UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As Yazata has explained, it's a matter of consilience where multiple lines of evidence converge upon the same conclusion. Multiple eyewitness accounts, radar data, and camera video all supporting the mysterious nature of the UAP. The assumption that skeptics make, that all this data is erroneous or malfunctional, is not likewise warranted.

"In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) is the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will probably not be a strong scientific consensus."--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm referring specifically to the 2004 40 ft tic tac encounter of Cmdr David Fravor attached to the USS Nimitz, which has been discussed at length already ad nauseum. Remember?

 

I don't believe you. I have observed firsthand in this thread attempts by skeptics to reduce every UAP sighting to a matter of human error or misperception. I see this as an assumption on their part that enables them to dismiss the account as nothing but a mundane mishap. It is an unevidenced presupposition that assumes its own conclusion. Your explanation of the Mt Shasta lights as being stars and planets is a perfect example of this.

 

What does "objectively mysterious" mean?

Isn't whether or not something is 'mysterious' a subjective matter? If we know what something is, it isn't mysterious. If we don't know, then it is.

All they are saying in the text you quoted is that they accept observers and instruments are reliably accurate unless they have some reason why they shouldn't. That's entirely reasonable.

It might indeed mean that they are missing some errors that they could have caught had they had better information. But they don't. Isn't that a given in any observation whether in science or in daily life?

Presumably (if we accept something like the Principle of Sufficient Reason) everything that happens/exists in objective reality has some nature/explanation that can be known, at least in principle, provided only that enough information is available and the observer has the cognitive power to understand it. So in that sense, arguably nothing is objectively mysterious.

But those ideal conditions often don't apply in real life. Which sometimes leaves us in the position of not knowing what something is, or what explains an event.

But if there is no good reason to assume instrumental faults or observer error, then one shouldn't just leap to the assumetion that these faults existed because the idea of unknowns in life is emotionally repugnant.

Accepting observations and instrument readings as valid data points that need to be explained might leave us with a larger set of unknowns than we would have had if we could somehow have just dismissed the data points. But isn't that the nature of the situation?

If we possessed perfect information, nothing would be unknown.

 

It speaks again to the desire to have answers rather than to say "I don't know." Too often I see vague reports being "debunked" when I see a more logical conclusion simply being "there is insufficient information". Sure, we can come up with an explanation if we assume the report is wrong, or a person meant something other than what they wrote, but when there is no particular reason to do so it smacks of bias, of twisting the evidence to fit a preconceived explanation rather than simply saying "insufficient info therefore I don't know". That's where I think some self-claimed rational thinkers go too far in their analysis, at least in the confidence of their eventual explanation.
But hey, each to their own, I guess.

Oh, I don't know about that!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. To allow for the possibility.

What we are looking for is UAP events that cannot be explained by conventional means.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As long as you make a distinction between "allowing for possibilities" (ie. speculating) and actually arguing for a more than merely possible explanation. Example: UAPs could be the amphibious craft of an advanced undersea humanoid species. That's certainly possible. But I don't see it as probable enough to actually propose as a plausible explanation. At least not at this early stage of research into what they are.

 

OK, here's what they say, you quoted it yourself.

"Multiple factors affect the observation or detection of UAP, such as weather, illumination, atmospheric effects, or the accurate interpretation of sensor data."

I think that both us us can agree with them on that.

"Regarding review or analysis of UAP events, ODNI and AARO operate under the assumption that UAP reports are derived from the observer’s accurate recollection of the event and/or sensors that generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments."

The observers and the equipment are generally reliable. Otherwise the military wouldn't rely on them in life or death situations. So those reports and instrument readings constitute the raw data of the investigations.

Notice what they are saying there. They accept initially that the observer's recollection of the event was accurate and that the instrumentation was working correctly. Those observation reports and instrument readings are the data that they are assigned to investigate. What they say there doesn't imply that they are refusing to investigate the reports that they are given. It just says that more likely than not, the instrumentation was working correctly and that the observers are reporting their perceptions accurately.

If somebody wants to hypothesize perceptual errors, misinterpretations or instrumental artifacts, some persuasive evidence in support of those hypotheses is required.

"However, ODNI and AARO acknowledge that a select number of UAP incidents may be attributable to sensor irregularities or variances, such as operator or equipment error."

Of course error is possible. Nobody is denying that. But error shouldn't just be assumed unless there is some justification for that assumption, some evidence that error actually occurred.

That's how I'm interpreting the text that you quoted. So I think that AARO appear to proceeding quite reasonably.

I agree with what your concern might be, and agree that initially taking reports and data at face value unless there is reason not to, might allow some undetected errors to pass. But what is the alternative and what is the harm? All it means is that cases remain longer in the 'open' category, rather than the 'debunked' category.

They are saying that they accept the observations and instrumental data as the data that they are charged to investigate. Those reports constitute their data points.

Investigating, not dismissing.

Which I expect would include evidence that the observations and instrument readings were bad. But the observations and instrument readings that they receive can't just be thrown out prior to that investigation simply because they seem to show something that some people find unacceptable. Perceptual errors and instrumental faults can't just be assumed a-priori, without evidence or justification for the assumption.

If evidence of perceptual error or instrumental faults appears, then presumably a report would go into the "select number of UAP incidents" referred to above.

 

always with the goal of determining exotic versus mundane origin.


If there is insufficient evidence to distinguish mundane from exotic (and no more evidence forthcoming on a given incident), then what's the point in throwing more resources at it? Why not put one's efforts toward incidents with the highest likelihood of success??

That's what skeptics are doing by paring away the low quality stuff. And it's what we're doing here in this thread.

Why do enthusiasts insist on keeping their coffers full of incidents that have no chance of bearing new fruit?

 

Absolutely agree. It can't just be assumed that the eyewitness(es) erred and/or the equipment malfunctioned without at least some evidence of such. But the skeptics never offer this. They assume it and then cherrypick the account to suit their narrative of the UAP being something mundane that is mistaken for something else. Their agenda is simply to debunk the account with a commonplace alternative instead of actually investigating it based on the gathered data..

 

Radar detects an anomalous contact. Certainly it's possible that it's an instrumental artifact of some kind, a spurious contact. But probably less likely than some armchair critics would like to think, since aircraft carrier battle groups trust their survival in wartime to the accuracy of those radars. So the radar contact will have some initial plausibility, perhaps not as high as a UFO-enthusiast might like, but not as low as the armchair critic's speculations might assign it.

So jets are vectored to the location of the anomalous contact and the pilots report a visual sighting of an unknown object at that location. Again it's possible that it's a perceptual error of some kind, though again the visual reports have some initial plausibility since they are very experienced aviators. And more than one see it.

My point is that the likelihood that it's a radar fault goes down dramatically if something is seen visually where the radar has located it. A radar fault doesn't explain the visual sighting.

And simultaneously, the likelihood that the visual sighting is a perceptual mistake goes down dramatically if the radar detects something there as well.

In other words, the sightings by different modalities corroborate each other. The possibility of 'subjective' factors like perceptual mistakes or radar faults might arguably be reasonably high in isolation. But taken together, the likelihood of those kind of faults accounting for the observation is far lower. So the likelihood of the accuracy of the two-modality observation is significantly higher than the likelihood of either modality taken by itself.

(I expect that can be proven with Bayesian mumbo-jumbo)

It's the same principle that we see with scientific verification.

 

Just came across this and I had to post it for MR.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The sources of the reports have quite a bit of initial plausibility, based on the experience of the aviators and the reliability of the radars. It's even more plausible when the visual and instrumental data coincide, as discussed above.

Regardless, it remains conceivable that the equipment was acting up or the witnesses were making perceptual mistakes. Though explaining how the eye-witnesses and the instruments were simultaneously making mutually confirming errors will take more doing. Obviously, one of the avenues of investigation would certainly be to investigate possible sources of error. I don't think that anyone, whether either of us or the official investigators, has ever denied that. That's a bit of a straw-man in my opinion.

But until then, the investigation also needs to pursue the data as provided: How the anomalous contact behaved on radar and what was seen by the pilots. What possible explanations might account for the data as given? That data forms the basis of the investigation and can't just be sneered into oblivion because it doesn't conform to somebody's preexisting beliefs and expectations. It shouldn't be dismissed until and unless some thoroughly convincing reason is given to dismiss it.