UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Gawdzilla Sama said:
Depends on how well the engineman did his job.
Click to expand...
I do have, probably out of days now, a Lifeboat Captaincy certificate from the time I worked on oil rigs in the Tumour Sea

Company sent me to a 10 day course in Singapore. Just so happened also our group was the last course to train on lifeboats which relied only on rowing

The lifeboats on all the rigs I worked on had motors.

Only came close to using them once when the rig took a 15° list due to a defective ballast pump putting to much water into a tank before a bubble watcher managed to manually shut it down and reverse the flow

:)
 
sideshowbob said:
You have it backwards. It's because the "evidence" is not compelling that we don't believe in ghosts or saucer people.

I personally think it is almost certain that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I just don't think they have ever come here because:
  1. There's no compelling evidence that they are or ever were here.
  2. We can't figure out how they would get here.
Click to expand...
3. Or why they would come at all.
 
Michael 345 said:
I do have, probably out of days now, a Lifeboat Captaincy certificate from the time I worked on oil rigs in the Tumour Sea

Company sent me to a 10 day course in Singapore. Just so happened also our group was the last course to train on lifeboats which relied only on rowing

The lifeboats on all the rigs I worked on had motors.

Only came close to using them once when the rig took a 15° list due to a defective ballast pump putting to much water into a tank before a bubble watcher managed to manually shut it down and reverse the flow

:)
Click to expand...
My original seat was up front. Mine detector position.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
There's the identified identified,
There's the identified unidentified,
And then there's the unidentified unidentified.
- Rumsfeld - James Bond Villain
 
Magical Realist said:
The US Navy just confirmed these UFO videos are the real deal

By Scottie Andrew, CNN
Updated 2:11 PM ET, Wed September 18, 2019

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/politics/navy-confirms-ufo-videos-trnd/index.html
Click to expand...

Nothing really new in these recent news stories, besides the assertion that the Navy never really intended them to become public. Which unfortunately plays directly into public suspicion (whether justified or not) that they are hiding more events like this and aren't being honest and forthright about them. They just shot themselves in the foot in that regard.

I think that my earlier comments on these incidents in this thread, posts 1441, 1456, 1474, 1490 and 1514 have stood up very well. These are the best UFO reports that I'm aware of.

I still think that this evidence justifies the preliminary working assumption (something of a lemma) that something was physically there in these instances, some rapidly moving aerial objects that didn't display characteristics that allow them to be easily identified and may arguably exceed any currently known aircraft technology.

That's a pretty staggering idea in itself, even if we don't try to extend it out to space aliens. I fully agree with taking an agnostic position for the time being on the question as to what they were. My two preliminary judgments are exactly the same as they were in post #1441:

(1) Something seems to have been happening and (2) we don't have a clue what it was. Which seems to pretty much be the Navy's thinking too.

The Fortean-influenced philosopher of science (Kuhn writes about anomalies too) in me makes me want to term this a classic anomaly, something that may (or may not) indicate a serious unexpected gap and void in our current world-view.

That's what some on this board want so desperately to deny. It's why their knee-jerk reaction to these exceedingly interesting reports is dismissive, sarcastic one-liners.

Because the whole idea of the unknown intruding into the sphere of real life... scares... people. People would much prefer to believe that their immediate surroundings operate according to principles that are fully understood in all the important aspects. They prefer to believe that whatever mysterious unknowns remain in the universe only show themselves at the distant margins of the micro- and macroscale, at CERN or the astronomical observatories. (I'm sure that paleolithic people sitting around their campfires thought that they had it all pretty much figured out too.)

logical.png
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Nope..that's just a description, not an identification.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.

So, not actually "40 ft long tic tacs" - as you said in its defense - simply something that appeared to be shaped like a tic tac under certain circumstances.

Lots of things can appear to be like other things under less than ideal observing circumstances. Shadows can appear like ghostly people. That doesn't make them ghostly people.
 
So, not actually "40 ft long tic tacs" - as you said in its defense - simply something that appeared to be shaped like a tic tac under certain circumstances
Click to expand...

Just appeared as 40 ft long tic tacs. No "under certain circumstances" about it. It's what the ufos actually looked like.


Lots
Click to expand...
of things can appear to be like other things under less than ideal observing circumstances.
Click to expand...

And ufos have appeared as flying saucers and oval shaped craft zipping around at supersonic speeds in ideal conditions and on radars literally thousands of times over the past 70 years, So what's the point here?
 
Magical Realist said:
Just appeared as 40 ft long tic tacs.
Click to expand...
False.

As you said, it's a description, not an identification.

Magical Realist said:
No "under certain circumstances" about it.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly.
You can't say what they would still look like tic tacs in a lab under powerful lamps.
You can't say what they would look like from twelve feet away sitting stationary on an airport runway.
You can't even say what they might look like next time under virtually identical circumstances to this event - because it only happened once.

So yes. A single event is defined by a very specific set of circumstances.


Magical Realist said:
It's what the ufos actually looked like.
Click to expand...
And this is where you cross the line into knowingly telling falsehoods.

You know perfectly well that you cannot say what they actually looked like.

You know that so well, that this is how I know you're not serious.

Magical Realist said:
And ufos have appeared as flying saucers and oval shaped craft zipping around at supersonic speeds in ideal conditions and on radars literally thousands of times over the past 70 years
Click to expand...
No they haven't.
 
False.

As you said, it's a description, not an identification.
Click to expand...

That is the description. They appeared as 40 ft long tic tacs.


You know perfectly well that you cannot say what they actually looked like.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse I can. Because that's what the pilot said they looked like. They were there. You weren't.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Ofcourse I can. Because that's what the pilot said they looked like. They were there. You weren't.
Click to expand...
Yes. He described them as "looking like ... tic tacs".

You mangled that into saying they "unidentified 40 ft long tic tacs" - which is not the same thing. You keep inferring and implying that that means they were 40 foot long tic tac-shaped objects. That is a hasty conclusion on your part.

A roll pf paper towels seen from one end looks like a donut, but that does not mean the object is actually shaped like a donut. If you only see it for a short time, from a long distance - and don't have an opportunity to examine at-leisure, then you may well describe it in such a limited way.

That's the deal with short-lived, one-time, less than ideal, unrepeatable, unverifiable observing circumstances.

You claim to view the evidence without bias, so don't overstate your case - don't make up more than what's there - in a weak effort to bolster it.
 
You mangled that into saying they "unidentified 40 ft long tic tacs" - which is not the same thing. You keep inferring and implying that that means they were 40 foot long tic tac-shaped objects. That is a hasty conclusion on your part.
Click to expand...

Don't be so anally pedantic. Looked like 40 ft long tic tacs and appearing as 40 ft long tic tacs and being 40 ft long tic tac appearing objects are all the same thing. There is no difference. They're all the same description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top