UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

I've posted Allen J. Hynek's definition of ufo perhaps a dozen times here. I'm not about to do it again.

"...which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients..."
Your post 5010 fails these two conditions.

Lights in the sky that also show up on radar and circle around military ships certainly suggest human aircraft, and there is nothing mystifying about them.


This thread is In defense of Space Aliens. Please stay on topic.

If you want to catalogue every jet plane that flies at night, start your own thread. Don't pollute this one.

 

[Magical Realist]

This thread is In defense of Space Aliens. Please stay on topic.

That was James R's title for this thread that he started. It was shown long ago and many times over that nobody is arguing for the existence of space aliens. If you have a problem with that move on. I will continue posting evidence for ufos just as I have from day one of this thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

I will continue posting evidence for ufos just as I have from day one of this thread.

Just ensure they are in defense of space aliens, as is the topic of this thread.
If you want to catalogue every jet plane that flies at night, the correct thing to do is to start your own thread.

 

[Magical Realist]

So are you claiming the ship could not have such a camera on board or in a plane waiting to take photos of the most momentous event in human history?

I neither know nor care what camera they have in your hypothetical scenario. I just know what regular cameras do to distant craft in the sky.

 

[Michael 345]

This just in from the Bali Update Magazine the email Bali newspaper Edition #1265 - 14 July 2021 covering all Bali News

https://balidiscovery.com/ufos-and-flying-saucers-visiting-bali/

Fairly old news and why printed now no idea

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting sighting from above article. The ufo was silent, which is typical for most of them:

"Darmayudi described the encounter to the press on 09 January 2011: “I saw (the UFO) for around 30 minutes. The UFO was flying at the height of a coconut tree standing to the east of my house. It had many lights colored white, blue, and green lamps adorning the edge of the object. There was a bright light shining down from underneath the object.”

Describing it as saucer-shaped and as large as a bus, he said the UFO had windows on its side, adding he did not see any beings inside the vessel via the windows. He also claimed the flying object was silent, making no noise of any kind.

When he climbed to the second floor of his home for a closer look at the object, Darmayudha said the UFO quickly departed to the south, again without making any audible noise."

 

[Q-reeus]

...It had many lights colored white, blue, and green lamps adorning the edge of the object. There was a bright light shining down from underneath the object.”
...He also claimed the flying object was silent, making no noise of any kind....

Those characteristics, common to many accounts sometimes involving many eyewitnesses, amount to carnival attractions in the sky, imo created purely to provoke bewilderment and awe in human spectators.
It's one reason I reject both the 'space alien' and secret military 'breakthrough tech' craft angles. Flashing multi-colored lights, light beams descending - sometimes stopping in mid-air, make no sense at all in terms of the usual dichotomy.

Add to that numerous reports of complete vehicle electrical failures that mysteriously self correct including engines restarting 'spontaneously' on departure of a UFO.
Also e.g. the many radar confirmed hypersonic speeds without ever a sonic boom to match, and ONLY paranormal makes it past the logic filter.
And that leaves out the many reports of associated poltergeist type activity, and of 'miracle healings' - or sicknesses.

All covered many times this thread, and all simply dismissed as 'merely anecdotal accounts' by the SF debunker brigade. Who lately have plumbed new lows here and elsewhere.

 

[DaveC426913]

...paranormal makes it past the logic filter.

The problem is 'Paranormal' is not an explanation of any sort; it is merely a category to separate it from normal.
It is tantamount to 'we don't know what it is, we only know what it isn't.' There is no mechanism there, thus no theory.

It is not enough to claim falsification of a given theory; the obligation is to also provide a replacement theory.

Because, without a replacement theory, there is still room for 'operating mundanely, just in unexpected ways' and 'faulty/misinterpreted observations' theories. They are still better explanations than merely 'we don't know - could be magic'.

 

[Q-reeus]

The problem is 'Paranormal' is not an explanation of any sort; it is merely a category to separate it from normal.
It is tantamount to 'we don't know what it is, we only know what it isn't.' There is no mechanism there, thus no theory.

It is not enough to claim falsification of a given theory; the obligation is to also provide a replacement theory.

Because, without a replacement theory, there is still room for 'operating mundanely, just in unexpected ways' and 'faulty/misinterpreted observations' theories. They are still better explanations than merely 'we don't know - could be magic'.

You know from many past posts what paranormal stands for here - typically capricious, strange manifestations in our physical reality, by non-material intelligent beings wielding extraordinary powers far exceeding ours. This is a logical deduction based on the mass of accumulated evidence, mostly eyewitnesses, but in the UFO sub-category, includes cutting edge military grade multi-spectrum records, accompanied by corroborative eyewitness accounts from military personnel. Washington 1952 UFO flap incidents, 2004 Nimitz group incidents, 2014-15 Eisenhower group incidents, and many others.

You willfully misconstrue the nature of the umbrella paranormal phenomena, foolishly expecting repeat on demand lab tests, and some mathematical theory when it's patently obvious such is beyond human abilities and access. All the reliable evidence points to a realm of existence outside our physical one. That's about the best possible honest 'theory' consistent with the data and one-way nature of the interactions between them and us. They disturb the goldfish bowl at will. We the goldfish in the bowl react in amazement.
Give up your pseudo intellectual phony berating and try hard to acknowledge the above. Faint hope there. Or preferably just leave this thread to actual reports and sensible discussion.
PS - my PC back up and running. Yay!

 

[DaveC426913]

You know from many past posts what paranormal stands for here - typically capricious, strange manifestations in our physical reality, by non-material intelligent beings wielding extraordinary powers far exceeding ours.

Uh, says who? The onus is not on me to decide how you want to specify your preferred paranormalism.

Magic fits under paranormal. So does God. And ghosts. And pixie dust. Your preferred "explanation" isn't an explanation at all.

You willfully misconstrue the nature of the umbrella paranormal phenomena, foolishly expecting repeat on demand lab tests, and some mathematical theory

I do none of those things. I simply state there is no mechanism offered by which these paranormal phenom operate. It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis; heck it's not even defined (see above: magic, God, ghosts, pixie dust)

It is everyone's choice to set their bar of skepticism as high or low as they wish. You have set your bar. It is low by the standards of others, but it is also as broad as a barn. Essentially, it could be anything.

And that's OK for you. It's just not enough for the rest of us. Don't be envious.

 

[Q-reeus]

Uh, says who? The onus is not on me to decide how you want to specify your preferred paranormalism.

Magic fits under paranormal. So does God. And ghosts. And pixie dust. Your preferred "explanation" isn't an explanation at all.


I do none of those things. I simply state there is no mechanism offered by which these paranormal phenom operate. It's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis; heck it's not even defined (see above: magic, God, ghosts, pixie dust)

It is everyone's choice to set their bar of skepticism as high or low as they wish. You have set your bar. It is low by the standards of others, but it is also as broad as a barn. Essentially, it could be anything.

And that's OK for you. It's just not enough for the rest of us. Don't be envious.

You imagine relentless repetition of your malicious nonsense will somehow become 'Truth' for your so-called 'the rest of us'. If that gives a perverse sense of joy, who am I to insist you cease and desist such rot? Sigh.

 

[James R]

You know from many past posts what paranormal stands for here - typically capricious, strange manifestations in our physical reality, by non-material intelligent beings wielding extraordinary powers far exceeding ours.

There's no good evidence that any non-material beings exist, intelligent or otherwise. But that's just one problem. The claim that such beings do exist is unfalsifiable - that's the other problem. This isn't science. It's just superstition.

This is a logical deduction based on the mass of accumulated evidence, mostly eyewitnesses, but in the UFO sub-category, includes cutting edge military grade multi-spectrum records, accompanied by corroborative eyewitness accounts from military personnel.

No. There's no way to get from "We can't explain this UFO sighting" to "Non-material, capricious intelligent beings wielding extraordinary powers far exceeding ours are the cause of this UFO sighting" using any of the evidence you want to rely on for that conclusion.

We must conclude that you have a very poor understanding of what logical deduction entails.

You willfully misconstrue the nature of the umbrella paranormal phenomena, foolishly expecting repeat on demand lab tests, and some mathematical theory when it's patently obvious such is beyond human abilities and access.

You're admitting that your paranormal phenomena theory is untestable, then. Unfalsifiable. Unscientific.

All the reliable evidence points to a realm of existence outside our physical one.

Literally nothing points to that, in any reliable way.

That's about the best possible honest 'theory' consistent with the data and one-way nature of the interactions between them and us.

Assuming you already have the best possible theory is another error in reasoning. You can't possibly know what you haven't thought of yet, or what hasn't yet come to your attention.

They disturb the goldfish bowl at will. We the goldfish in the bowl react in amazement.

There's nothing to suggest "they" exist at all, let alone that they muck around with goldfish. But you know that already, deep down.

 

[Q-reeus]

...But you know that already, deep down.

Once again, James R claims god-like powers - supernatural powers - of remote mind reading.
All the preceding unqualified negative assertions eerily echoes those (coordinated via PMs?) of sycophantic loyal lieutenant DaveC....
You should know better than to attempt to bate me into time-wasting, indefinitely extended round-after-round point-by-point replies. Return on investment will be better elsewhere for you.
But thanks for the flattering attention - again.

 

[James R]

Once again, James R claims god-like powers - supernatural powers - of remote mind reading.

Mind reading is not required in this case, because I've personally informed you, previously. All that is required is that I remember what I told you. Of course, I'm assuming you're not mentally deficient, in the sense of being unable to remember things people tell you. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

All the preceding unqualified negative assertions eerily echoes those (coordinated via PMs?) of sycophantic loyal lieutenant DaveC....

Paranoid, much?

You should know better than to attempt to bate me into time-wasting, indefinitely extended round-after-round point-by-point replies.

You'll reply at least once more, I'm confident. No reply was required from you, of course. You chose to reply, and you will choose to reply again. (Now there's some mind reading for you.)

Return on investment will be better elsewhere for you.

It's not always about you, you know. I don't expect much of a return on this subject from you. I have realistic expectations, believe me.

But thanks for the flattering attention - again.

Again, realise that it doesn't always have to be about you. Consider alternative explanations.

 

[Q-reeus]

...Of course, I'm assuming you're not mentally deficient, in the sense of being unable to remember things people tell you. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that...

Not wrong. This ends your condescending 'conversation' with me? Truly hope so.

 

[James R]

You started this "conversation", Q-reeus. I merely commented on your post. Oh, and see how well my mind reading went, there?

We can stop here, if you like, or you can respond again. Up to you.

 

[Q-reeus]

Late posting it but as follow on from part 1 episode, linked to here in #5004 (https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4787):
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4788
Change 'interdimensional' to 'nonmaterial' (a matter of taste perhaps) and I'm in agreement with especially Chris Mellon's evident perspective on nature of UFOs. But have zero expectation it will lead anywhere such as 'discovering evidence for life after death'. Not that I can honestly rule out the possibility (of an actual afterlife - not 'discovering it' via UFO research).

Anyway the article per se is really more about the MO and mindset of Brian Dunning than 'UFO disclosure nutters'. A negative language throughout hit piece. Focusing on a few individuals while studiously avoiding any objective examination of the UFOs-are-real evidence presented by mostly ex-naval personnel. Such cowards talk bold and scathing when as implemented a few years back, BD not only cut out all Comments Feedback from that point forwards, but actually went through and systematically extirpated ALL comments ever made in response to his blog pieces. Orwellian Ministry Of Truth lives on.

Fittingly and ironically, 'repressive blanket censorship' is reworded as 'reducing workload, internet clutter, fake news, and especially conspiracy theory nonsense'.
Nice job Mr Official Narrative fully compliant BD. You have avid readers and soak-it-all-up followers here at SF judging by the essentially carbon copy postings of one or two. A united front gets results!

 

[wegs]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why

So, that article summed up: Flying objects we have yet to identify will remain unidentified, for now.

Shocking. Cue ominous sounding music.

I think that the ''evidence'' was just underwhelming (per the author, but I kind of think so, too), but not necessarily ''bad'' evidence. Perhaps the significance of this entire thing has more to do with the US government being open to exploring and studying UFO's, with the idea that extraterrestrial (intelligent) life may exist. That's sort of a big deal, right? At least that's something.

 

[Q-reeus]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why

So, that article summed up: Flying objects we have yet to identify will remain unidentified, for now.

Shocking. Cue ominous sounding music.

I think that the ''evidence'' was just underwhelming (per the author, but I kind of think so, too), but not necessarily ''bad'' evidence. Perhaps the significance of this entire thing has more to do with the US government being open to exploring and studying UFO's, with the idea that extraterrestrial (intelligent) life may exist. That's sort of a big deal, right? At least that's something.

Old news wegs - keep up! https://www.theguardian.com/world/ufos
Regarding the mainly US navy reveals of recent years, Mick West's debunking efforts were likely right in just one case - the 2015 East Coast so-called 'GoFast' FA-18 optical/IR camera footage.
His other 'debunking' efforts re similar released footage have been discredited. Covered in earlier posts here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps the significance of this entire thing has more to do with the US government being open to exploring and studying UFO's...

Agree. Lifting the yoke of mockery will help legitimize research efforts. (At least in America. It's always been legit everywhere else, such as France, UK and Germany.)