UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nope. A craft of unknown technology and origin and purpose, that defies anything humans have ever constructed, is not an identified object. It remains unidentified and falls under the definition of UFO already given you. Such craft "cannot be identified as a familiar object", which is exactly what a 40 ft long tic tac is and a metallic disc is and a spinning top is and a black triangle is. These are unfamiliar objects and not familiar objects like weather balloons, or clouds, or planes, or meteorites. Once again you wish to redefine the UFO as defined by the USAF and popular culture out of existence, as if every UFO is really just an IFO. As already pointed out to you several times, this is redefining UFO to suit your agenda of debunking their very existence, as if nobody ever sees 40 ft long tic tacs or metallic discs and spinning tops and black triangles. But the thousands of reports of ufos over the past 70 years, many of which I have posted in this thread, roundly refute you and remain compelling evidence for the existence of UFOs. There's really not much more to say on this since you are simply repeating your lies and misinformation about ufos as well as your personal insults over and over again. Why argue with a brick wall?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?
There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence."---- John Alexander, NIDS,
Last edited:
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
To put the last line first of MR's comment from post above:
MR must be what Q-reeus refers to as lazy, in not giving the link to the quote. Allow me to do that for you MR:
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
No mention of ''Craft'' or ''Beings'' in MR's selected Quote of John Alexander below.
Oh it certainly is evidence of something! And maybe even evidence for some Alien visitation. But such an incredible incident as an Alien visitation is part and parcel of probably the greatest question that mankind will ever ask....Are we alone?
So as such it is an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.
You know, what I mean. What I have been harping on and you ignoring for quite a while now.
Lets go through it again. If these reports were as you say, they would by necessity have had to travel light year distances and would be far more intelligent then us, and not really any need to be afraid. So why not make their visitations official? Landing on the lawns of the White House for example. Why the continuing flittering in and out over many decades.
Most great scientists would accept the fact that it is highly unlikely that we are alone in this great big wonderful universe.
Why are not these educated, professional scientists then not jumping on your bandwagon, and proclaiming that mankind's greatest question has been answered?
Because MR, while some of these sightings are rather mystifying and some unexplained, it is just not sufficient evidence to start running round the block shouting ET!! ET!!
Bells
Staff member
Sorry for interjecting here..
I have a question for you.
How do you know any of this?
You have not seen its technology, but you already deem it as being "unknown"?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Further: it is an assumption that there's technology at all.
If it were an unidentified optical distortion or other similar recording artifact of a simple object then its apparent behavior has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the observing conditions.
The military's definition does not rule those things out; it simply says events weren't able to be identified as such.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Interesting that you say this, since you then go on to do that exact thing:
That is not true.
The military definition says 'they can't be identified' as those things. It does not say 'they are not those things'.
Magical Realist:
Welcome back once again.
You know for sure it's a "craft" (somehow!)
You know that the "craft" is a technological artifact (somehow!)
You know that the technological craft is an expression of someone or something's "purpose" (somehow!)
You've compared the purposeful technological craft to all human constructs of every type ever and you have concluded that it shares no similarities with any of them (somehow!)
Seems like you're well on the way to identifying these things, along with their "purposeful" creators.
Remember that cloud from a previous post of mine that you misindentified as one of your UFOs? Remember how you jumped to the conclusion that a cumulo-nimbus cloud was a craft of unknown technology and origin and purpose, that defied anything humans have ever constructed? Remember that you affirmed that the cloud fit your preferred definition of UFO to a T?
How did you reach your conclusion about the technological, purposefulcloud craft in that example?
Welcome back once again.
Well, you've sure managed to narrow it down a lot!
You know for sure it's a "craft" (somehow!)
You know that the "craft" is a technological artifact (somehow!)
You know that the technological craft is an expression of someone or something's "purpose" (somehow!)
You've compared the purposeful technological craft to all human constructs of every type ever and you have concluded that it shares no similarities with any of them (somehow!)
Seems like you're well on the way to identifying these things, along with their "purposeful" creators.
Remember that cloud from a previous post of mine that you misindentified as one of your UFOs? Remember how you jumped to the conclusion that a cumulo-nimbus cloud was a craft of unknown technology and origin and purpose, that defied anything humans have ever constructed? Remember that you affirmed that the cloud fit your preferred definition of UFO to a T?
How did you reach your conclusion about the technological, purposeful
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
It's observed to be a wingless craft that flies silently and performs extraordinary flight maneuvers We can justifiably infer a technology totally beyond anything we presently know.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No.
̶o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶w̶i̶n̶g̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶c̶r̶a̶f̶t̶ No wings were observed.
f̶l̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶i̶l̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ no sound was heard
appears to perform extraordinary flight maneuvers
Here's a simple one:
"I saw the creature from behind. No face was observed."
is not the same as
"I saw the creature from behind. It was observed to have no face."
You hear the first and conclude the second.
No reasonable analyst would do so.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
If an object seen in the sky is unidentified, it is technically a ufo. If it is subsequently identified, then it would seem to no longer be a ufo, even if it was considered a ufo earlier. So there's a temporal indexical aspect to this. Ufo ascriptions seem to be functions of their context.
That slippy-slides over the underlying issue, namely what is really being seen?.
Certainly if we knew that in every case, then there would no longer be any ufos. They would all be identified.
But as what?
You seem to me to want to sneak in another unstated premise: That whatever is responsible for any and all ufo reports will turn out to be familiar and mundane. You seem (however implicitly) to want to argue that there isn't (and can't be?) anything new, extraordinary or fundamentally unexpected happening in reality.
That's what the argument of this thread is really about. It's where I think that you and I differ most profoundly.
I agree that MR doesn't use his vocabulary very precisely. Calling them "craft" in the sense of vehicles risks biasing our conclusions when we don't know what they are.
Nor can we assume that all of them would ultimately fit nicely into our pre-existing classification categories if only we had enough information. To do that is to rule out the possibility of anything unexpected popping up. Either MR and River's way or your way, it still looks like confirmation bias.
I think that there's evidence that's consistent with the extraterrestrial theory, but as you say, nothing even remotely conclusive. My own view is that the extraterrestrial theory has a relatively low probability. I remain unpersuaded.
But something else seems to be happening here:
The pro-ufo faction seems to me to be implicitly fighting for the possibility of transcendence (in the sense that reality around us arguably exceeds our current understanding). The anti-ufo faction seem to want to believe that all of reality fits nicely and without remainder into their existing conceptual boxes.
A place for everything and everything in its place. The problem with that is that for as long as there have been humans, those humans have believed that they had everything figured out (except perhaps for a few loose ends here and there). And up until today, that assurance has always proven to be wrong. (That's the so-called "pessimistic induction" in the philosophy of science.)
We need to keep an open mind.
So is yours, so is yours.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I conclude the second because I hear the first. Not hearing a sound coming from the craft is the empirical reason I conclude it to be a silent craft. Not seeing wings on the craft is the empirical reason I conclude it to be a wingless craft. Sensory detection is the foundation of us knowing something is what it is before us. It is the basis of our knowledge of what's the case.
Last edited:
Let me get this straight, you're saying that on the basis of science, a mechanical craft can operate without making a sound. On the basis of science, it is assumed the craft has some sort of energy within it that allows it to operate and that the energy transference within the craft makes no sound. Further, the craft has no wings, hence it uses it's mechanics and energy to defy gravity without making a sound. And lastly, on the basis of science, the craft is able to move through our atmosphere a great speeds without making a sound, even though everything else that moves through the atmosphere makes a sound.
To top if all off, we're supposed to just swallow all this simply because it's alien technology which is far above our level of understanding, so who are we to question that technology.
All this, you claim, is on the basis of science itself. That's quite a slap in the face of science.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's quite a stretch from what I posted. But if true, I'm sure science will get over it.
What is observed to be all those things? Every single UFO sighting ever?
What about that cloud you thought was a UFO?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
One could almost justifiably designate the anti-ufo/scientism crowd here as "mundanist"..the unswerving belief in the absolute reign of the mundane and ordinary. The fanatical protection of all that is routine and common and status quo, to the point of ravenous hostility against any suggestion of the new and transcendental. It would certainly explain why they become so emotional and belligerent when presented with nothing but the facts of each case. It's almost considered sacrilege to even bring up the possibility of a new and undiscovered phenomenon in this forum here, as if science were now a universal religion of unalterable dogmas that we dare not oppose or add to-- the slightest spark of transcendence and conscious otherness in reality stamped out immediately lest any doubt to the orthodox creed ignite and spread like wildfire. A farcry from the days of Galileo's and Bruno's blasphemous heresies.
This, in spite of the fact that I pointed you towards a specific counter-example that doesn't fit your preconceptions. When an eyewitness on the ground watches a high-flying jet aircraft, for instance, it is quite possible that he will hear no sound at all from the jet. It is perfectly possible that the sound from the jet gets reflected, refracted and absorbed in air layers between the ground and where the jet is, so that no discernable sounds reaches the ground. Moreover, the jet can appear as little more that a bright point in the sky. It is not uncommon that our attention is drawn to these things only by the long contrails they sometimes emit in a mostly-clear sky. It is often the case that no wings can be made out.
You can't pretend you haven't experienced this yourself.
Is every high-flying jet an alien craft from Planet Zog, for you? Really? Is that what you're asking us to believe? Are you honestly so attached to your UFO faith that you have to make up patent nonsense in the hope that people will believe you? Don't you realise that you just make yourself look like a gullible fool every time you come out with this kind of rubbish?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I've never seen a jet flying over that I haven't heard the noise of a jet engine from. Next?
You really shouldn't worry so much how I look to your imaginary online audience of fans and supporters. You do a fine enough job at making sure I'm depicted here in a certain bad light that none of them would ever think otherwise.