UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Magical Realist]

So true. Was under the impression you took eye witness reports as gospel because, your words to the effect "They were there and they know what they saw"

As opposed to your "They were there and they don't know what they saw?"

 

[Magical Realist]

The "nothing to see here" option is just as unevidenced as the others. It seems to be based largely on particular individuals' own subjective beliefs about what is more or less likely.

It seems related to the fallacious argument from incredulity: a flock of geese or a breaching whale is more likely or believable than a ufo, therefore...etc.etc..

 

[Michael 345]

As opposed to your "They were there and they don't know what they saw?"

Noooooo

As opposed to Made (collectively) up the whole event

Newspapers published testimony from witnesses who said that they had seen extraordinary solar activity, such as the Sun appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the Earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors. According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

IF WITNESSES had seen extraordinary solar activity, such as the Sun appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the Earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors.

effects on the Earth would be catastrophic and reported world wide

My 2 cents worth - looking at the sun caused eyes to produce said effects, namely (appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the Earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors. )

So YES they DIDN'T SEE what they saw - as opposed to your taking, frequently, witnesses at their word, simply because they were there

 

[Magical Realist]

So YES they DIDN'T SEE what they saw

Whatever you say...

 

[DaveC426913]

Whatever you say...

Well, Michael has hit the nail on the head, in that the "Miracle" he refers to is one of the best known UAPs in all human history, claimed to be seen by many, many people, and yet it cannot have objectively happened as claimed.

That puts the lie to the idea that we can always take what witnesses claim to see as objectively real. Witnesses DO misperceive and misidentify mysterious unidentified aerial phenomena. That cant be argued.

And that places the onus on the UFO believer to demonstrate that a given UAP - even one seen by many multiple witnesses - is somehow not a misperception and misinterpretation.

 

[Michael 345]

witnesses - is somehow not a misperception and misinterpretation.

And as I mentioned, as 4 years Radio Technician RAAF, even if the witness is a technical piece of equipment, once we fixed the glitch UFO magically disappear

Image from Disney

 

[Magical Realist]

And as I mentioned, as 4 years Radio Technician RAAF, even if the witness is a technical piece of equipment, once we fixed the glitch UFO magically disappear
View attachment 4550
Image from Disney

Was that before or after the object was confirmed by being sighted by pilots and detected by other radars as happened with the 40 ft long tic tac.

 

[Michael 345]

Was that before or after the object was confirmed by being sighted by pilots and by other radars?

Most times was a single piece of equipment with a glitch

Can't recall any glitches being visually sighted

Some visual sightings did not show up on radar but that's normal

Most visual sightings seem to vanish before pilots get a good close look to confirm an identity

Guess what? The Unidentified Flying Object becomes a ? ? ?

All together now

Most fun I have had since I rearranged icons on my phone

 

[foghorn]

So YES they DIDN'T SEE what they saw - as opposed to your taking, frequently, witnesses at their word, simply because they were there

But, but that's just your mental illness and paranoia surfacing when it comes to witnesses. My bold below

You have no compelling reason to doubt people talking about their firsthand experiences. To do so is mentally ill and paranoid. It requires a suspicious paranoia on the level of a conspiracy theorist to think everyone who has a paranormal experience is just lying about it

I think the idea of this thread is that we are all suppose to forget what MR has said about witnesses and what ufos ''ARE'' in past posts.
Wonder why they keep an archive on this site.

UFOs ARE craft of unknown origin and nature. That's clear from all the evidence posted here.

MR and Yazata don't seem to have gotten the idea that others here are not saying ufos cannot possibly be craft.
It's a question of the offered evidence, and of course MR & Co know more than anyone about foreign state spying technology.

 

[Magical Realist]

But, but that's just your mental illness and paranoia surfacing when it comes to witnesses. My bold below


I think the idea of this thread is that we are all suppose to forget what MR has said about witnesses and what ufos ''ARE'' in past posts.
Wonder why they keep an archive on this site.

MR and Yazata don't seem to have gotten the idea that others here are not saying ufos cannot possibly be craft.
It's a question of the offered evidence, and of course MR & Co know more than anyone about foreign state spying technology.

You pretty much post the same things over and over in this thread. Why do you do that?

 

[DaveC426913]

You pretty much post the same things over and over in this thread. Why do you do that?

You pretty much post the same things over and over in this thread. Why do you do that?

 

[James R]

I don't think that all UAPs/UFOs have a single kind of explanation.

That much seems obvious, doesn't it? Just look at the many "solved" UFO cases.

"Craft", "vehicles", "UAVs" or whatever, is still very much a viable option for some of the cases, such as the 'tic-tacs'.

Viable compared to what? How do you rate the chances of the 'tic tac' being a bird, say, against it being an extraterrestrial spacecraft?

That's probably my personal favored hypothesis at this point for those sightings.

Why? The evidence that UFO enthusiasts use to draw that conclusion is flimsy at best.

Like I've argued all along, I think that a terrestrial origin is most likely.

Your best guess is that the tic tac is a terrestrial "craft" or "vehicle" of some kind, then? That's the "most likely" explanation, according to you. What kind of craft or vehicle do you think it most likely is, then? And on what basis do you draw that conclusion?

I don't give very much weight to the 'temporal', 'supernatural' or 'extradimensional' hypotheses at this point, but I wouldn't rule them out entirely either.

How would anybody go about ruling them out entirely? The only way would be to positively ID the thing as something other than supernatural, "temporal" or "extradimensional", surely.

What is "extradimensional", anyway? Can you give me an example of anything that is "extradimensional" in the required sense? i.e. do we know of anything at all in our universe that has been confirmed to be "extradimensional? Or would UFOs be the first example of such a thing, if confirmed?

It's certainly possible that we are facing something new here, something unexpected that we've never encountered before. Something that might not have a comfortable place all prepared for it in our current ontology and worldview.

How likely to do you think that is, compared to UFOs having mundane explanations? On a scale of 1 to 10, say.

The "nothing to see here" option is just as unevidenced as the others.

I think it would be foolish to claim there's "nothing to see", and I don't think any skeptic is seriously arguing that. The arguments are all about whether there's anything especially extraordinary about what is seen.

Overactive imagination is probably the most likely explanation for many/most UFO sightings.

I think that most UFO sightings involve somebody seeing something (i.e. an actual thing existing in the world) that they can't immediately identify. Problematic leap #1 is the argument from ignorance, that goes: "I can't identify this as something familiar, so it can't be anything familiar". Problematic leap #2 is the step that takes one from leap #1 to "Because it can't be something familiar, it must be something fantastical from my imagination (or the cultural imagination), like aliens or God or ghosts or time travellers." Neither leap #1 nor leap #2 has any valid justification.

 

[Michael 345]

How would anybody go about ruling them out entirely? The only way would be to positively ID the thing as something other than supernatural, "temporal" or "extradimensional", surely.

Edit to add LACK OF EVIDENCE after reading James reply

Lack of LACK OF EVIDENCE ANYTHING temporal supernatural or extradimensional gives me (as a anybody) all confidence to rule those OUT

How likely to do you think that is, compared to UFOs having mundane explanations? On a scale of 1 to 10, say.

If 10 is 100% ruled out put me down for a 10

 

[James R]

Lack of ANYTHING temporal supernatural or extradimensional gives me (as a anybody) all confidence to rule those OUT

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Michael 345]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I know that statement from very personal experience

But but but the saying has its limits. I'll keep my 10 as a 10

 

[Magical Realist]

Witnesses DO misperceive and misidentify mysterious unidentified aerial phenomena. That cant be argued.

And that places the onus on the UFO believer to demonstrate that a given UAP - even one seen by many multiple witnesses - is somehow not a misperception and misinterpretation.

The only ones obligated to establish the claim that the eyewitness(s) misperceived something are the skeptics not the believers. The believers aren't obliged to prove a negative or a claim they didn't make.

 

[DaveC426913]

The only ones obligated to establish the claim that the eyewitness(s) misperceived something are the skeptics not the believers.

You are the one continually claiming that witnesses always accurately perceive reality, and you use that to claim various implications (such as 'that means it had windows').

It is factually incontrovertible that witnesses do misperceive things.

The believers aren't obliged to prove a negative or a claim they didn't make.

OK, witness X thought he saw a shape in the sky that might have moved oddly, according to him.

So what? say we. People see weird stuff all the time. What's your point?

You hope to use that to claim UFO. That's the claim. The onus is on you.

 

[foghorn]

The believers aren't obliged to prove a negative or a claim they didn't make.

And, on the strength of such believers alone, you MR make statements on this thread like:
My bold below

UFOs are craft. This is shown from hundreds of cases of them landing and having beings exit them. Many ufos have also been spotted with windows. That makes them craft.

Did you see the ''beings'' yourself MR?

UFOs ARE craft of unknown origin and nature.

''ARE''

I stand by all those statements.

 

[foghorn]

You pretty much post the same things over and over in this thread. Why do you do that?

Says The Magic Roundabout pilot.

 

[Magical Realist]

It is factually incontrovertible that witnesses do misperceive things.

It is more logical to accept the accuracy of what multiple eyewitnesses say they saw than to dismiss their accounts as misperceptions. I trust what the eyewitnesses say they saw over what the skeptics say the eyewitnesses saw or didn't see. It's just common sense. Skeptics are inherently biased against ufos by their own belief system.