UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

wegs said:
Let’s change the subject… ;)

So, are there any other similar sightings like the tic tac object that we know of?
Click to expand...

Hard to say since the military isn't revealing most of their UAP cases. We know from leaks that were subsequently confirmed that there was more than one 'tic tac' sighting. One involved one or more objects seen on radar, visually and photographed west of San Diego, and others were detected by multiple sensor modes over several days over the Atlantic. Both of those cases involved carrier battle groups on maneuvers. Both involved objects that were described in similar ways. That suggests (but doesn't prove) that the sightings had similar explanations.

I have no idea how many other similar cases they have. The UAP Preliminary Assessment mentions some 144 cases they initially looked at, so there may be some other good examples in that set.

wegs said:
Would you believe that the tic tac object is that of a ''secret'' military aircraft? (US or foreign)
Click to expand...

I can think of three broad classes of possibilities.

1. "Mundane" causes. Perceptual errors, equipment malfunctions, familiar objects misidentified. The "skeptics" really seem to favor this sort of possibility. But it seems rather low probability to me, given how the radar, visual and photographic evidence seems to cohere. Radar detects something, when planes are dispatched to the location of the radar contact, their crews see something etc. If it was just a radar malfunction, one wouldn't expect visual and cameras to verify it. If it was a visual perceptual error, one wouldn't expect radar and photography to verify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

I also have a lot more confidence in our highly skilled radar operators and fighter pilots, and in the general reliability of the equipment that they use (and trust their lives to in wartime), than I do in the speculative dismissals of armchair debunkers. My saying that might raise the hackles (what are hackles?) of some of the "skeptics", but I'm just describing my own attitude. The "skeptics" are free to believe whatever they want to believe. I have no control over that and I'm fine with difference of opinion.

But I don't want to totally dismiss the explain-it-away, 'move along, nothing to see here' position either. It remains a possibility that it's right, even if I weight its plausibility lower than our "skeptics" do.

2. The "secret aircraft" hypothesis. I personally give that one the highest likelihood at the moment. (But that's just a very preliminary opinion at this point, more of a speculation. I'm not wedded to it.)

We know that the US (and other countries) are working on a whole variety of "UCAVs" (Uncrewed Combat Air Vehicles). Drone fighter planes are probably the future of combat aviation a few decades out. The location of these sightings (off the West and East coasts near aerospace R&D facilities) and their evident interest in naval carrier battle groups at sea with their radars operating and planes in the air are suggestive to me.

The obvious counter-argument against that is that these 'tic tacs' seem to have displayed performance well in advance of the current aerospace engineering state of the art. I can imagine two possible responses to that:

2a. There has been some super-secret technological breakthrough. Somehow I suspect that's unlikely, though I have no way of really knowing.

2b. The performance is being misdescribed. This possibility has some similarity to no. 1, the "mundane" thesis, but it seems more likely to me in that it isn't inventing the object sighted out of whole cloth, entirely out of errors. 2b. would hypothesize that there was in fact an aircraft there that appeared on radar, was seen visually and photographed, even if its performance wasn't quite as good as some of the reports would have it. The UAP Assessment does say that only a few of its cases appeared to display what they called "breakthrough technology".

And there's always going to be a third possibility

3. Something unknown, something new and unexpected. It's going to be impossible to estimate the likelihood of this one, since it could be pretty much anything. (That's the nature of the unknown, I guess. What the unknown contains, is... unknown.)

So to return to your question, my own guess (nothing more than that) is that 2b seems to be the front-runner. I'm inclined to suspect some unknown US experimental aircraft prototypes. That obviously wouldn't apply to all UFOs, but it's my (very tentative) hypothesis about the 'tic tacs'.
 
Last edited:
I've posted on the topic of "monsters" here before. They've ranged from everything like Sasquatch and chupacabras to slenderman, rakes, and even the Mongolian Death Worm! I've never let the trivial issue of whether they exist stand in the way of my discussion of them. :)
 
Magical Realist said:
I've posted on the topic of "monsters" here before. They've ranged from everything like Sasquatch and chupacabras to slenderman, rakes, and even the Mongolian Death Worm! I've never let the trivial issue of whether they exist stand in the way of my discussion of them. :)
Click to expand...
Well, Putin exists so maybe monsters are real, after all.

According to the dictionary - they’re thought to be ugly, scary “imaginary” creatures…

I’m going to start a new thread …stay tuned. ;)
 
wegs said:
I’m thinking of kicking off the discussion with the well known myth(?) of the Loch Ness Monster. And not if it’s real or not… bla bla bla…but, more along the lines of how the story came to be and the investigation behind it.
Click to expand...
That's not very opening minded to call it a "myth(?)". Why can't you people be more open minded? :)
 
Sarkus said:
Lying v mistaken: a semantic hole to dive down if anyone cares to dig it? ;)
Click to expand...

If monsters don't exist, why have we given a name to them? The military doesn't want us to know that they exist because they are in the process of weaponizing them. They will shortly be released in China, Russia and Iran.

A true Patriot wouldn't question this but as I recall you aren't from the U.S. and are perhaps, in fact, an enemy of the U.S.?
 
Seattle said:
If monsters don't exist, why have we given a name to them? The military doesn't want us to know that they exist because they are in the process of weaponizing them. They will shortly be released in China, Russia and Iran.

A true Patriot wouldn't question this but as I recall you aren't from the U.S. and are perhaps, in fact, an enemy of the U.S.?
Click to expand...
:D
Maybe I (and possibly all skeptics) am from one of those government agencies tasked with sowing disinformation, trying to dismiss what we don't want the public to be aware of? I mean, isn't that the more plausible explanation for the continuing skepticism and denial in the face of such... evidence? ;)
 
Sarkus said:
:D
Maybe I (and possibly all skeptics) am from one of those government agencies tasked with sowing disinformation, trying to dismiss what we don't want the public to be aware of? I mean, isn't that the more plausible explanation for the continuing skepticism and denial in the face of such... evidence? ;)
Click to expand...
So you admit it! Monsters are people too and we should all remember that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top