UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

LOL A sure sign you have lost the argument and are fleeing to James' skirts again to get me banned.

Only you can get yourself banned.

I will take your attempting to wrap this up as a sign of concession. A wise choice.

 

[billvon]

Thing about these tests is that they show the fallibility of perception when distracted and focusing on something else.

Like - say -flying a jet?

Do they have any tests of what a pilot sees in front of him while flying a jet?

_Tests_ while actually flying? Haven't seen any.

However, pilots regularly misidentify things right in front of them while flying for real.

In 1992, the pilot of a Twin Otter in Perris, CA took off, and shortly after takeoff the right engine failed. Despite having the engine instruments right in front of him, and despite sitting about 6 feet from both engines, the pilot feathered the LEFT (working) engine and the plane crashed, killing 16. This happened despite the extensive training pilots get in identifying an engine-out at takeoff, the most crucial part of the flight.

In 2006, the pilot of a Continental 757 was cleared to land on Runway 29. They instead misidentified the runway and landed on Taxiway Z, a taxiway a short distance from Runway 29. Fortunately no one was injured. Again, this happened despite 1) extensive training on how to identify runways and taxiways, 2) different color lighting for the taxiway vs the runway, 3) the runway and taxiway being literally right in front of them and 4) the fact that BOTH pilots had to screw up for this to happen.

In 2006, the pilot of Comair Flight 5191 was taxiing to take off, and tried to take off on the wrong runway at night. This was despite the fact that the correct runway was well lit (as required by regulation) and the runway they were using had no lights at all. In addition, the plane's compass, MFD and backup DG all clearly showed they were pointing in the direction of 260 degrees instead of the correct runway heading of 220 degrees (since they were supposed to take off on runway 22.) Despite those glaring differences the pilot never noticed he was on the wrong runway. The runway was too short and he hit the end of the runway before taking off, killing all on board.

In 2017, an Air Canada pilot came within 80 feet of landing on a taxiway at SFO at night. A pilot waiting on the taxiway saw him, called the tower, and the tower told the Air Canada pilot to abort the landing. This was despite the taxiway having no less than four aircraft on it, all with their nav lights, taxi lights and beacons on. Even with all that, the pilot misidentified the taxiway as the runway. Fortunately the pilot was able to abort the landing and no one was injured. Had he landed he could have killed almost a thousand people (his passengers and the passengers in the four aircraft he would have hit.)

There are a great many more cases like this that demonstrate that even competent, trained pilots have trouble identifying things they are trained over and over to identify - and that they have long experience with. Given that, hoping that these same pilots accurately identify something they have never seen before is unrealistic.

 

[Magical Realist]

Billvon said: There are a great many more cases like this that demonstrate that even competent, trained pilots have trouble identifying things they are trained over and over to identify - and that they have long experience with. Given that, hoping that these same pilots accurately identify something they have never seen before is unrealistic.

I'm sure pilots in general succeed in perceiving what is going on in front of them much much more often than misperceiving it. That's why we consider them reliable enough to fly our planes for us. I for one am not willing to quit flying because of a few outlying cases. Because of their training and experience pilots are exceptionally good at knowing when they see something that shouldn't be there--especially in the case of uaps. In the case of the Navy pilots in 2015, those uaps were witnessed and detected on radar routinely for months almost every day they flew. See already posted video of ex-pilot Ryan Graves' testimony:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/s...nds-up-about-uaps.166140/page-28#post-3722578

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for trolling (again).

Due to accumulated warnings, Mr Realist will be taking another break from sciforums for a week.

 

[billvon]

I'm sure pilots in general succeed in perceiving what is going on in front of them much much more often than misperceiving it. That's why we consider them reliable enough to fly our planes for us. I for one am not willing to quit flying because of a few outlying cases. Because of their training and experience pilots are exceptionally good at knowing when they see something that shouldn't be there--especially in the case of uaps.

If they occasionally make mistakes when trying to identify things they are trained to identify, then they will make even more mistakes trying to identify things they have never seen before. Basic logic.

 

[Yazata]

I'm sure pilots in general succeed in perceiving what is going on in front of them much much more often than misperceiving it. That's why we consider them reliable enough to fly our planes for us.

Right. Reliability isn't the same thing as infallibility. Reliability doesn't require that one be correct in every instance. It just means a probability of being correct that's sufficiently high that one can have reasonable confidence in one's perception and judgment in real life.

And real life is filled with examples of people doing exactly that. (Eating food out of the fridge, crossing the street, driving a car, flying a jet fighter...)

Pointing out that error is possible (and error is always a possibility when humans are involved) is not in and of itself justification for the assumption that an error did in fact occur.

Demonstrating that an error occurred would require evidence of an error. In a situation presumed reliable from past experience, assuming that an error occurred in the absence of evidence of error might itelf be a cognitive error.

As they say, "Perfect is the enemy of good".

 

[DaveC426913]

In a situation presumed reliable from past experience, assuming that an error occurred in the absence of evidence of error

Sure, OK.

If they go based on "presumed reliable from past experience" then they would say: "It's a plane, just like last time I saw an indistinct flying object - and the other 300 times before that."


That being said, one can't distinguish 'erroneous' from 'accurate' when one is assessing the as-yet unknown - there is no objective truth to test it against.

So a UAP sighting is neither erroneous nor accurate; it is merely interpretation. We are left only with analyzing what is more likely.

Because of this, this entire line of reasoning - comparing UAP observation to daily life - is faulty.

 

[foghorn]

The AARO site has some new 'resolved' cases reports.
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)
When you land on the page, go about half way down the page and click on the blue text "Case Resolution reports"
https://www.aaro.mil/#collapseTwo
Click on each title to see more details.

 

[C C]

The AARO site has some new 'resolved' cases reports.
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)
When you land on the page, go about half way down the page and click on the blue text "Case Resolution reports"
https://www.aaro.mil/#collapseTwo
Click on each title to see more details.

This "new wave of UAP interest in the 2020s and a bit before" was bolstered by the assumptions that applicable departments had already vetted reports to some extent; that the military didn't have either an expansion or a status quo funding agenda in allowing national security concerns to be stirred-up and encouraging de-stigmatization; that aircraft pilots of today were somehow less susceptible to the misconceptions of those in the 40s, 50s, and 60s; and so-forth. It's emerging that such wasn't slash isn't exactly the situation -- as one after another of these items tumble (just as in the old days).

Atmospheric Wakes

Results of sensor artifacts in all cases.
Case One was actually exhibiting no anomolous behaviors.
Case Two was a known military aircraft.
Case Three was a known commercial aircraft.

- - - - - - -

Southeast Asia Triangles

They were cone-shaped static fishing nets floating on the ocean.

- - - - - - -

Western United States

All objects correlated with commerical aircraft traveling well-established air corridors.
_

 

[James R]

MR just told me this, in a personal message. I republish this here with his permission:

"I have never said or even implied that it is impossible for pilots to be wrong. But I have said they are very reliable."

It's nice to confirm that MR accepts that pilots can be wrong now and then.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR just told me this, in a personal message. I republish this here with his permission:

"I have never said or even implied that it is impossible for pilots to be wrong. But I have said they are very reliable."

It's nice to confirm that MR accepts that pilots can be wrong now and then.

You banned me for trolling because you claimed I asserted that it is impossible for pilots to be wrong when I didn't actually believe that. I told you I never said such a thing. So basically you banned me for nothing. Am I right?

 

[DaveC426913]

You banned me for trolling because you claimed I asserted that it is impossible for pilots to be wrong when I didn't actually believe that. I told you I never said such a thing. So basically you banned me for nothing. Am I right?

I am not privy to the private conversations you two had but the time-out occured very soon after our exchange about balloons:

Yes you can. Hence the term "ufo". It was a flying object because it was seen and detected on radar as flying.
Oh? Is that what they are doing here? What evidence do you have of this?
LOL Most the time balloons look like balloons instead of anything else.
I posted what data ruled out balloons. What data do you have showing they were balloons?

These responses from you are either logically irrational or trolling. I knew it, and told you to stop or you would be reported.
You stopped. (Presumably because you realized you got caught trolling. You are not in the habit of stopping trolling out of unmitigated respect for me, but I could be wrong.)

I should point out that I did not, in fact, report you for trolling. (You did stop, so there was no need.)

I am deducing, however (by the fact that you got a timeout anyway) that James R read our interactions and concurred with me that the above exchange was certainly trolling. (Afraid I can't help that. Anything you post is posted forever. No take-backsies.)

Question: Are you sure you want this aired in public?
If so, it needs to be moved to the Feedback forum where it belongs, and where it doesn't pollute this thread with sidebar.

 

[Magical Realist]

These responses from you are either logically irrational or trolling. I knew it, and told you to stop or you would be reported.

These arguments I made are not trolling. Nothing was said that indicated dishonesty or disingenuity or inflammatory intent. Hence my observation that you typically cry troll whenever you lose an argument. It's a sure fire way of censoring opposing views, as proven by the fact that it actually worked and got me banned for a week for no reason.

 

[DaveC426913]

These arguments I made are not trolling. Nothing was said that indicated dishonesty or disingenuity or inflammatory intent. Hence my observation that you typically cry troll whenever you lose an argument. It's a sure fire way of censoring opposing views, as proven by the fact that it actually worked and got me banned for a week for no reason.

This too is trolling.

 

[James R]

You banned me for trolling because you claimed I asserted that it is impossible for pilots to be wrong when I didn't actually believe that. I told you I never said such a thing. So basically you banned me for nothing. Am I right?

You are not right. As I said to you in a PM regarding your warning, context is relevant. I did not give you a warning for trolling based on a single post. Rather, it was based on your dishonest behaviour leading up to that.

DaveC gave you a clear example of a military pilot mistaking a balloon for something extraordinary (out of this world). After you were presented with that example, you gave your nervous LOL tic (always an indicator that you know what you're about to do) and then wrote that "Most the time balloons look like balloons instead of anything else." In other words, instead of conceding DaveC's point - instead of admitting that he presented you with a real-world example that blew your silly notion that military pilots never make mistakes apart - you chose to troll. Clearly, you knew what you were doing. Clearly, your aim was just to try to annoy DaveC, and perhaps to provoke an angry response. That is what trolls do, and that is what you set out to do.

I did not ban you. You were automatically banned for a time due to your having accumulated many similar warnings - more than 70 at last count, in fact. It's not my fault that you're a slow learner or that you can't control yourself. Nor can you claim that you're unaware of what happens when you make a deliberate decision to try to troll other members here. You know what happens based on various previous attempts at that.

These arguments I made are not trolling. Nothing was said that indicated dishonesty or disingenuity or inflammatory intent.

It was only after you got caught out that you backed down and tried to make these kinds of excuses for your behaviour. You think you're cleverly manipulating your readers, to make it look as if your trolling behaviours are legitimate and should be tolerated, while simultaneously trying to make me look unreasonable or vindictive. Maybe you'll even convince some people with that act. But that doesn't change the fact that I will not let you get away with the sort of deliberately inflammatory dishonesty you regularly trot out on this topic.

Hence my observation that you typically cry troll whenever you lose an argument.

I have never lost an argument with you. In this case, I wasn't even involved in the relevant discussion.

It's a sure fire way of censoring opposing views, as proven by the fact that it actually worked and got me banned for a week for no reason.

Again, the reason you got yourself banned for a week is that you can't keep yourself honest and you apparently can't control your desire to try to provoke angry responses whenever you find that you've run out of actual arguments related to the topic at hand.

You have not been censored. Everything you posted, including this latest whinge session from you, is still here, available for everybody to read and judge.

 

[Magical Realist]

instead of admitting that he presented you with a real-world example that blew your silly notion that military pilots never make mistakes apart

There was no blowing apart of anything because that was never my notion nor did I ever say it. Why do you lie so blatantly? Do you think as a mod you are somehow exempt from being truthful?

 

[DaveC426913]

There was no blowing apart of anything because that was never my notion nor did I ever say it. Why do you lie so blatantly? Do you think as a mod you are somehow exempt from being truthful?

Post 9318 has at least four passages where you made statements you know to be misleading, inflammatory or dishonest. Being that it only contains 4 passages, that's a pretty impressive 1:1 ratio.

You have been infracted and timed-out many, many times ,adn yoet you not not learned how to comport yourself as a grown up. As long as you pursue this tack, you simply have no business demanding anybody treat you with respect. You should be counting every day you're not perma-banned as a free gift of James R's tolerance.

Now, going to formally request that this "questioning moderator action in-thread" be moved to the appropriate Feedback forum where it belongs.

 

[Magical Realist]

Post 9318 has at least four passages where you made statements you know to be misleading, inflammatory or dishonest. Being that it only contains 4 passages, that's a pretty impressive 1:1 ratio.

None of those comments were misleading, inflammatory, or dishonest. If you got upset by them it's probably because you couldn't respond to them truthfully. Hence your disingenuous resorting to trying to get me banned for trolling. Seems to be a pattern for you.

Post 9318:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't say it's "flight" if you can't know it's flying. Can't know it's flying if you don't know what it is.

Yes you can. Hence the term "ufo". It was a flying object because it was seen and detected on radar as flying.

Many times, very small, very slow, very nearby things have been mis-identified as very large, very fast, very distant things.

Oh? Is that what they are doing here? What evidence do you have of this?

As demonstrated, ballons can look like anything.

"It doesn't look like a balloon I've seen before" does not rule out balloon.

LOL Most the time balloons look like balloons instead of anything else.

And it cannot be concluded that it is not a balloon.

I posted what data ruled out balloons. What data do you have showing they were balloons?

 

[DaveC426913]

None of those comments were misleading, inflammatory, or dishonest.

You are what we like to call 'wrong'.
And you know it's wrong, which is also trolling.

Keep this up.

If you got upset by them it's probably because you couldn't respond to them truthfully.

Inasmuch as it is difficult to respond to the similar remark "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - itself, manipulative, implicative, and trollish.

Hence your resorting to trying to get me banned for trolling. Seems to be a pattern for you.

I am incapable of getting you banned for trolling. The only thing that can get you banned is words you post.

You know this because it has been explained to you several times, including just 18 posts ago.

So your statement is a lie. Knowingly, and designed to inflame.

Reported for trolling.

(SciFo may need to implement a "banning parole" just for you. One must keep one's nose clean for X weeks after coming back from ban or it's right back to banned.)

All that being said: until you can regain some self-control and comport youself responsibly, you are put on ignore so this thread can cool off.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Since you would have us all believe that you still don't understand why you got a warning for trolling, allow me to model how an appropriate reply to DaveC's post #9317 from you should have looked:
-----

Can't say it's "flight" if you can't know it's flying. Can't know it's flying if you don't know what it is.

Good point, DaveC. For instance, I (Magical Realist) am aware that the planet Venus is not a flying object and yet it is often mistakenly reported as such. James R told me that. So I take your point that it is just wrong to jump to the conclusion that a sighting of Venus is a sighting of a flying object. Even if you're unable to identify it as Venus, clearly there is no evidence that the light in the sky you're looking at is flying. All you see is a light in the sky that you can't identify. "Flight" would be a completely unjustified assumption.

Many times, very small, very slow, very nearby things have been mis-identified as very large, very fast, very distant things.
Until it is identified as some thing, such mis-identifications cannot be ruled out.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the existence of such incidents, again.

I will make an effort to investigate such cases and I will be more careful in future about jumping to conclusions about the size and distance of a UAP.

As demonstrated, ballons can look like anything.
"It doesn't look like a balloon I've seen before" does not rule out balloon.

Point taken, DaveC.

It would be rather unusual to see a balloon that was shaped like Bart Simpson while flying a jet fighter. Probably, if I saw such a thing from I distance as I sped past it I wouldn't have clue what it was. It's totally understandable that the military pilot involved made a mistake. After all, I accept that military pilots are far from infallible observers.

Yup. And it cannot be concluded that it is not a balloon.

Yes. You're right, DaveC. Sorry. My mistake.