UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Yazata]

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.

no,no,no,no...

I'm not comfortable with that. It's why I rarely if ever use the word "paranormal" and prefer intead "anomalous". What I want to communicate is "violates our expectations" but I don't want to drag in all the 'spiritualism' baggage. That would be an unjustified leap beyond the evidence (and it would set too many knees unnecessarily jerking).

"Capricious" - not necessarily,

"strange" - yes, I guess so. Violates our expectations at the very least.

"non-material" - why should I accept that? The evidence seems to point the other way, They are observed through physical modalities, after all.

"intelligent" - maybe in some cases they show evidence of intelligent control, but wouldn't that conflict with 'capricious'?

"Extraordinary powers far exceeing ours" - Maybe in some subset of cases. We can't yet exclude the possibility that those are being misconceived. It's probably too soon to be leaping to conclusions like that.

 

[Yazata]

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.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you there. It's certainly true in my case. (Though I prefer not to use the word "paranormal", I much prefer "anomalous".)

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

I don't agree with that. It seems to me to be intellectually respectable to point out that an extraordinary phenomenon has been observed and that familiar explanations don't seem to cover it. Many advances in the history of science have begun that way. It's what motivates further investigation and oftentimes the discovery of new, important and hitherto unexpected things.

Because, without a replacement theory, there is still room for 'operating mundanely, just in unexpected ways' and 'faulty/misinterpreted observations' theories.

Wouldn't the 'falsification' bit rule out whatever class of proposed explanations has been falsified?

I'm not sure what "mundane" means in these discussions.

On one hand, it might mean something like 'Consistent with our current scientific understanding'. I don't have a whole lot of objection with that and it's obviously got to be where we start in our investigations. (What other choice do we have?) But that being said, the possibility still exists that new scientific ideas could end up being generated in the course of investigation. If the phenomenon really is something new (that's unknown but it remains a possibility), we are likely to learn new things by investigating it, adding to our store of scientific understanding.

On the other hand, "mundane" often seems to mean 'Reducible to or explanable in terms of things that are already familiar'. "Mundane" in this sense becomes another way of saying that "There's nothing new or interesting there" that warrants additional investigation. That remains a possibility of course, but in my opinion it's an unjustifiable leap to merely assume it.

And this second more dismissive sense of "mundane" is often accompanied by ridicule, insults and by the suggestion that those who don't immediately accept it be issued tin-foil hats. I personally perceive that as anti-intellectual and react strongly against it.

 

[Magical Realist]

"Mundane" in this sense becomes another way of saying that "There's nothing new or interesting there" that warrants additional investigation. That remains a possibility of course, but in my opinion it's an unjustifiable leap to merely assume it.

That's a good point. There's no reason a given unexplained phenomenon must be reducible to something that is known and familiar (mundane). In fact, science is mostly driven by the search and discovery of new phenomena. Always assuming a given anomalous phenomenon is mundane is to deny the very reason for the existence of science, which is to encounter and describe the unknown.

And this second more dismissive sense of "mundane" is often accompanied by ridicule, insults and by the suggestion that those who don't immediately accept it be issued tin-foil hats. I personally perceive that as anti-intellectual and react strongly against it.

It's a function not of science but of sociology that the ingroup mocks and disparages those outside views it sees as most threatening,The ingroup thereby protects its members from persuasion by these external belief systems.

 

[DaveC426913]

On the other hand, "mundane" often seems to mean 'Reducible to or explanable in terms of things that are already familiar'. "Mundane" in this sense becomes another way of saying that "There's nothing new or interesting there" that warrants additional investigation. That remains a possibility of course, but in my opinion it's an unjustifiable leap to merely assume it.

Quite the contrary. There is no leap required to start from the premise something is explicable. That is always the default case. It must be.

A pop can falls off the table and rolls under the fridge. We don't immediately postulate poltergeists. We first look to see if there's a window open on a breezy day. (Imagine the chaos if we did not!)

This is true for an errant tin can as much as it is for unusual lights in the sky.

The leap to 'anomalous' - that's the leap - and we only do that once all mundane explanations have been disqualified.

And this second more dismissive sense of "mundane" is often accompanied by ridicule, insults and by the suggestion that those who don't immediately accept it be issued tin-foil hats. I personally perceive that as anti-intellectual and react strongly against it.

I've patiently attemtped to discuss the logic and established science of perception over thousands of posts over years. It was not me that first started the mockery. If you wish, I'll direct you to established science being met with mockery, utter disbelief and flat out denial.


The ridicule is not directed at the lack of acceptance of mundanity; it is directed at the astonishingly poor rational analysis skills habitually and inevitably displayed in the arguments. At some point, the continued inept logic applied to the scenarios becomes diagnostic of naivete and wishful thinking.




As a counter-example to make my point - you have (to my knowledge at least) never been clumsy with your logic, so your contributions are given the weight they deserve and taken seriously.

Though, having said that, I'm not sure how often you've actually taken a stand on specific issues. Do you have some favourite examples of compelling accounts that you strongly believe (and are willing to argue) are paranormal (as opposed to merely anomalous)?

Because that would be a discussion worth having!

 

[DaveC426913]

That's a good point. There's no reason a given unexplained phenomenon must be reducible to something that is known and familiar (mundane).

Not must be. No one ever said "must be" (except you).

Can be.

If an open window on a breezy day can explain a rolling pop can, then the ghost hunter is going to have an impossible time trying to demonstrate poltergeists.
If artifacts on a video file can explain an apparent "object in the sky", then a UFO hunter is going to have an impossible time trying demonstrate UFOs.
etc.

 

[Magical Realist]

If an open window on a breezy day can explain a rolling pop can, then the ghost hunter is going to have an impossible time trying to demonstrate poltergeists.

Only if the window is open. If it is closed then it cannot explain a moving object.

If artifacts on a video file can explain an apparent "object in the sky", then a UFO hunter is going to have an impossible time trying demonstrate UFOs.
etc.

Only if the anomaly on the video is not backed up by other sources like eyewitnesses seeing it or radar. If it is, then an artifact cannot explain the object appearing on the video.

 

[wegs]

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.

So, in your opinion, do you think that most skeptics just resort to ad homs and dubbing UFO “experts” as liars, because there will never be sufficient evidence in their view?

I fear we are starting to normalize UFO sightings, categorizing them as potential drones or some such things, and then you don’t hear anything more.

I still can’t help but smile though when reading the title of this sub-forum - “UFO’s” are lumped in with “ghosts and monsters.”

 

[Q-reeus]

So, in your opinion, do you think that most skeptics just resort to ad homs and dubbing UFO “experts” as liars, because there will never be sufficient evidence in their view?

Basically, yes. And I think that pattern is very well revealed this long thread.

I fear we are starting to normalize UFO sightings, categorizing them as potential drones or some such things, and then you don’t hear anything more.

A situation preferred by especially the Pentagon. Historically the US military has projected contradictory attitudes as covered in part here:
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/07/25/this-ufo-hype-is-probably-just-the-us-military-lying-again/
Part way down is this passage:

"But Clarke and Roberts, whose research is to be published this week in a book called Out of the Shadows , did uncover evidence that the American Secret Service, with the possible connivance of the British, looked at ways of using the public panic over UFOs as a psychological weapon against the Russians.

In CIA memos marked ‘secret’ and seen by The Observer, top officials consider exploiting the UFO craze. ‘I suggest that we discuss the possible offensive or defensive utilisation of these phenomena for psychological warfare purposes,’ wrote CIA director Walter Smith in 1952.

‘Shortly after that meeting the CIA sent a delegation to Britain to discuss UFOs. It is hard to imagine that they did not discuss the psychological warfare aspects of it with their British counterparts,’ Clarke said."

I still can’t help but smile though when reading the title of this sub-forum - “UFO’s” are lumped in with “ghosts and monsters.”

Well I have often here expressed the opinion the massive accumulated record of mostly anecdotal evidence far and away best supports an underlying supernatural/paranormal basis for at least two (and probably all three) of those sub-categories. A totally disparate zoo of unconnected supernatural/paranormal phenomena mixed in with merely unexplained physical phenomena doesn't add up imo. Incidentally that use of 'supernatural/paranormal' indicates to one or two here that I view the two words as mostly freely interchangeable, while understanding the fine distinctions that can differentiate in various contexts.

 

[Q-reeus]

no,no,no,no...

I'm not comfortable with that. It's why I rarely if ever use the word "paranormal" and prefer intead "anomalous". What I want to communicate is "violates our expectations" but I don't want to drag in all the 'spiritualism' baggage. That would be an unjustified leap beyond the evidence (and it would set too many knees unnecessarily jerking).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism
Spiritualism baggage? No-one is sneaking in discussion of seances etc. otoh all know I view nonmundane UFO type incidents as a subset of a wider paranormal i.e. supernatural arena.

"Capricious" - not necessarily,

A matter of individual judgement. Sufficiently wide and deep study should imo impress that capricious is the only consistent and rational characterization of many bizarre encounters.

"strange" - yes, I guess so. Violates our expectations at the very least.

A safe statement as usual from you.

"non-material" - why should I accept that? The evidence seems to point the other way, They are observed through physical modalities, after all.

The assumption being only physically originating sources can generate physical effects. The evidence says otherwise - nonmaterial entities intrude into our space and manifest to our physical senses at will but we have no reciprocal access.
This aspect as all others here has been covered in many previous posts. Observer estimated and in many cases radar confirmed hypersonic speeds without any accompanying acoustic accompaniment i.e. 'sonic booms'. Of objects whose typical shapes are anything but hypersonic worthy of a necessarily air displacing physical object, is imo a very clear indicator of non-material nature of UFOs.

You like others here have iirc never tackled that aspect. And there are various others. Here is one witnessed encounter that eliminates the 'lone crazy/delusional witness' charge of those with an anti UFOs-are-real agenda:
https://www.ufoexplorations.com/witness-to-wanaque-great-mass-ufo
It's impossible to know for sure UFO objects and their influences are wholly or partly projections into the human minds and/or human made and operated instruments. Rather than actual materialized bodies that can reflect light, IR, RF. While simultaneously moving at hypersonic speeds through Earth's atmosphere - without ever emitting a sonic boom.
In either case, the existence of supernatural entities possessing vast abilities is called for.

"intelligent" - maybe in some cases they show evidence of intelligent control, but wouldn't that conflict with 'capricious'?

How? Why should there be any necessary connection between abilities and aims/inclinations? Indeed imo many reported/recorded UFO encounters of a mischievous or whimsical at best nature, puts paid entirely to Frank Tipler's naive belief that 'game theory' somehow ensures a future super-advanced civilization will necessarily be entirely benign and benevolent.

"Extraordinary powers far exceeing ours" - Maybe in some subset of cases. We can't yet exclude the possibility that those are being misconceived. It's probably too soon to be leaping to conclusions like that.

I jumped off the fence long ago. Didn't take years of intense devoted study to form a definite opinion in favor of nonmundane (i.e. exhibiting behavior inexplicable by inherently materialist based science) UFOs incidents being a well established as real sub-category of more general supernatural manifestations.
To each their own conclusions.

PS: Believed by many the best example so far for the reality of supernatural phenomena is the 1977-78 Enfield poltergeist case last brought up p4 #65, #66 here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-recent-personal-experience-wit-a-unsolved-mystery.164493/page-4
A few more links - to articles on the same:
https://www.higgypop.com/hauntings/enfield/
http://www.hauntedhovel.com/enfieldpoltergeist.html

If you want to be the first here to tackle that case in a scholarly not polemical or vague hand wavy style, feel free to start a new thread just on that topic. After a thorough study of the two YT vids (much overlap but also complementary to each other) and two articles linked to above. Best to start with the latter first imo. Advisable to take careful notes including precise vid times of particular incidents in the two YT vids.
You initiating a new thread rather than me will guarantee a response whereas that may not be the case if I initiated it. A suggestion.

 

[James R]

The assumption being only physically originating sources can generate physical effects. The evidence says otherwise - nonmaterial entities intrude into our space and manifest to our physical senses at will but we have no reciprocal access.

On the contrary, nobody has ever shown good evidence that any "nonmaterial entity" (whatever that might be) has any effect whatsoever on anything "material".

There's no need to make an assumption that physical effects have physical causes. That is the default position, until at least one example of a non-physical cause producing a physical effect comes to light. Oh, and before you object that your intentions are non-material and can cause you to act, recall that you have a brain, without which it would appear that your intentions could not exist.

But while we're talking about assumptions, just look at your second sentence, quoted here. You assume there are "nonmaterial" things. You assume they are "entities" (implying, I suppose, conscious intentions). You assume that there are "spaces" that are separate from "our space". You assume that nonmaterial causes produce material effects. That's a lot of assumptions.

Observer estimated and in many cases radar confirmed hypersonic speeds without any accompanying acoustic accompaniment i.e. 'sonic booms'.

I don't think radar can confirm a lack of a sonic boom.

It's impossible to know for sure UFO objects and their influences are wholly or partly projections into the human minds and/or human made and operated instruments.

Well, obviously. Otherwise, they wouldn't be unidentified, would they?

But all of that is hopelessly vague. What "influences" do UFOs have? What's "projecting"? How is it projecting in human minds? What's the mechanism you have in mind? And - most importantly - where's the evidence for any of that?

In either case, the existence of supernatural entities possessing vast abilities is called for.

Pure fanboy hyperbole. You're incorrigible.

I jumped off the fence long ago.

You left reason behind and opted for fantasy long ago.

After a thorough study of the two YT vids...

What is a "YT vid"? [Edit: Oh. That's cool street talk for "YouTube videos", I assume.]

 

[Q-reeus]

On the contrary, nobody has ever shown good evidence that any "nonmaterial entity" (whatever that might be) has any effect whatsoever on anything "material".

There's no need to make an assumption that physical effects have physical causes. That is the default position, until at least one example of a non-physical cause producing a physical effect comes to light. Oh, and before you object that your intentions are non-material and can cause you to act, recall that you have a brain, without which it would appear that your intentions could not exist.

But while we're talking about assumptions, just look at your second sentence, quoted here. You assume there are "nonmaterial" things. You assume they are "entities" (implying, I suppose, conscious intentions). You assume that there are "spaces" that are separate from "our space". You assume that nonmaterial causes produce material effects. That's a lot of assumptions.


I don't think radar can confirm a lack of a sonic boom.

Well, obviously. Otherwise, they wouldn't be unidentified, would they?

But all of that is hopelessly vague. What "influences" do UFOs have? What's "projecting"? How is it projecting in human minds? What's the mechanism you have in mind? And - most importantly - where's the evidence for any of that?

Pure fanboy hyperbole. You're incorrigible.

You left reason behind and opted for fantasy long ago.


What is a "YT vid"? [Edit: Oh. That's cool street talk for "YouTube videos", I assume.]

James R freshly succumbs to his innate restless urge to engage in provocative argumentation. If only his MO wasn't so stale and predictable. James R had best look to fresh pastures where the 'grass' is lush and green for munching!

 

[DaveC426913]

... innate restless urge to engage in provocative argumentation.

Oh, that's just precious...

 

[Q-reeus]

Oh, that's just precious...

Sycophantically chips in the #2 exponent of that ugly and unproductive strategy. Still - you have just earned more Brownie points. Loyalty has it's rewards here at SF!

 

[wegs]

Seems like these choices are only based on our concept of reality. Maybe none of these options are likely. I like the ''earth is a fishbowl'' idea, though.

 

[Michael 345]

earth is a fishbow

I'm going to go with

LIFE is out there and ranges in environments (different worlds)

Started my the same as ours

Not found / contacted, space to big

Great poster

 

[Q-reeus]

Seems like these choices are only based on our concept of reality. Maybe none of these options are likely. I like the ''earth is a fishbowl'' idea, though.....

Hmm...well Earth does have a kind of fishbowl form after all. What's more - there are lot's of fish in Earth's oceans. Looking better and better as preferred option!
Mind you, the very first thing to get straight imo is a careful definition of what 'Alien' implies and encompasses - exactly. ET flesh and blood or otherwise biological entities, their AI drones or successors, 'time travelers' from our future, or even nonmaterial beings (that last one grates some folks teeth here - too bad).

 

[James R]

James R freshly succumbs to his innate restless urge to engage in provocative argumentation. If only his MO wasn't so stale and predictable. James R had best look to fresh pastures where the 'grass' is lush and green for munching!

Lacking any response to the substance of my post, as usual you opt for the ad hominem attack.

If only your MO wasn't so stale and predictable.

 

[Q-reeus]

Lacking any response to the substance of my post, as usual you opt for the ad hominem attack....

Not ad hominem attack - accurate characterization. We both know perfectly well your 'penetrating questions' not to mention 'profound assertions' are disingenuous hackneyed repetitions ad nauseum.
Hence unworthy to be kept alive via endless responses.

If only your MO wasn't so stale and predictable.

Imitation is the best form of flattery. Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not ad hominem attack - accurate characterization.

You might want to look up what an ad hom is.

Being ostensibly accurate does not preclude a statement being an ad hom. The only consideration is that it is an attack on the arguer, not the argument.

Consider the ad hom attack "you can't know anything about pregnancy because you're a man."

Irrelevant regardless of its accuracy..

 

[Q-reeus]

You might want to look up what an ad hom is.

Being ostensibly accurate does not preclude a statement being an ad hom. The only consideration is that it is an attack on the arguer, not the argument.

Consider the ad hom attack "you can't know anything about pregnancy because you're a man."

Irrelevant regardless of its accuracy..

Try dealing with the second not just the first sentence of my post you selectively excerpted from here. But that plea is futile since you have the same MO and mindset James R does.
Just let this latest pointless interlude from James R die peacefully - and try try try to move on. Likely another futile plea but .....