UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

But you CAN see a metallic disc descend in a field with small beings in silver suits coming out of it taking soil samples and plausibly conclude that it is of alien origin. Like I said, the simple lack of any other explanations makes the alien hypothesis quite logical.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...ucer-landed-3-aliens-Normanton-West-Yorkshire

Why would alien beings taking tissue samples from abducted humans be so unlikely? Seems quite logical to me. Something we humans might even do to an alien being.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is an interesting one - wish they had some actual photographs, rather than the rather... generic... Artist CGI Interpretation.

I know the British Air Force has tested several different saucer shaped aircraft that have similar visual styles to what the CGI image shows, several of which are capable of VTOL operations. The whole "not making a sound" bit is curious, I admit, but even the suits they are in look similar to the pressure-suits worn by prototype aircraft pilots (high G resistance, fire resistant, et al)

Honestly, about the only thing in that whole story that doesn't make sense based on what I know of declassified technology is the "silent" aspect - a ducted turbofan could, potentially, be very quite, and if they were several hundred yards away (as they say in the story), it's possible the sound it made was simply lost to background noise (though I don't know the area and what background noise there is around). A modern day turbojet powered aircraft, at full thrust on takeoff, from a distance of 300 feet, clocks in at about 100 decibels - not quite, and certainly not "silent".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is, nonetheless, an anecdote. Albeit by many people.
There is no extant evidence left behind to study - no way of repeating it, no way of studying the phenomenon, no independent parties to duplicate results.

Other than reviewing the the accounts, there is nothing to study, and therefore it is impossible to move forward on the study, except to continue to re-interpret it.

It doesn't mean the account simply goes away, it means there is essentially nothing here for science. All that's left is guesses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Same case for ball lightning, earthquake lights, and rogue waves. Repeatability in a lab is not the standard for deciding if something happened. And you wanna talk about trace evidence left by ufos? Start here:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/PhysicalTraceCases.htm

 

These things do repeat, and can be studied, if we're in the right place at the right time. Nobody said anything about labs.

Each case must be studied on its own merits.
There was no extant evidence in the account you referred to.

To lump multiple accounts into one is to commit the fallacy of begging the question: to assume your conclusion in your premise, to wit: that this event and that event are the same thing. That is not established, so you can't assume it.

 

UFOs DO repeat, and can be studied, if we're in the right place at the right time.

Yes there is extant evidence of ufos. You claim there isn't. There are over 3500 ufo landing cases that left trace evidence. And it was studied by scientists in many cases. All that data is available online. This is solid scientific evidence for the existence of ufos.

 

No. A given eyewitness account only occurs once.

It is your assumption that two events are due to the same phenomenon (because you have already concluded what you think it is).

You are begging the question - assuming your conclusion (they're UFOs) in your premise (the events have a common source).

As before, not of the account you referenced - the one we're talking about.

 

Right. 3500 cases of metallic and illuminated disk craft landing and taking off in fields and leaving trace evidence isn't the same phenomenon. You're bonkers.

 

You have concluded that they are all due to the same source and that that source is UFOs.

You're certainly welcome to believe that, no one is stopping you, but you're not welcome to insist that others have no more skepticism than you.

And you're returning to name-calling.

Both are unscientific.

 

Ofcourse not all ufos land in farmer's fields. Some actually hover over nuclear missile sights and shut down operations.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/09/23/aliens-monitoring-nukes-worry-ex-air-force-officers.html

 

I have concluded they are all the same based on their common characteristics just like we do with everything. Rainbows, meteorites, and tornados. Same characteristics? Same phenomenon. That's just everyday common sense. And it's also science too.

 

This is very funny. It comes from a report in the British "Daily Express", a notoriously unreliable tabloid owned by a pornographer, desperate for sales, in August, the journalistic "silly season", when editors fill up the paper with stories of things like big cats on the loose (invariably local domestic cats, photographed from unusual angles to look like pumas) and so forth.

In this case the story is particularly pisspoor, as it relates to an alleged and uncorroborated event in 1979, almost 40 years ago.

Perhaps we should direct MR to the Daily Sport, which ran stories like "Aliens turned my husband into an olive" or "Lancaster bomber found on moon" (these are real examples by the way).

 

You are welcome to conclude whatever you like. No one is obliged to take your conclusions to-heart.
Nor are you, theirs.

The name-calling though - and the fact that you are unable or unwilling to allow for unanswered questions - are signs that you are not being rational about this. I'll engage you as long as you are rational and civil.

 

Right. There are the conclusions of those who have studied this phenomenon for years. And there are the conclusions of those who haven't. Knowledge vs ignorance. It's the same for every field of study.

 

That is an ad hom - a logical fallacy.
You seek to discredit the person rather than the argument.

 

This is quite amusing as it is an appeal to authority [shock, horror!], which is generally a criticism made, by people like MR, of scientists!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(In fact of course, an appeal to authority is often perfectly reasonable, but the anti-science mob nonetheless considers it one of the deadly sins.)

 

Just stating a solid fact. Take it as you choose.

 

Oh so now it's "fake news"! Hmmm...Who else is always making that claim?

 

It's not a fact; it's an opinion. And it is not relevant - except as a way of avoiding the actual discussion.

 

No. it's a solid fact. The knowledgable people in a field reach conclusions, and the unknowledgable people who don't study it reach conclusions. It happens all the time..especially in these threads.