?

Of course, you won't have any answers to this stuff.

 

[foghorn]

MR:
A pointless exercise. I invite readers to read through the thread. They can decide whether my comments are fair or not.

Fair.

You have no compelling reason to doubt people talking about their firsthand experiences. To do so is mentally ill and paranoid.

 

[Magical Realist]

Let's test then, Magical realist.

Commander Fravor says he saw a tic-tac shaped UFO hovering over the water. Questions for you:


1. Is it possible that Fravor has a bias in favour of believing in alien encounters, and had one prior to his sighting?
2. Is it possible that Fravor didn't see what he thought he saw?
3. Is it possible that Fravor's memory of what he saw is not 100% accurate?
4. Is it possible that Fravor mistook something mundane for a flying tic tac?
5. Is it possible that Fravor made stuff up about what he saw? (not necessarily the whole thing, but certain details, perhaps)

Simple yes or no answers will suffice.

Yes on all accounts.

Now answer my questions.

Yes or no answers will suffice:

1. Is it possible that Fravor has no bias in favor of believing in alien encounters?
2. Is it possible that Fravor saw exactly what he thought he saw?
3. Is it possible that Fravor's memory of what he saw is 100% accurate?
4. Is it possible that Fravor did not mistake something mundane for a flying tic tac?
5. Is it possible that Fravor did not make stuff up about what he saw?

 

[Magical Realist]

"Official accounts? Who are these officials giving the rubber stamp of approval to UFO stories?"

The official account is the one supported by eyewitnesses and radar data and infrared video. It's the account given by Fravor himself and his fellow pilot and publicized in the media.

 

[Magical Realist]

No. Skeptics want to get to the truth, because they care more about what is true than what is comforting or desired.

No they don't. They only want to validate their forgone conclusion that the eyewitnesses were wrong or lied about what they saw and that true ufos or uaps are never ever sighted. So they cherry pick the parts of the account they want to be true and edit out the parts they don't want to be true. Which is confirmation bias. The last thing they are interested in is what really happened.

For example, Nickell finds one statement where Fravor mentions that the object in the water might've been a submarine. Nickell takes that as solid evidence it was a submarine. But when Fravor says the flying object looked like a 40 ft long tic tac that performed in amazing ways and at supersonic speeds, he is viewed as simply wrong. The same man is viewed as correct in one part of his account, and as mistaken in another part, based on nothing more than their unfounded belief that the objects sighted were mundane and unexceptional. Again, that's confirmation bias. They select the details of the accounts that favor their preexisting hypothesis, and dismiss other details of the accounts that don't favor it.

 

[Magical Realist]

For James, the idea that this UFO physically existed in objective reality is somehow equivalent to "alien-belief". Which as I pointed out in an earlier post is a mistake.

It's part of the skeptic's whole ridicule strategy---pin down the believers of ufos on who they think is behind the ufos, and then mock that as an outrageous belief in space aliens. It all becomes something to be joked about at that point and not taken seriously. Nickell mentions a few times that some of Fravor's shipmates ridiculed him about his account, as if this is evidence that Fravor is some sort of ufo nutcase to be dismissed out of hand. It's telling that Nickell would side with the mockers here, especially when that is a prime tactic for discounting anything a ufo eyewitness says. It's clearly the fallacy of appeal to ridicule, which " is a fallacy that attempts to make a claim look ridiculous by mocking it or exaggerating it in a negative way."--- http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_ridicule_examples/519/

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The official account is the one supported by eyewitnesses and radar data and infrared video. It's the account given by Fravor himself and his fellow pilot and publicized in the media.

And that's the bullshit you'll accept, of course.

 

[DaveC426913]

Now answer my questions.

Yes or no answers will suffice:

1. Is it possible that Fravor has no bias in favor of believing in alien encounters?
2. Is it possible that Fravor saw exactly what he thought he saw?
3. Is it possible that Fravor's memory of what he saw is 100% accurate?
4. Is it possible that Fravor did not mistake something mundane for a flying tic tac?
5. Is it possible that Fravor did not make stuff up about what he saw?

Yes on all accounts.

So, what are we left with after all that?

We are left with a mystery - that
- might be something exotic, or
- might be something mundane.

Which is exactly what skeptics have been saying all along.

I take it you'll be sending hand-written apologies around to everyone individually?

 

[James R]

Yes on all accounts.

Now answer my questions.

Yes or no answers will suffice:

1. Is it possible that Fravor has no bias in favor of believing in alien encounters?
2. Is it possible that Fravor saw exactly what he thought he saw?
3. Is it possible that Fravor's memory of what he saw is 100% accurate?
4. Is it possible that Fravor did not mistake something mundane for a flying tic tac?
5. Is it possible that Fravor did not make stuff up about what he saw?

Yes on all accounts. Possible does not mean probable, however.