UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist said:
Unidentified as in not identifiable as anything known at all. That's the standard definition of a ufo I've posted here about 20 times already:

"The USAF defines a UFO as: Anything that relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be identified as a familiar object."(USAF Regulation 200-2)
Click to expand...
To be clear, "cannot be identified as a familiar object" is not synonymous with "therefore exotic".

There is plenty of room for mundane objects simply unidentifiable as such due to poor observing circumstances.
 
DaveC426913 said:
To be clear, "cannot be identified as a familiar object" is not synonymous with "therefore exotic".

There is plenty of room for mundane objects simply unidentifiable as such due to poor observing circumstances.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...mysterious non-exotic objects? I don't think so. These are metallic discs, black triangles, rotating tops, and 40 ft long tic tacs. Everything about them says exotic.

yahooNews-307177-1568827260315.jpg
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Hmmm...mysterious non-exotic objects? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Yes.

That's kind of the thing about unidentified. If they're unidentified then they might easily be non-exotic things that aren't observed in a way that makes them identifiable.


Magical Realist said:
These are metallic discs, black triangles, rotating tops, and 40 ft long tic tacs. Everything about them says exotic.
Click to expand...
They appear to be shaped like triangles or tic tacs under very poor observing conditions. Since they're not identified, they have not been identified as triangles or tic tacs.

A radar silhouette leaves a lot of room for ambiguity.
 
They appear to be shaped like triangles or tic tacs under very poor observing conditions
Click to expand...

No...they appear as those under poor and excellent observing conditions, as in the broad daylight of the Navy encounters. Observing conditions have no bearing in how they appear.
 
Magical Realist said:
No...they appear as those under poor and excellent observing conditions, as in the broad daylight of the Navy encounters. Observing conditions have no bearing in how they appear.
Click to expand...
Show me this clear, unambiguous close-up, multi-angle, multi-witness video of these tic tacs.
Oh that's right, it's a radar silhouette, lasting a few seconds, with a very poor viewing angle.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Show me this clear, unambiguous close-up, multi-angle, multi-witness video of these tic tacs.
Oh that's right, it's a radar silhouette, lasting a few seconds, with a very poor viewing angle.
Click to expand...

LOL! Radar and FLIR video and multiple eyewitnesses not good enough now..Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Was it enough to identify the object No? Then by definition it wasn't good enough.
Click to expand...

Good enough to identify it as a UAP, of which there have been many other sightings, including by multiple Navy pilots on the east coast in 2014-2015.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-pilots-ufo-reports-confirmed-new-york-times-military-

"According to The Times, the Navy recently set out new classified guidance for how to report "unexplained aerial phenomena."

According to the report, the pilots who reported the aerial phenomena "speculated that the objects were part of some classified and extremely advanced drone program." In another instance, one pilot told Lt. Graves that he "almost hit one of those things" and that he described it as looking "like a sphere encasing a cube."

Lt. Graves and his fellow pilots told the newspaper that "the video showed objects accelerating to hypersonic speed, making sudden stops and instantaneous turns — something beyond the physical limits of a human crew."
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
False. By definition, things that are Unidentified are not identified. That's a classification, not an identification.
Click to expand...

It's an unexplained aerial phenomenon, displaying specific performance and structural traits. That makes it something more than a "could be anything."
 
Your "analyses" are quite sloppy, full of wishful-thinking and embellishment, a hallmark of UFO hysteria.
Click to expand...

Last ditch ad homs won't help you in the face of all this extraordinary recent evidence we have for ufos/uaps.
 
Michael 345 said:
Not sure if you looking for this but....

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/05/navy_pilots_2004_ufo_a_comedy_of_errors/

:)
Click to expand...
Interesting:

"In any event, this brings us to the video in question, which shows an object’s rapid acceleration to the left and disappearance from the video screen. What we see on the video is probably a trick of optics, according to Major McGaha. He believes the sudden leftward-zooming of the object resulted from the camera having momentarily reached the limit of its panning ability, at which time the F-18 was banking. This created the onscreen illusion that the object suddenly shot away. As corroboration, McGaha notes that the angle of the object’s moving off the screen is correlated to the bank angle of the F-18. What was no longer viewed was presumed to have disappeared at a tremendous speed.

As it happened, this was Fravor’s “first military assignment as a pilot for the U.S. Navy’s F-18 Super Hornet.” It obviously rattled him."


So, this being his first assignment in an F-18 (and it was a training assignment), it is forgiveable if he didn't know to interpret the sudden movement of the bogey as an artifact of the camera system.
 
So, this being his first assignment in an F-18 (and it was a training assignment), it is forgiveable if he didn't know to interpret the sudden movement of the bogey as an artifact of the camera system.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure a non-moving bogey is any less mysterious than a suddenly moving one. The uap was witnessed by him and another pilot as a 40 ft long tic tac flying around like a pin pong ball against a wall. Ofcourse that's left out of this account.

Also it's unlikely Fravor wouldn't already be well acquainted with the effect of camera movement from flying other jets. He had years of experience with equipment like this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top