UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wrong. The skeptics here assume every ufo case can be explained by a mundane cause. If not from one that is known, then from one that is unknown. I maintain that there is no mundane explanation for a true ufo,.The ufo is truly unidentified.

Defending your obsession with sweeping generalizations about other people? Really?

 

[sideshowbob]

A ufo cannot be identified yesterday. An ifo can be identified today.

Some years ago, a local lady recorded a UFO on her camcorder. The astronomers at the local university identified it as the moon. She scoffed at the idea that she wouldn't recognize the moon. They told her, "Lady, if your camera was pointed in the direction you say it was pointed, the moon would be in your picture. Therefore, that is the moon."

New evidence (such as the position of the moon) can change conclusions. What was unidentified can become identified.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes..When all mundane causes are eliminated, I conclude a non-mundane cause. That's simple logic..

Show that you've eliminated ALL mundate causes. I doubt you've even considered most of them, it would ruin your fun.

 

[Magical Realist]

Show that you've eliminated ALL mundate causes. I doubt you've even considered most of them, it would ruin your fun.

I'm not showing shit to you troll. You degrade this conversation with every one-liner insult you post.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm not showing shit to you troll. You degrade this conversation with every one-liner insult you post.

And there you go again.

 

[Magical Realist]

New evidence (such as the position of the moon) can change conclusions. What was unidentified can become identified.

And what was unidentified can remain unidentified. See the 701 unexplained ufo cases of Project Bluebook:

http://roswellbooks.com/museum/?page_id=583

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And what was unidentified can remain unidentified. See the 701 unexplained ufo cases of Project Bluebook.

BGD. A lack of data doesn't mean little space buddies are running around Earth.

 

[sideshowbob]

And what was unidentified can remain unidentified.

But you can not predict whether or not it will ever be identified. That's why we say unidentified instead of unidentifiable.

See the 701 unexplained ufo cases of Project Bluebook.

If there is no definitive explanation, it's often because there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. In many cases there will not be new evidence forthcoming to enable a conclusion - i.e they will never be explained. That does NOT justify concluding that they are not mundane.

 

[Magical Realist]

If there is no definitive explanation, it's often because there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. In many cases there will not be new evidence forthcoming to enable a conclusion - i.e they will never be explained. That does NOT justify concluding that they are not mundane.

The appearance and behavior of ufos is usually sufficient to rule out mundane causes. Disc or ovoid or triangular shaped. Hovering silently and speeding at tremendous speeds. Stopping on a dime. Morphing into another shape. Things like that. Usually, when a ufo defies mundane explanation, it isn't because of lack of information. It is because of the information.

Question: Why is it so important to you that ufos not exist? Why do you have so much invested in this issue? You do realize there have been some very compelling ufo cases since the 1960's?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Your inability to prove they exist is endlessly fascinating.

 

[Yazata]

Usually the claim of the skeptic, that it is Venus or a meteor or swamp gas, is defended on the grounds of plausibility. Which is more likely, they ask? That it was a meteor or that it was a ufo? The planet Venus or a flying saucer?

I think that kind of argument has considerable validity and persuasive power. (It's basically the same argument that David Hume deployed against religious miracles.) But it doesn't establish the certainty of the dismissive conclusion, since it remains possible that the thing seen wasn't the planet Venus at all and was indeed a "flying saucer" (whatever that means).

And there are cases where this kind of rhetorical strategy seemingly fails. While there might indeed be plausible 'mundane explanations' (that idea needs more exploration) for this or that particular aspect of an event, it becomes less and less plausible to imagine that many such 'mundane' events came together in just such a way as to explain all the aspects of a complex and multi-faceted mysterious event.

The 'tic-tac' seems to me to be a paradigmatic example of this more puzzling kind of UFO case (my 'ufo type 2'). Maybe the cruiser's radar was acting up and producing false contacts. (Plausible, radars sometimes do that) Maybe the weak contact that the E-2 got at the same location was spurious. (Plausible, except it was at that location.) But this kind of dismissive speculation seems to be inconsistent with the visual sightings by pilots directed to the location of the contact. Maybe the water turbulence was indeed caused by frolicking whales. (Plausible) But that doesn't explain the correlation with the radar contact and with the pilots' observation of the 'tic-tac' with that same spot. Maybe a pilot was letting his imagination get carried away and was mixing up memory and imagination when describing the 'tic-tac'. (Plausible.) But multiple pilots reported seeing it. And what's more, it was even recorded on at least one of the aircraft's targeting pod's video., which presumably lacks enough imagination to confabulate.

Put it all together, and this is about as good a UFO sighting as one could possibly hope to have. The probability of multiple mundane explanations combining in just such a way as to produce it seems inherently less likely to me than the truth of the thesis that something was indeed physically there that showed up on radar, agitated the water below, was observable to the naked eye and recorded in visual light and IR wavelengths. It's Ockham's razor.

This judgement is made ofcourse in the context of the skeptic's own personal worldview where there are never any new phenomena to be discovered and where mankind is the only intelligent and rational creature in the universe. But nobody knows this. It isn't a given. It's a matter of faith--an assumption or belief that suits oneself for various ulterior reasons like emotional security or anthropocentric arrogance. Nobody knows what is out there, and the assumption that science has exhausted all there is of reality is really quite silly when you think about it.

I don't want to jump to the conclusion that it was space aliens. The conclusion that I favor (It's more of a lemma) is merely that this is a fascinating and puzzling report that strongly suggests that something was indeed physically there. What it was, I don't have a clue. (I did speculate about UCAVS, but it's just a speculation and I'm not wedded to it.)

I think that any intelligent person with an open mind should find this thing fascinating and puzzling. But instead there seems to be this reflexive knee-jerk reaction: UFO's! Bullshit! And little or no thinking ensues. Just lots of the sarcastic little one-line posts. And that's supposed to be "science".

 

[Magical Realist]

Put it all together, and this is about as good a UFO sighting as one could possibly hope to have. The probability of multiple mundane explanations combining in just such a way as to produce it seems inherently less likely to me than the truth of the thesis that something was indeed physically there that showed up on radar, agitated the water below, was observable to the naked eye and recorded in visual light and IR wavelengths. It's Ockham's razor.

Yeah...the desperate attempts at reducing a ufo sighting to multiple coincident causes like flocks of seagulls and breaching whales and random radar glitches kind of works against the persuasiveness of their own thesis. We aren't supposed to multiply entities to explain the causes of an event as per Occam's razor. We are expected to keep it simple. And concluding they are all caused by the same ufo is the most simple explanation available.

 

[sweetpea]

I've backed away from the speculative nature of ufos lately. I'm now content to accept only what the evidence has shown and nothing more--the existence of unidentified flying objects that, by their structure and behavior, cannot be explained by any mundane causes. Is that a crime?

''is that a crime?''

Are you admitting you were over zealous with your speculation ''they are either from the future, or interdimensionals, or extraterrestrials'' leading to ''There is no other explanation'' No, that's not a crime.
But, you must admit you were a tinsy winsy bit hard on me, given that you have now come around to changing your mind after saying the following to me...

And the fact that you can't offer one proves it.

Notice the ''proves it.''

 

[Magical Realist]

''is that a crime?''

Are you admitting you were over zealous with your speculation ''they are either from the future, or interdimensionals, or extraterrestrials'' leading to ''There is no other explanation'' No, that's not a crime.
But, you must admit you were a tinsy winsy bit hard on me, given that you have now come around to changing your mind after saying the following to me...
Notice the ''proves it.''

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

 

[sweetpea]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

No doubt your later change your mind about that too.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah...the desperate attempts at reducing a ufo sighting to multiple coincident causes like flocks of seagulls and breaching whales and random radar glitches kind of works against the persuasiveness of their own thesis. We aren't supposed to multiply entities to explain the causes of an event as per Occam's razor. We are expected to keep it simple. And concluding they are all caused by the same ufo is the most simple explanation available.

What about desperate attempts to make ufo sightings into something interesting?

 

[gamelord]

You forget sim theory. These might not be aliens, but a "glitch" in the universe, so to speak.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Have you checked their math?

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

LOL! James R's endless disingenuous attempts to make this about aliens again because it's just so much harder to prove aliens than it is to prove ufos.

Disingenuous? What are you on about?

If you're now saying that you believe that, in your opinion, UFOs can't be alien spaceships, that's fine. But the fact is, it's probably the most common explanation offered up by UFO enthusiasts.

As I've said about a million times, a ufo is a ufo. It is an unidentified flying object that is not a familiar object and does not match any craft humans presently have. And the proof of their existence is both compelling and abundant.

If you know it is not a familiar object, then it's not a UFO any more. You've partially identified it, as something Not Of This World, or whatever. This is your claim.

Even your use of the word "craft" is a dead give away as to what you really believe. You think that every UFO is a "craft", but for an unidentified object, no such identification has been made. That's just a belief you have, based on wishful thinking.

So, remind me who's being disingenuous, again.

"In strictest terms, a UFO is just that - an apparent unidentified flying object, origin unknown. ...

Of course, it makes no sense to talk about "origin" until you've established a basic identity of the object. If it turns out to be a cloud, then its "origin" is the ocean/atmosphere. If it turns out to be the planet Venus, then its "origin" is the solar system. If it turns out to be aliens from the planet Zog, then the origin will be the planet Zog, presumably. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.

The best scientifically accepted definition of a UFO is probably that provided by the late astronomer J. Allen Hynek, who said that the UFO is simply "the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible." (The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.)"---- http://www.ufocasebook.com/shortintroduction.html

You should read that definition closely. It's not a bad one. Let's break it down.

"the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land ...

So a UFO is somebody's perception, reported.

the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation ...

So a UFO is not something that is immediately identified as a familiar object or phenomenon. Or, more accurately, an "obviously" familiar object or phenomenon is not immediately suggested by the perception reported.

and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification ...

This is a good definition. Note carefully the words "remains unidentified". If it comes to be identified as an triangular alien spaceship from the planet Zog, then it isn't a UFO, by Hynek's definition.

Note also that "persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification" need to be involved in the process of deciding whether something is a UFO, according to Hynek. Some random dude on a youtube video saying "I saw a strange light in the sky" is not necessarily one of those people.

..., if one is possible.

This is probably the most important part of the entire definition.

We should always ask: Given all the available evidence, is a common sense identification ... possible?

If the evidence is insufficient to make a common sense identification, then in the end we don't even have a UFO, according to Hynek's definition. All we have is "the reported perception of an object or light".

And that, of course, is a very long way from triangular spaceships from the planet Zog.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

A flying object that defies all mundane explanations IS proven to be something other than mundane.

No no no no no!

To prove that, you would need to show that the object has a non-mundane explanation. You can't say in advance that it will continue to defy all mundane explanations. The best you can say is that it has defied all the mundane explanations put so far.

Agree?

If skeptics are still claiming it is mundane, they need to back up that claim with evidence.

But they aren't claiming that. They are saying "We don't know what this is, but there's no evidence it is aliens or anything supernatural or paranormal".

If you want to refute that, and make a positive claim that it is aliens, or supernatural time travellers, or whatever, then it's you who needs to provide the appropriate evidence to back up your claim.

If you were content to let your UFO cases rest with "I don't know what this is", then skeptics wouldn't have much to argue about with you. It's your flights of fantasy that are the problem.

All the other thousands of sightings and photos of ufos that are by definition something other than mundane is good evidence for the existence of the extraordinary.

You give yourself away again.

What's this about the sightings and photos being something other than mundane by definition? By whose definition? Yours? In that case, you're assuming a conclusion before you even start the investigation. According to you, they are not mundane by definition, rather than being not mundane because you've investigated the matter.

Don't you realise that you undermine your own credibility with statements like this one? You keep giving us unintentional, revealing glimpses into your underlying agenda and psychology.

Really, who do you think you're fooling?

Yes they are. A metallic flying disc that by its appearance and flight characteristics defies all mundane explanations is evidenced by the many other times these have been witnessed and photographed.

Metallic? Where has it been determined that any UFO is a metallic object? Who tested it? When did that happen?

I have no good reason to assume so many people can be mistaken over and over again about seeing a ufo, particularly when the ufo is corroborated by multiple independent eyewitnesses.

Over several years, I and others here have given you many good reasons to assume that people can be mistaken. A few appear in a post I wrote only a few pages earlier in this thread.

Your unwillingness to learn what is taught to you is your own issue. Wilful ignorance again reveals your underlying agenda.

I've backed away from the speculative nature of ufos lately.

No you haven't.

I'm now content to accept only what the evidence has shown and nothing more--the existence of unidentified flying objects that, by their structure and behavior, cannot be explained by any mundane causes. Is that a crime?

There you go, speculating. Who are you to say what can and cannot be explained?

At best, you could say that there are cases that have not been explained. Jumping from that to cannot be explained is just a leap of faith.

Wrong. The skeptics here assume every ufo case can be explained by a mundane cause. If not from one that is known, then from one that is unknown. I maintain that there is no mundane explanation for a true ufo,.The ufo is truly unidentified.

Go back to Hynek's definition. Use that.

The nature of the ufo. It's structure and flight characteristics.

Structure? Flight?

Lots of UFOs turn out not to "fly" at all, and their "structure" is hugely variable. What are the "flight characteristics" of the planet Venus (which, as we both know, accounts for some fraction of UFO reports)? Why do you use such terminology, when it so clearly doesn't apply in many cases? Why do you assume "flight" while at the same time you pretend you're thinking about something "unidentified"?

The appearance and behavior of ufos is usually sufficient to rule out mundane causes.

Usually?

No. Usually, UFOs can be identified as a mundane phenomenon. It is a small minority of cases where analysis is challenging.

Also, I note the loaded term "behaviour". What is the "behaviour" of the planet Venus, for example? Your use of the term "behaviour" implies purposeful action, which is not established in any "unidentified" object.

Of course, from time to time you slip up in your pretence, and talk about things like "pilots of the UFO", which is, of course, another completely baseless assumption of yours.

Disc or ovoid or triangular shaped. Hovering silently and speeding at tremendous speeds.

"Hovering". You imply a vehicle, and hence identification as a vehicle, or at least that something conscious is choosing to "hover".

Usually, when a ufo defies mundane explanation, it isn't because of lack of information. It is because of the information.

Correct. The problem is always to reconcile the reported characteristics in order to arrive at an identification. It is not always possible to do that, usually due to a lack of relevant evidence.

Question: Why is it so important to you that ufos not exist?

Two questions occur to me:

1. Why do you imagine that skeptics don't want alien spaceships/time travellers from the future/etc. to exist?

and, much more significantly:

2. Why is it so important to you that these things do exist? What's in it for you?

Of course, I give you credit for having already answered the first question. You believe that skeptics live in fear that their (our) "comfortable worldview" will be shattered, and that they (we) fear experiencing a crisis of uncertainty if there happen to be aliens visiting earth, and so and and so forth. Speaking personally, I don't feel very scared about those things, but there's always a small chance that you're right and it's more of a deep psychological fear that I'm not consciously aware of. Either way, it's not that important.

Can you answer the second question, please?

Why do you have so much invested in this issue?

I think you may be labouring under a mistaken impression that the skeptics, myself included, have a lot invested in whether or not your UFOs are alien spaceships/time travellers etc. As I see it, all I'm investing here is a bit of my time to have a discussion on a topic that that interests me. The focus of my interest is actually not so much on the particular kooky belief in alien visitation, but in the kind of faulty thinking that leads to that belief. Really, for me, whether it's ghosts or UFOs or pyramid power doesn't make much difference, because I believe that what's going wrong in the believer's mind is similar in all those cases.

As an educator, I'm also invested in promoting critical thinking, for lots of reasons. Ultimately, our society benefits when people think clearly about things, without prejudice. Millions of dollars and countless person-hours are wasted every year because people can't or won't think clearly about things. And there are also great harms in some kinds of shoddy thinking. People end up being exploited by the unscupulous, or else they end up acting in ways that harm themselves or those around them.

You do realize there have been some very compelling ufo cases since the 1960's?

The word "compelling", coming from you, is an empty platitude. For you, even the least convincing UFO case is "compelling". Your bar is obviously set so low that you'll be sucked in by just about any old rubbish.

Yeah...the desperate attempts at reducing a ufo sighting to multiple coincident causes like flocks of seagulls and breaching whales and random radar glitches kind of works against the persuasiveness of their own thesis.

More on that in my reply to Yazata, coming soon.

We aren't supposed to multiply entities to explain the causes of an event as per Occam's razor.

We aren't supposed to multiply entitites unnecessarily.

We are expected to keep it simple. And concluding they are all caused by the same ufo is the most simple explanation available.

Sure, that's a reasonable starting assumption.