UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Nope. If what you said was accurate, then the overwhelming consensus would be that aliens are visiting Earth in their spaceships.
Click to expand...

You mean as opposed to the other overwhelming consensus that God was born as a baby 2000 years ago and was crucified on a cross 32 years later?
 
Magical Realist said:
Yeah there you go with that old strawman. I've repeatedly told you I don't conclude they are aliens.
Click to expand...
Aliens, time-travelling spacemen, interdimensionals being of pure light, followers of Xeno from the planet Zog, ghosts in spaceships ... it doesn't make much difference what you imagine they are (I'm sure you have something in mind). Most of your UFO friends will say they are aliens.

I don't conclude anything about the who behind ufos.
Click to expand...
You conclude there is a who behind every UFO. There's your first mistake, right there.

I simply claim ufos are real and extraordinary phenomena in their own right.
Click to expand...
No. You do not simply claim that. You claim that UFOs are "craft" with extraordinary manoeuverability, with capacities far beyond human technology. You claim these UFOs are "piloted". And more. All with zero evidence.

Your little act where, when it suits you, you pretend that you're just talking about random lights in the sky, while at the same time you slip in claims of intelligent pilots and extraordinary technology, won't work here. I'm onto your game.
 
Magical Realist said:
You mean as opposed to the other overwhelming consensus that God was born as a baby 2000 years ago and was crucified on a cross 32 years later?
Click to expand...
When did somebody compellingly establish the reality of that?

That was your claim in respect of UFOs, remember? If you don't, it's up there in black and white in your post #2955.

Why don't you believe in God, though? You never did tell us.
 
You do not simply claim that. You claim that UFOs are "craft" with extraordinary manoeuverability, with capacities far beyond human technology. You claim these UFOs are "piloted".
Click to expand...

Yeah..that's all part of the well-evidenced phenomenon of ufos. They all show those characteristics. But I leave the speculation about who they are to others. I prefer waiting to find that out when they decide to reveal themselves to us. Does it frustrate you that you can't attack the alien assumption with me? Suck it up son.
 
Magical Realist said:
I prefer waiting to find that out when they decide to reveal themselves to us.
Click to expand...
Soooo there is a them OK

And you are waiting to find that out when they decide to reveal themselves which would be, what's the word? on the tip of my tongue, we ev.. evi... evident? nooo, evidence that's the word

You are waiting for evidence

Look forward to your adherence to this aspect of your postings

:)
 
Magical Realist said:
Yeah there you go with that old strawman. I've repeatedly told you I don't conclude they are aliens. I don't conclude anything about the who behind ufos. I simply claim ufos are real and extraordinary phenomena in their own right.
Click to expand...
It's actually not a strawman. The thread title is "space aliens".
While you personally may have a pet theory, that's not really the primary focus here.
Consider starting a new thread.
 
James R said:
Yazata:

One problem with this is that there are multiple modes of observation in play, and a few different witnesses. You think that's a strength; I see it as a weakness in this case.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the argument implicit in your view also be an argument against scientific confirmation and peer-review?

In both science and everyday life, the likelihood that a reported observation was in fact an observation of something in objective reality (as opposed to a subjective error or delusion) goes up when others are able to observe it too. The likelihood that the observation was the result of a defect in a particular mode of observation goes down when the variety of modes of observation all agree. Convergence of evidence.

It is very easy to assume that whatever it was that was seen on somebody's radar screen must have been the same thing that was reported by an eyewitness in an aircraft
Click to expand...

The aircraft had been directed to that specific point by the controllers on the cruiser on the basis of their radar. Just in the course of normal military procedure, if an unknown radar contact is observed and pilots are vectored to investigate it, when they visually sight a flying object in that specified location and proceed to photograph it, we wouldn't be insisting that what they saw and photographed had nothing to do with the radar contact. (Certainly not merely on the basis of speculation alone.) The aircraft intercept and the ensuing observations would be interpreted as confirming the radar sighting.

or the same thing as appears in the footage from the IR camera on the aircraft.
Click to expand...

It's conceivable that there was more than one UFO. The 2015 sightings over the Atlantic observed a number of them. But there's probably no need to multiply them in the Nimitz case unless there is persuasive reason to do so.

But there's no a priori reason to assume that any of these things represent the same object (if it was an object) or as having a common cause (if it was something else).
Click to expand...

The initial jets were vectored to the location by data being fed them from the cruiser's radar. As I just argued, I believe that in normal military procedure that would be interpreted as a single contact.

We know that the radar can produce spurious returns. We know that eyewitnesses can be mistaken, especially when they are far away from the object they are observing and moving at speed. We know what IR cameras on fighter jets can produce weird-looking images when they are observing, for instance, the exhausts of other aircraft. All of these effects are potentially in play in the situation under consideration.
Click to expand...

In concert the multiple modes of observation seem to me to be mutually reinforcing, reducing the possibility that errors peculiar to one method of observation are infecting the entire encounter.

You talk about "rapidly moving aerial objects", but the evidence that there actually was any rapidly moving aerial object (other than the military aircraft in the area) is weak.
Click to expand...

When I say "aerial objects" they were obviously objects of attention by the pilots. They were objects on the radar screens and the videos.

Admittedly the inference that there was something in physical reality that these objects correspond to is indeed an inference. I think that it's a very strong inference, but still not 100% certain. (I remain a fallibilist, and think that pretty much all of our beliefs might possibly be wrong.)

And I argued in a post up above that the ever-present possibility that we just might be wrong shouldn't be pushed so hard that it entirely subverts the idea of knowledge itself.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this stuff.

To reach the conclusion that all this adds up to objects that "may arguably exceed any currently known aircraft technology" is to jump to an unwarranted conclusion on the back of shoddy information.
Click to expand...

If we assume that the object observed was indeed a physical object (and unlike you, I think that the evidence is very strong that it was) then if the physical object was indeed an aircraft (a reasonable hypothesis) it would seem to exceed currently known aircraft technology. (Known to the public anyway. Hence my secret-project speculations.) It's easy for people like Nickell to glibly talk about "reconnaissance drones", but does he actually know of any that perform like this thing seemed to? Does he know of any aircraft propulsion method capable of producing that kind of performance without leaving an IR signature? (Jet or rocket exhaust or whatever.)

You don't know the Navy's thinking on this. There is classified information you don't have access to.
Click to expand...

Of course. (Just like Joe Nickell.) But I can read the Navy spokesman's public statements on the matter. See post #2948 up the page. The Navy does seem to be taking the matter seriously, as indicated by their redesigning their UFO reporting procedures and their encouragement of their aviators to report whatever they see out there,even if it's unidentified.

Also, we do have several clues as to what it might have been. A number of eminently reasonable hypotheses have been put forward. If you choose to ignore those in favour of the LGM hypothesis, you're just jumping onto the bandwagon with UFO nuts like MR.
Click to expand...

Whales? Submarines submerging? That show up on the Princeton's radars like ascending and descending ballistic missiles? That are observed hovering, flying, chased and photographed by multiple jet aircraft? That might arguably have traversed 40 miles in less than a minute (suggesting upwards of 2,400 mph)?

My argument is that there's a broad gap between your "LGM" and flat Nickell (and JamesR) style debunking and dismissal. What if something is out there, probing US air space and Naval defenses, and it isn't "LGM"?

It is far more likely that this was a result of a series of mundane occurrences coming together and being misinterpreted. Then, that misinterpretation was publicised, while potentially disconfirming information was withheld or simply not available to the public.
Click to expand...

You're speculating there, aren't you?

Evidently, some people would prefer to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, too.
Click to expand...

False and intentionally misleading analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
In both science and everyday life, the likelihood that a reported observation was in fact an observation of something in objective reality (as opposed to a subjective error or delusion) goes up when others are able to observe it too. The likelihood that the observation was the result of a defect in a particular mode of observation goes down when the variety of modes of observation all agree. Convergence of evidence.
Click to expand...
But they don't all agree.
Radar saw something, but it didn't corroborate the nature of what the pilots saw.

Yazata said:
It's conceivable that there was more than one UFO. The 2015 sightings over the Atlantic observed a number of them. But there's probably no need to multiply them in the Nimitz case unless there is persuasive reason to do so.
Click to expand...
Multiple things in the air, at separate locations is perfectly mundane. It is far, far more plausible than one thing moving at an impossible speed.


Yazata said:
The initial jets were vectored to the location by data being fed them from the cruiser's radar. I believe that in normal military procedure that would be interpreted as a single contact.
Click to expand...
That would make little sense, seeing as there's no way the two sightings could be of the same craft. An I think you're speculating.



Yazata said:
If we assume that the object observed was indeed a physical object (and unlike you, I think that the evidence is very strong that it was) then if the physical object was indeed an aircraft (a reasonable hypothesis) it would seem to exceed currently known aircraft technology. (Known to the public anyway. Hence my secret-project speculations.) It's easy for people like Nickell to glibly talk about "drones", but does he actually know of any that perform like this thing seemed to? Does he know of any propulsion method capable of producing that kind of performance that doesn't leave an IR wake? (Jet or rocket exhaust or whatever.)
Click to expand...
The hypothesis that both sightings were the same craft - and therefore the alleged high performance - is not yet granted. So this is hasty.
 
Yesterday, I watched Peter Pan with my kids. It was okay. In it, there were a bunch of kids flying. I've also watched the Harry Potter movies, where there were kids doing magic with wands and flying on brooms. You know what? None of that upset me in the slightest. I didn't feel a single twinge about movies promoting the existence of magic. I think it would be cool to be able to fly around like Peter Pan. It didn't occur to me once that I ought to "debunk" Harry Potter.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse blatant fiction depicting magic and the supernatural poses no threat to your worldview because they are make-believe. It is only when the extraordinary and unexplained breeches your mundane worldview as actual sightings and encounters that you are thrown into a tizzy prompting feeble attempts at debunking and dismissing them. Everything in order and easily explained in your little universe. No mysteries or thresholds beyond the mundane to acknowledge or explore. It's a sort of faith-held assumption on your part much like religious belief is for other people. In your case the religion is scientism and the overall consensus view of contemporary scientists.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Ofcourse blatant fiction depicting magic and the supernatural poses no threat to your worldview because they are make-believe. It is only when the extraordinary and unexplained breeches your mundane worldview as actual sightings and encounters that you are thrown into a tizzy prompting feeble attempts at debunking and dismissing them. Everything in order and easily explained in your little universe. No mysteries or thresholds beyond the mundane to acknowledge or explore. It's a sort of faith-held assumption on your part much like religious belief is for other people. In your case the religion is scientism and the overall consensus view of contemporary scientists.
Click to expand...
Everything here is straight up ad hom; there's no on-topic content here.
This is not a thread about your views on skeptics; it is a thread about UFOs and space aliens. If you have nothing further that's on-topic, please stop cluttering the thread with off-topic complaining.
 
James R said:
No. You missed the point. Perception and memory are far from perfect, all the time. The original point was that they are often good enough to get you through your regular day, and I don't disagree with that.
Click to expand...

Nobody said perception and memory are perfect. They're just very reliable and accurate enough to get us thru our daily lives. There's absolutely zero evidence that those pilots suffered some glitch in their perception or memory that made them see something that wasn't there. The encounter is detailed enough and objective enough to indicate it was a real albeit unknown object that they sighted and that performed in ways defying any manmade craft. These are the given facts of this case.


It's not a battle of my word against yours. This isn't a trust exercise.
Click to expand...

Yes it is or you wouldn't appeal to authority by using Joe Nickell as some sort of expert to validate your version of events. It always comes down to who is exercising the least bias and not making assumptions that are not backed up by evidence. In this case that would be the pilots who were there and the radar operators.


Frankly, I have far better things to do with my time than to attempt that.
Click to expand...

Noone who devotes the amount of time and effort in trying to debunk ufo sightings that you do appears to have better things to do.

Nope. If what you said was accurate, then the overwhelming consensus would be that aliens are visiting Earth in their spaceships. Instead, what we see is a fringe group of mostly Americans who have a sort of fan-boy fascination with this stuff, and a further group of creduluous people who think it might be real but haven't really given it much attention (again, many Americans. Why is this an American thing, by the way? There's an interesting question, right there, with an informative answer).
Click to expand...

Argument ad populum? That's rather desperate even for you.


I agree. They don't see that.
Click to expand...

Because you know better what they saw than they do? Is that your claim?


That's not what they say. Usually they say they don't know what they saw. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Seeing a 40 foot long tic tac isn't nothing. It's a very specific and unidentified something that they claim they saw.

No, it basically doesn't. It isn't my word against yours, or Fravor's vs Joe Nickells'. It's a matter of evidence.

It irks you, I know, but the evidence for little green men is very poor.
Click to expand...

The evidence lies in the accounts given based on eyewitness testimony, radar video, and camera video. You provide no evidence whatsoever. Just specious speculations based on your unwarranted assumption of the implausibility of ufos.

How do you know Fravor has/had no agenda? This is just what you want to believe. His fellow pilot has kept very quiet, in comparison, I note. I wonder why.
Click to expand...

Because he's a Navy pilot simply reporting what he saw that day. There are no interpretations by Fravor of the object as aliens or even as a ufo. He describes it exactly as he saw it. That's how we know he has no agenda to push like you do. His fellow pilot likely kept quiet to avoid public ridicule and defamation by people like you and Joe Nickell.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Nobody said perception and memory are perfect. They're just very reliable and accurate enough to get us thru our daily lives. There's absolutely zero evidence that those pilots suffered some glitch in their perception or memory that made them see something that wasn't there.
Click to expand...
Yes there is.
You just finished saying that perception and cognition are not perfect. That is evidence. It happens.
It is not necessary to produce evidence that it actually did happen in this specific situation to make it plausible that it happened.
It simply leaves room for doubt.

Magical Realist said:
You provide no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
We are providing evidence that it may not be as extraordinary as you insist. Nobody is trying to prove it didn't happen.

Magical Realist said:
Just specious speculations based on your unwarranted assumption of the implausibility of ufos.
Click to expand...
It is a very warranted assessment.

Magical Realist said:
That's how we know he has no agenda to push like you do.
Click to expand...
You don't know that. It is an unwarranted assumption.
 
It is not necessary to produce evidence that it actually did happen in this specific situation to make it plausible that it happened.
Click to expand...

It isn't plausible when the pilot's perceptions of the object are backed up by another pilot, radar video, and infrared camera video. You'd have to know there was nothing there for you to claim error in perception, and you simply don't know that. You're just making shit up because you don't want to believe in ufos. Basic confirmation bias.

It is a very warranted assessment.
Click to expand...

UFO's would only be implausible as an explanation if UFO's were never seen or photographed by anyone. Fortunately we have a long enough history of UFOs being sighted and photographed and being picked up on radars to say UFOs are a very plausible explanation for what those pilots saw that day. There's even a history of USO's (unidentified submersible objects) being sighted and picked up on sonar:

http://www.openminds.tv/mysterious-...-to-believe-navy-has-secret-ufo-program/40993

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top