UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

It's definitely possible. I would propose that a superhuman species has a base set up in the oceans. That's why we have so many accounts of uaps going underwater and coming out of the water.. Whether they are from another planet or have always been here is an open question. It does not appear that we are the most advanced species on this planet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do claim that it IS tech, that it IS performing incredible manoeuvres that seem out of scope of humans, etc.
I.e. you are never satisfied with just concluding "I don't know what it is" - as in the "U" in Unidentified.

It has never been disputed that there are things that remain unidentified.

The conclusion of space aliens is an extraordinary one, and as such requires (or should require) extraordinary evidence to convince. Usually something as extraordinary as "it's aliens!" is a case of: is it more extraordinary that it isn't aliens?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it really is that far-fetched. Seriously, it is. Given how much we don't know about mundane phenomena out there (freak waves was an example) and given what we know about space-travel (e.g. how long things take to get from A to B) then yes, it really is that far-fetched to conclude that aliens could be behind it.
Is it technically a possibility, as in a non-zero chance? Yes. Theoretically it is a possibility, so it depends on what you mean by "could" and how likely you attribute to such a "could". If you think it is anything significant then I think that is being far-fetched. It may be non-zero probability but practically you could say it is zero.

As in non-zero chance? Sure. But then there's also a non-zero chance that you could win every lottery you ever played.

Yes, it does. If you're looking closely enough. And without a vast a priori assumption in your vision. And without the smudge of uncritical thinking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There in NO data on the existence or otherwise of aliens

My approach - basically I go for the statistical guessing one

• The ingredients found in life here are out there
• There is massive amounts of out there
• Physics works the same everywhere out there
• Sun and planetary systems like ours with a just right Goldielocks Zone are out there
• statistically guessing life is out there
• statistically guessing life is out there on a sun and planetary system plus has more advanced technology than us

As mentioned possibility of life out there is a statistically guessing exercise taking our current knowledge (not data) about Life, Universe and the Out There I would say yes life is out there but no knowledge available for guessing if more advanced than us

I don't think logic has any part to play in the above guessing exercise

Given the level of technology required to visit us even from the closest out there this statistically guessing system puts a very very low probability on such a happening

I just accept that I don't know who is behind uaps

But have made a few guesses in the past about who. And the "who" is telling

Indicates to me you have ruled in intelligence and dismissed mundane (ie the whats)

Lets not

The tic tac event really does not contain any data. All the CLAIMED characteristics can be wound back to mundane

I would include the casual remarks and lack of interest " ya there were lots buzzing around for hours" Really? but we have no clear in focus colour pin ups?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course thy do

Just as the U remains UNEXPLAINED

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Okay, that's fair. I should have used the word ''might,'' but yes...theoretically, it could be a possibility, if all other mundane possibilities are ruled out. A non-zero chance.

When it comes to critical thinking, I guess we have to really be brutally honest with our strengths/weaknesses in terms of how we interpret data, what mood we're in, and if we're too emotionally invested to give an objective opinion.

 

You answered my question, thanks!



I'll leave this here if anyone is interested in reading it.


Extraterrestrial hypothesis - Wikipedia

The primary scientific arguments against ETH were summarized by astronomer and UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek during a presentation at the 1983 MUFON Symposium, where he outlined seven key reasons why he could not accept the ETH.

1. Failure of sophisticated surveillance systems to detect incoming or outgoing UFOs
2. Gravitational and atmospheric considerations
3. Statistical considerations
4. Elusive, evasive and absurd behavior of UFOs and their occupants
5. Isolation of the UFO phenomenon in time and space: the Cheshire Cat effect
6. The space unworthiness of UFOs
7. The problem of astronomical distances

This is what I've been looking for, and most likely, many of you have offered these as your own rebuttals in this thread. Given these arguments, it would be near impossible to objectively prove that an alien space craft exists. That said, when debating over whether alien life exists from other planets, both the skeptic and the believer should be required to use critical thinking, to prove or negate each other's ideas. Skeptics can be emotional, too. lol

 

I can speculate with the best of them. Just like skeptics speculate about birds, weather balloons, camera artifacts, and the planet Venus.

 

What would constitute extraordinary evidence for extraterrestrial ufos?

 

When people think of alien life existing on other planets (or deep in the ocean) they tend to think of life equal to human advancement, in terms of intelligence. It doesn't seem far-fetched to believe that other forms of active biology could exist on other planets, just not intelligent life forms. It may be part of our problem though, in that we tend to view the universe from an Earth-like perspective.

 

Speculation is fine, as long as you're honest about what you consider to be the probability of that explanation over any other.
There is a vast chasm between the probability of a mundane explanation and that of aliens, or superhuman species etc. You seem to consider all "unknown" possibilities as something of equal probability. And that is fallacious uncritical thinking, unfortunately.

 

I think we're getting somewhere.

Also, some people simply have the desire to believe in something extraordinary, and are okay with no scientific evidence to support it.

 

All the things you attribute to skeptics are things that indisputably exist (Hopefully, you're not questioning the mere existence of birds, weather balloons, camera artifacts or the planet Venus?) and indisputably do get mistakenly reported.


So not all speculations are equal.

"I speculate that egg fell off the counter and broke on the floor."

"Well, I speculate that egg jumped off the counter and flew around the room before committing suicide on the floor."

The first speculation requires no new processes about how nature works. (Although it is still unexplained how it made it way off the counter in the first place.)
The second speculation requires the positing of a flying egg with a tiny, depressed pilot. Indeed, it requires the positing of a civilization of tiny people, along with a technology of flying eggs.

That's where the piloted craft idea - whether they be aliens or alt-Earthlings - runs into trouble. Your idea of underwater earthlings requires the positing of an entire civilization and all its technology. The defense of this extraordinary speculation requires an extraordinary amount of evidence - a civilization's worth.

 

Which is perfectly fine.

But, as has been stated to "some people" uncountable times, this is not the "Beliefs Forum" - making things like this: "God you're almost as tiresome as James." invalid.

 

Intelligent life in alien oceans would be at dolphin level

Technology level in alien oceans same as Earth dolphins technology level

Technology present in atmosphere just not possible to achieve in oceans

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's why I'd like to know everyone's (scientific) approach when faced with something extraordinary, like a possible UFO/UAP sighting. In fairness, some of the rebuttals to MR's assertions have no credibility to them, either. Sort of like saying, ''okay, if you're going to say that you believe UFO's may be space alien vessels, I'm going to say birds.'' lol

Yes, birds exist, but it seems more far-fetched to believe a bird was the 'tic tac' in the video for example, and not something we have possibly never observed before. We don't need to leap to "it's aliens'' but we shouldn't dismiss the notion because it makes us uncomfortable with not knowing exactly what it might be.

I'm enjoying today's discussion, though. MR started this thread nearly five years ago, and we seem to be finally getting somewhere.

 

Speculations whether mundane or extraordinary in nature need to conform to the evidence and the observed traits of the phenomenon itself. When the evidence points to the extraordinary we must conclude something of that nature. I'm reposting this snippet from a documentary about the 5 observables of uaps as witnessed by pilots in the military. There is no disputing these traits. They are clear identifiers of something extraordinary and beyond our level of technology.

 

I took note of how quick MR moved to the Mothership of aliens being in the ocean when tic tacs arrived

Got rid of the small problem of us not being able to detect large spacecraft required to support such small UFOs having no buzzing around

Of course there is a tiny problem of large Interstellar space craft adapting to underwater conditions

And since the A in Unidentified Aerial Phenomena could also be Unidentified Aquatic Phenomena why no lump both as plain ol' Unidentified Phenomena?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

USOs (unidentified submerged or submarine objects) have been observed and known for a long time in the field of ufo research. I didn't make it up. It's one of the many traits of some ufos that they can submerge into water and travel under the water's surface at remarkable speeds.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a29417939/unidentified-submarine-objects/

 

So, a scientist speculates that a ''school of fish'' is one possibility for the Baltic Sea anomaly. lol Right.

Maybe some of the hesitance behind examining these claims with genuine effort is due to the fear of the unknown. (and the financial means necessary to properly investigate these claims) But, I can understand the frustration of knowing that what you're observing may have an extraordinary explanation, but no one is willing to take a deeper dive. (no pun)

 

Why?

Part of the problem is that a number of things are being conflated. This is a technique designed to sow confusion.
I think you will not find any video where any skeptic has looked at a tic-tac and claimed 'I think that's a bird'.

There are videos that show an object as little more than a dot, and a pilot is heard speaking incredulously. But it's not explicit what, exactly, he's incredulous about. An analysis of the video shows that the characteristics of the unknown object are within the parameters of a bird. (And the incredulity is the technically-challenging feat of locking on to a 5 pound target against a choppy sea).

There are other videos that show a larger object - and no skeptic is claiming "it's probably a bird".

This is the tactic by believers to mix them all together and then formulate a strawman of the form "Hah! That object looks nothing like a bird!" when in fact, no none ever suggested that object did.

You can tell it's a ploy because any attempt to stay on a point until it's the assertion and defense os resolved one way or the other is historically met with either
1. "You're so pedantic. All this (waves hands dismissively) ... "analysis stuff" ... tires me out."
2. Straight up mockery, with no substantive rebuttal. "Lol! Venus!"
3. Changing the topic to the next shiny thing. (Because a magician never does the same trick twice in a row.)