UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[James R]

Well at least you got round to responding - in characteristic super skeptic style of course - to the article I kept posting.

That was just a time waster, wasn't it? There's nothing actually new or important in there that we haven't discussed previously. There was nothing I gained by reading it. Every time I jump through one of your hoops I discover that the exercise has been a waste of my time. That's why I prefer to wait until you post something that engages my attention before responding, rather than trying to respond to every fluff piece that grabs your attention and appeals to your confirmation bias.

In casting aspersions on the validity of every aspect of it was unsurprising. That kind of attitude would never be allowed in the armed services where reports from defense personnel are expected to be unfettered by any ideological prejudice.

Maybe I'm not cut out for the military. Not a big one for bowing to authorities just because they are authorities. Not a big one for following orders without question. That kind of thing. I think too much.

Don't get me wrong. There are aspects of the military that I quite enjoyed. I think it's a great career for some people. It can provide structure and stability in their lives, for instance.

Just as well for the nation.

Your military is obviously already perfect without me. Phew! You can rest easy.

These intrusion events, having no ordinary explanation, just keep happenning as they have for many decades. Notably in the past at nuclear missile silos, where many reliable testimonies refer to total shutdowns coincident with sighted hovering UFOs. Everything starting up again spontaneously upon departure of said UFOs. Those chosen to man Minuteman first-strike nuclear silos were selected for among other things a history of psychological stability, particularly under extreme stress. Go figure.

Why would a UFO sighting cause some guy hunkered down in a silo extreme stress? I'm puzzled.

I assume you have all the documentation to verify these mysterious "total shutdowns" you mention, along with evidence of the presence of nearby UFOs at the relevant times. Maybe you should show us some of it. It's not all just anecdotal tales from ex-military personnel, or second cousins of ex-military personnel, is it?

 

[Q-reeus]

Why would a UFO sighting cause some guy hunkered down in a silo extreme stress? I'm puzzled.

You jump to conclusions. I said those personnel were selected for their coolness under pressure, with that naturally comes not prone to phobias or hallucinations. So when a silo base is switched off - total power failure thus lights off everywhere in the complex as reportedly happened on occasions, they and other support staff e.g. security details wouldn't go into a blind panic. Something you would be prone to link to 'seeing things' owing to a 'highly stressed state of mind'. Well security personnel certainly did report seeing things - UFOs that were actually there and up close.

I assume you have all the documentation to verify these mysterious "total shutdowns" you mention, along with evidence of the presence of nearby UFOs at the relevant times. Maybe you should show us some of it. It's not all just anecdotal tales from ex-military personnel, or second cousins of ex-military personnel, is it?

WTF would you need given all such incidents only come out years typically decades after the events - when sworn to secrecy personnel involved have retired and feel free enough to speak their mind? Documentation? Are you that naive? The very consistent record is all physical evidence e.g. tape/disk data are whisked away and stored in various secured vaults. Standard procedure for a military paranoid about security breaches giving possible comfort and succor to the enemy.

You would I guess expect as reasonable an on-demand reproduction of the rare encounter - to satisfy your unreasonable skeptic expectations? Again, such inferred absurdity is why I can't take you seriously. This will have to do:
https://www.ufohastings.com/
Don't expect spoon feeding beyond that link. It's all there if you have the will to follow the itemized links within. Latest Articles listing might be a good place to start.

 

[paddoboy]

Again, such inferred absurdity is why I can't take you seriously.

As I feel about you both.

 

[James R]

WTF would you need given all such incidents only come out years typically decades after the events - when sworn to secrecy personnel involved have retired and feel free enough to speak their mind? Documentation? Are you that naive?

Documentation would be an excellent starting point. Contemporaneous reports of the events in question would be valuable evidence that they occurred at that time, thus eliminating the possibility that witnesses telling the stories years later either made things or else misremembered what happened.

Why are you not interested in documentation? I thought you'd be keen to take a look at hard evidence.

I notice that there are some documents on the site you linked to, which is good. Have you looked at any of them? Which ones are most persuasive? What's your best case? I don't see why I should have to start from scratch on this. I have you as an expert who has studied this stuff for years, right? You must have decided which evidence is untrustworthy and which is high quality. So why don't you present your best evidence to me and I'll take a look?

The very consistent record is all physical evidence e.g. tape/disk data are whisked away and stored in various secured vaults.

Since you and I have no way of knowing even whether such evidence actually exists or is just tall tales, that evidence (if it exists at all) is worthless to us. Claiming that there's a conspiracy to hide the Truth does nothing to prove your claim.

You would I guess expect as reasonable an on-demand reproduction of the rare encounter - to satisfy your unreasonable skeptic expectations?

Surely rare encounters and extraordinary events would be well documented by the efficient military apparatus you so admire?

Don't expect spoon feeding beyond that link. It's all there if you have the will to follow the itemized links within.

No. I'm not going to waste my time on that. Show me three or four of the best bits of evidence you have from there. It's not up to me to sort through the pile to see if anything might be worth taking seriously. That's just time-wasting busy work you're trying to set me. Your claim; up to you to convince us. The onus is not on me to disprove your pet theory.

 

[Q-reeus]

I notice that there are some documents on the site you linked to, which is good. Have you looked at any of them? Which ones are most persuasive? What's your best case? I don't see why I should have to start from scratch on this. I have you as an expert who has studied this stuff for years, right? You must have decided which evidence is untrustworthy and which is high quality. So why don't you present your best evidence to me and I'll take a look?

Check out the two pages under 'Nuclear Weapons Laboratories', and twelve pages constituting in all just four documents under 'ICBM Sites' here:
https://www.ufohastings.com/documents
The rest you will probably not be impressed by as the various witness statements and personal correspondences are mostly composed many years after the fact ('fading memories' excuse).

If you can't be bothered to read above suggested selections then forget it.

 

[James R]

Check out the two pages under 'Nuclear Weapons Laboratories', and twelve pages constituting in all just four documents under 'ICBM Sites' here:
https://www.ufohastings.com/documents
The rest you will probably not be impressed by as the various witness statements and personal correspondences are mostly composed many years after the fact ('fading memories' excuse).

If you can't be bothered to read above suggested selections then forget it.

I read the documents you referred to. They seem wholly unremarkable to me. They merely collate reports of unidentified things that various witnesses reported. One document makes the point that many of the witnesses were young, with no aircraft experience.

There's also a report of what looks like a computer glitch of some kind in a missile control system. Routine maintenance appears to have been called for.

The documents from 1950 are right in the middle of the first UFO flap, when "flying saucers" became all the rage in the United States for a time. Everybody who saw the planet Venus and didn't know what it was was reporting alien spaceships at that time.

What impresses you so much about these documents?

 

[Q-reeus]

I read the documents you referred to. They seem wholly unremarkable to me. They merely collate reports of unidentified things that various witnesses reported. One document makes the point that many of the witnesses were young, with no aircraft experience.

There's also a report of what looks like a computer glitch of some kind in a missile control system. Routine maintenance appears to have been called for.

The documents from 1950 are right in the middle of the first UFO flap, when "flying saucers" became all the rage in the United States for a time. Everybody who saw the planet Venus and didn't know what it was was reporting alien spaceships at that time.

What impresses you so much about these documents?

How about the details of listed events - something you gloss over as 'reports of unidentified things that various witnesses reported'. Check the details!
Some additional material relating to the 1967 Malmstrom silo complex incidents:
https://www.theufochronicles.com/2012/11/ufos-reported-near-malmstrom-afbs.html
The documents you read are obviously brief and e.g. in the 'helicopter landings' report intentionally distorted (as per inserted commentary at end of document page). Personal testimony of involved personnel fills in a LOT of extra details! No doubt you will declare that as unreliable anecdotal fluff, in keeping with your dismissive attitude in general. Whatever suits.

 

[DaveC426913]

Whatever suits.

OK.
What's the problem then?

MR had this same problem. He had a threshold for believability that was set far far lower than for most others. And that's OK.
Yours is near MR's but indisputably below ours.
We each pick where our bar is.

No doubt you will declare that as unreliable anecdotal fluff,

Putting words in others' mouths I see.
Is that because no one is actually saying unreasonable things for you to quote?

Anecdotal evidence is not "fluff". But it is very limited. One can't do experiments on them, and one can't send them to an third party for retesting. As far as research and analysis goes, they are "one-and-done".

Me, I like my evidence more extant. That's where I set my bar.


It's the same thing that prevents me from falling for ghosts and unicorns. (I don't know where you stand on anecdotes of those things.)

You've committed yourself to a threshold of believability that is, relatively speaking, far lower than others. And that's your choice.

So what 's with all the whining and griping? Stop wishing that your personal standard is somehow more valid than anyone else's.

 

[paddoboy]

OK.
What's the problem then?

MR had this same problem. He had a threshold for believability that was set far far lower than for most others. And that's OK.
Yours is near MR's but indisputably below ours.
We each pick where our bar is.


Putting words in others' mouths I see.
Is that because no one is actually saying unreasonable things for you to quote?

Anecdotal evidence is not "fluff". But it is very limited. One can't do experiments on them, and one can't send them to an third party for retesting. As far as research and analysis goes, they are "one-and-done".

Me, I like my evidence more extant. That's where I set my bar.


It's the same thing that prevents me from falling for ghosts and unicorns. (I don't know where you stand on anecdotes of those things.)

You've committed yourself to a threshold of believability that is, relatively speaking, far lower than others. And that's your choice.

So what 's with all the whining and griping? Stop wishing that your personal standard is somehow more valid than anyone else's.

Bloody brilliant Dave! But, psst, don't tell q-reeus I said that.

 

[Q-reeus]

OK.
What's the problem then?

MR had this same problem. He had a threshold for believability that was set far far lower than for most others. And that's OK.
Yours is near MR's but indisputably below ours.
We each pick where our bar is.


Putting words in others' mouths I see.
Is that because no one is actually saying unreasonable things for you to quote?

Anecdotal evidence is not "fluff". But it is very limited. One can't do experiments on them, and one can't send them to an third party for retesting. As far as research and analysis goes, they are "one-and-done".

Me, I like my evidence more extant. That's where I set my bar.


It's the same thing that prevents me from falling for ghosts and unicorns. (I don't know where you stand on anecdotes of those things.)

You've committed yourself to a threshold of believability that is, relatively speaking, far lower than others. And that's your choice.

So what 's with all the whining and griping? Stop wishing that your personal standard is somehow more valid than anyone else's.

Piss off troll. Your opinions are worthless imo.

 

[paddoboy]

Piss off troll. Your opinions are worthless imo.

ACTUALLY A GOOD QUESTION Q-REEUS!
Why do you see a need to drag everyone down to your level of gullibility?

 

[Magical Realist]

MR had this same problem. He had a threshold for believability that was set far far lower than for most others. And that's OK.

No..I just believe what people say when they say they saw something. And I accept their descriptions of what they saw. I don't become some jerk and whine that what they say they saw isn't testable in a lab nor is subject to scientific scrutiny and therefore wasn't there. I don't start spewing some thesis on the alleged unreliability of human perception. I'm just like everybody else in the world. I take their word for it, particularly when that thing has been seen over and over again thousands of times all over the world. That isn't a low believability threshold. It's just common, everyday good sense.

 

[Q-reeus]

No..I just believe what people say when they say they saw something. And I accept their descriptions of what they saw. I don't become some jerk and whine that what they say they saw isn't testable in a lab nor is subject to scientific scrutiny and therefore wasn't there. I don't start spewing some thesis on the alleged unreliability of human perception. I'm just like everybody else in the world. I take their word for it, particularly when that thing has been seen over and over again thousands of times all over the world. That isn't a low believability threshold. It's just common, everyday good sense.

I would temper that somewhat to recognize that in many cases what people see are in fact mundane objects/phenomena. But for sure in many other cases mundane is a hopelessly inadequate explanation. Especially in e.g. the Nimitz & Eisenhower carrier group encounters. Those extremely well evidenced situations done to death here, and inevitably dismissed out of sheer ideological commitment to the mundane by the hardened 'skeptics' here. Notwithstanding their shallow claims of 'openness'.

 

[DaveC426913]

Piss off troll. Your opinions are worthless imo.

You take time to respond, yet the response contains no counterargument. That's tantamount to a concession.

Your bar of believability is simply lower than others. That's an incontrovertible fact. It's the core fact of this thread.

And it's OK. We all get to set our bar. Own yours.

 

[DaveC426913]

... and inevitably dismissed out of sheer ideological commitment to the mundane by the hardened 'skeptics' here....

They're not dismissed. They simply fail to achieve the required preponderance of evidence to warrant inventing a whole unearthly civilization just to explain them.


But why is it you put words and ideas in other peoples' mouths and heads - and then attack them for those made up things of yours? Is it because no one is actually saying bad faith things to attack?

I suspect you will not address that.

 

[wegs]

It seems though that scientists don’t take a greater interest in figuring out what’s going on with all these reports of UFO sightings. I know NASA might not care about the crazy alien abduction “reports,” but there are some plausible stories that are dismissed without much exploration, or so it seems.

 

[Q-reeus]

You take time to respond, yet the response contains no counterargument. That's tantamount to a concession.

Your bar of believability is simply lower than others. That's an incontrovertible fact. It's the core fact of this thread.

And it's OK. We all get to set our bar. Own yours.

No troll. Your 'incontrovertible' claims are not worth a pinch. You and ilk have never attempted a rational analysis that would come close to an actual debunking of the best-in-world, top-notch military hardware multi-spectrum tracking, highly trained aircrew corroborated multiple UAP extraordinary encounters of 2004 Nimitz and 2014-2015 Eisenhower carrier groups.
The tide is turning against you self-styled debunkers as more and more pressure mounts for public disclosure in the wake of released info of Nimitz & Eisenhower encounters:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...viously-unreported-2019-triangle-ufo-incident

 

[Q-reeus]

They're not dismissed. They simply fail to achieve the required preponderance of evidence to warrant inventing a whole unearthly civilization just to explain them.

So claims you. So what?

But why is it you put words and ideas in other peoples' mouths and heads - and then attack them for those made up things of yours? Is it because no one is actually saying bad faith things to attack?
I suspect you will not address that.

Would you like me to quote you and James R actually doing just that on a regular basis? Don't make me laugh hypocrite.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your 'incontrovertible' claims are not worth a pinch.

So you're claiming your bar for quality evidence is not set lower than most others here?
Because that's demonstrably false.

You and ilk have never attempted a rational analysis that would come close to an actual debunking of the best-in-world, top-notch military hardware multi-spectrum tracking, highly trained aircrew corroborated multiple UAP extraordinary encounters of 2004 Nimitz and 2014-2015 Eisenhower carrier groups.

Not debunking - just sufficient room for possible error and equipment misinterpretation.

Not being able to 'debunk' a claim is not tantamount to 'it must therefore be unearthly'.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And I think that's where your bar is set too low for my taste.

The tide is turning against you self-styled debunkers as more and more pressure mounts for public disclosure in the wake of released info of Nimitz & Eisenhower encounters:

Nobody wants full disclosure more than us skeptics. On this, you and I are allies.
But suspect it will ultimately favour me over you.

 

[foghorn]

I know NASA might not care about the crazy alien abduction “reports,” but there are some plausible stories that are dismissed without much exploration, or so it seems.

It's not ''crazy'' if it's a person talking about their first hand experiences.

Well, according to some that is:

You have no compelling reason to doubt people talking about their firsthand experiences. To do so is mentally ill and paranoid. It requires a suspicious paranoia on the level of a conspiracy theorist to think everyone who has a paranormal experience is just lying about it.