UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Oh, well done. Nice insult. You really stuck it to me there! Always take the high road rather than the low; that's your motto, isn't it?

    If there was some other point in that post, you failed to make it.

    Okay. Here's a suggestion: how about I moderate both of you for your respective trolling efforts? How does that sound?

    See, the thing is, complaints about the other guy generally carry more weight when you have a clean slate yourself. If there's a back and forth flame war going on, the choice becomes whether to leave the two of you to duke it out or to moderator both of you. I figure that you're both adults, which would imply that you go into that sort of thing with a clear vision of the likely outcomes that will follow from your words. Maybe that's a bad assumption. Maybe you need a nanny.

    I was mostly poking fun at your baseless paranoia, if I recall correctly. Take a step back and consider how you appear to others.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    What a disingenuous shit you really are James R. Always deliberately ignoring MR's and Yazata's and my explicit and oft repeated statements that 'alien spacecraft' with 'little green men' inside is NOT what we have argued re nature of UFO's. But as a professional shit-stirrer you prefer to always couch your worthless responses in that hackneyed context. Liberally peppered with baiting rhetoric e.g. 'UFO nuts', 'UFO fanboys' etc. Not to mention silly reductio ad absurdum arguments with zero relevance to the actual case in question. Knowing full well that style will only get a just deserved angry reaction. So go ahead and 'punish' me. Your hypocrite anti-ethical standards will make any such just amusing to me.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Yeah..I noticed James' new "fanboy" ad hom. I guess repeatedly depicting me as stupid and gullible was getting too old.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Dec 13, 2019
    Q-reeus and dumbest man on earth like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    I am going to address a few points here:

    I am pretty sure the only person who has access to your email notifications is you because that is a personal setting. If you turned off email notification, it turns it off for every thread.

    If you have an issue with a post in that it breaches the rules of this website, I would recommend you hit the report function in the future instead of digging down and becoming a troll yourself in response.

    The reason I say this is because the last time you actually posted anything in regards to this thread's topic in this thread was back on the
    8th of October, where you posted a link with an flame aimed at others participating in this thread.

    Everything you have posted since then in this thread has been to whine about other participants in this thread. So I am left to ask, what are you doing here, exactly?

    So when you tell someone to "piss off troll", you should perhaps be mindful of your own behaviour in this thread that directly flamed other people to respond or to "troll" this thread. If you keep throwing rocks, eventually people will throw them back to you.

    Not helpful or necessary.

    Nor are you being helpful.

    Why are you posting in this thread? Are you adding anything of value?

    No, you are not.

    You know, one of the biggest problems people have with you is that you are deliberately obtuse and then whine when people respond to your being so deliberately obtuse.

    Which is another article based on the same story with the same eyewitnesses as reported in the original story.

    You did not provide "other eyewitnesses", just the same eyewitnesses, but reported on a different news site.


    This thread is currently closed as there are several infractions to be issued. Whether it is re-opened again is going to be up for discussion. Reason being that this thread has generated some of the highest number of reports, has seen horrendous trolling and abuse, homophobic comments and flaming. So staff will need to discuss whether this thread is worth the trouble it brings us every week.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2019
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    4 infractions issued to 4 different people for content posted in this thread just this week alone, one of which resulted in an automatic one day ban due to accrued points.

    And if those 4 believe that there were just 4 actionable posts from them in this past week, think again. There were plenty.

    This is, by any definition, ridiculous and a complete and utter waste of staff time.

    Stop wasting people's time. If all you have to offer is to flame or troll, don't bother posting.

    I will re-open this thread. If people cannot conduct themselves properly and if people keep flaming, trolling and being abusive, I'll moderate you again and this time ban you from the thread permanently.
    foghorn likes this.
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    In my last post, I pointed out that the Nimitz contact was observed by the cruiser's radar and by the airborne E-2 radar. When pilots of aircraft were vectored to the location of the radar sighting, they visually saw both an object hovering in the air (Fravor) and/or water turbulence (Fravor and the Marine). Pilots of aircaft that were subsequently launched also visually observed the flying object, they chased it (it easily eluded them) and cameras on their aircraft recorded it in visual and IR.

    And there's not only that Pacific Ocean sequence of events in 2004, there appears to have been another very similar sequence of events over the Atlantic in 2015, that seemingly also involved radar, visual sightings and camera images. The biggest difference communicated in the public accounts of the 2015 sightings seems to be that multiple objects were observed.

    My personal opinion is that if something reflects radar energy, is observable both visually and by cameras, and seemingly has physical effects on its surroundings (the water turbulence), then it seems reasonable (to me anyway) to hypothesize that something was physically there.


    I have NEVER argued that it was space aliens. (In this thread or any other thread.) I do hold that open as a possibility, but would give it a fairly low probability in my own estimation. My own speculations run towards some unknown and highly secret experimental aircraft type. (Although these things' observed performance seems to me to be far in excess of the current aeronautical engineering state-of-the-art.)

    My argument in my last post was that arguments have repeatedly been made that each observational modality (radar, visual, cameras) might have flaws (however speculative and fanciful those flaws might be). But the likelihood that all of those flaws coming together and co-occurring at the same time and place in just such a way so as the whole sequence of errors coheres into what appears to be a single physical event seems very remote (to me anyway). By far the simplest and most straight-forward hypothesis was that something was physically there that the radar detected, the pilots saw and their cameras recorded. That's what I'm going with.

    What I'm doing there btw, is an accepted piece of "scientific method". Corroborating evidence makes initial reports stronger (certainly it strengthens their objectivity) and that's even more so when different lines of investigation come to the same conclusion. For example, take evolutionary biology. Fossil evidence might give us some idea of when an extinct lifeform once lived (from stratigraphy). Now suppose that the molecular geneticists make their own estimate based on their own methods, molecular clocks or whatever. If the two estimates, arrived at by very different means, end up reasonably close, we can say that they confirm each other. Or suppose that visual astronomers observe what appears to be a supernova in a particular part of the sky. And suppose that the x-ray astronomers observe an x-ray burst in the same place at the same time, consistent with a supernova. We would normally interpret that as raising the probability that a supernova in fact occurred. Now we can obviously argue that stratigraphy, molecular clocks, and visual and x-ray astronomical observations are all subject to their own sorts of experimental errors. Errors that might be even more serious and likely than the kind of errors that might effect radars, visual sightings and camera images. My point is that corroboration in multiple modalities tends to reduce the likelihood that an observation report is the result of a particular error in a particular observational modality.


    I think that's a very strong argument.

    The response to it seems to be (at least in part) that the likelihood of multiple observational modalities suffering simultaneous faults (experimental errors) in just such a way that they all converge on what appears to be a single phenomenon is still more likely than the advent of "little green men".

    Of course that's foolishness if we don't know beforehand what the probability of alien visitations actually is. If aliens are in fact visiting the Earth, then the probability of them doing so would be 1, certainty (ex hypothesi). If they aren't, then it would be zero (ex hypothesi). Assuming a-priori in an argument that the likelihood is zero is simply an expression of the (grievously misnamed) "skeptical" premise that alien visitations can't be happening. Which is obviously a doctrine of one's own dismissive faith regarding such things.

    It's also a red-herring since the thesis being defended here isn't that aliens are visiting the Earth, it's the weaker proposition that some real physical unidentified flying object(s) were observed by these Navy radars and aviators. Aliens would only be one hypothesis as to what these UFOs were. Unknown aircraft types would be another. There may be more possibilities that I can't think of at the moment. A whole cascade of errors remains a possibility too (Joe Nickell's "comedy of errors" theory) though it's one that I'd assign a fairly low likelihood for the reasons outlined above.

    Bottom line: I think that these reports are fascinating and point to a likelihood of real physical events out in the objective world that's high enough that curiosity is warranted. Not a dismissive knee-jerk reaction of insults and little one line posts filled with nothing but idiot sarcasm. (No, that's not "science". Science isn't simply a matter of defending the faith.)
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2019
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I think that real physical objects were observed, I just think that the apparent super-physical aspects of them are due to observation errors.
    - no heat apparent plume or no apparent wings doesn't mean it's not mundane technology
    - craft being observed miles apart doesn't mean super-technological speed - it can just as easily mean multiple craft (the simpler option)
    - apparent right angle turns doesn't mean actual right angle turns
    - etc.
    dumbest man on earth and Yazata like this.
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    I rather eagerly bought the paperback edition of the Project Blue Book report when it first hit bookstores. My UFO lovin' cousins were quite excited that a small percentage of the reports were not resolved. Nothing has changed in the intervening half century.
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    "From 1947 to 1969, the Air Force officially investigated Unidentified Flying Objects under Project Blue Book. The project, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, was “officially” terminated December 17, 1969. During its lifespan, Project Blue Book investigated a total of 12,618 sightings. When the project closed, the Air Force admitted only to 701 cases (5.6 %) as having remained “unidentified.” However, other researchers, including Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. James McDonald, later argued that as many as 4,800 (38 %) of the cases should have been marked as “unexplained,” considering that many cases were marked “explained” even though the explanations were highly untenable.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Project Blue Book Panel

    The following cases comprise all of the Blue Book reports officially marked “unexplained” and involving sightings in the state of Texas. The list of unexplained cases was compiled by Don Berliner, for the Fund for UFO Research. Again, these are not necessarily the “best” or “strongest” UFO cases that Blue Book looked at; rather, they are the ones that were officially stamped as “unexplained” for any of a number of reasons."

    See link for the 42 unexplained Texas ufo cases:
    Q-reeus likes this.
  13. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Vested interests want the data to fit their agendas, yes. Pity reality gets in the way.
  14. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Hahaha. So 'vested interests' i.e. 'UFO nuts/fanatics/fanboys' evidently have wielded extraordinary powers. That managed to get false testimonies from all the 'apparently' reliable witnesses listed in that link MR supplied. Over a span of quite some decades. Or have they had an easy time creating false reports that somehow never got crossed checked for authenticity? Amazing. Far more amazing imo than just accepting that all or nearly all of those witnesses were both real, honest, and reliable, and simply recounted it accurately (with maybe few exceptions) like it was. And that same pattern is repeated worldwide not just Texas. Often, like with the Nimitz 2004 or East coast 2014-2015 'almost daily' sightings/encounters, backed up with radar confirmation.
    Once again, what imo was the all-time premier series of genuine non-mundane UFO events:

    [edit: changed YT link to one with less 'little green/grey men' connotations]
    True unbelievers will never be persuaded by mere massively accumulated compelling evidence. Minds made up - no room for a rethink.
    Besides, many have lesser motives as well. The sheer joy of shit-stirring.
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2019
    Magical Realist likes this.
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I should clarify.
    I do not conclude the above is true. And I do not assert it. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the reports were due to observational error.
    I simply suspect that this is the case. I find it the most plausible of the options.
    Yazata and Magical Realist like this.
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    This excellent statement by Yazata bears repeating:

    "Bottom line: I think that these reports are fascinating and point to a likelihood of real physical events out in the objective world that's high enough that curiosity is warranted. Not a dismissive knee-jerk reaction of insults and little one line posts filled with nothing but idiot sarcasm. (No, that's not "science". Science isn't simply a matter of defending the faith.)"
  17. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Good thing people have something useful to do, ain't it.
  18. foghorn Valued Senior Member

  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Well there is no confusion there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    foghorn likes this.
  20. river

    There are three fundamental sources of UFO's ; intelligent beings far older than ourselves , World war two technology from the Germans and last but not least , government black ops research .

    To add , understanding speed per second matters , for example ;

    At 2500mph means that per second this craft is moving at , 0.69 miles per second. Think about that .

    At 5000mph is 1.38 miles per second . And so on .

    This calculation of speed per/second is a calculation that nobody considers .

    My point is , is when any craft seems to come from another dimension because it "blinks out or disappears " , this observation is more about speed / second ; Than about " another dimension(s) " .
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2019
  21. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    DaveC426913 likes this.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    And I suppose you have evidence for this claim? (he said, expecting no response)

    Speed is already distance travelled per second. Talking about "speed per second" is nonsensical, unless what you really mean is acceleration. However, it is clear from your post that you're merely talking about speed, and claiming that nobody knows what speed is. I really don't know how you manage to operate in your daily life.
  23. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member


    Ah, the wonders of Science!

Share This Page