UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Magical Realist has previously been asked to provide some relevant commentary or analysis, rather than mere cut-and-pastes from other sites.. This is spam.
This astounding incident occurred at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana in 1967 and involves an encounter with a ufo that definitely got the military's attention. The incident is depicted here in dramatized form and is based on the account of an eyewitness who was there at the time:


 
DaveC426913 said:
Frankly, even more plausible. The time travel hypothesis depends only on unknown physics. It does not depend on the existence of a whole extraterrestrial civilization.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The chances of an extraterrestrial civilisation existing somewhere are probably quite high, if you ask me, whereas the chances that backwards time travel will turn out to be possible are probably quite low.

Currently, of course, there's no evidence at all for either of those things: backwards time travel or extraterrestrial civilisations. So the argument about which is more plausible might just be a matter of personal taste. Choose your fantasy.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Frankly, even more plausible. The time travel hypothesis depends only on unknown physics. It does not depend on the existence of a whole extraterrestrial civilization.
Click to expand...

Have you calculated the probability of an advanced civilization in the context of 100 billion galaxies with around 100 billion stars each over a period of about 13 billion years?
 
Last edited:
James R said:
The chances of ...
Click to expand...
Magical Realist said:
Have you calculated the probability of ...
Click to expand...

I agree. We can't assess probability. So let's don't.

Let's simply count minimum known conditionals.
i.e.: Occam's Razor.

'Time travel' only requires one thing:
1] an unknown technology to bridge the (time) gap. (Who knows how long this might make to happen but I'll bet if it does, it will require less than billions of years.) The 'who' OTOH, is already in existence.

'Aliens' requires arguably a vast array of things:
1] an unknown technology to bridge the (spatial) gap (Who knows how long this might make to happen but I'll bet if it does, it will require less than billions of years.)
AND
???] the existence of an entire unknown alien civilization, and all its associated technical infrastructure. (This seems require something on the order of billions of years.)


The 'aliens' hypothesis requires the multiplication of a colossal number of entities.

(Caveat: I am not actually advocating for this as an explanation for UFOs; I am simply following the logic.)
 
Yazata said:
then the time-travel hypothesis seems to me to be as plausible a contender
Click to expand...
Ummmmm time travel

Since one definition of time is a arbitrary measurement of how long something has been in existence, what is the medium? within such traveling ie time travel takes place?

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
'Time travel' only requires one thing:
1] an unknown technology to bridge the (time) gap.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps you're forgetting the other big thing that time travel requires: for it to be possible in the first place - i.e. allowed by the laws of physics. If the laws of nature don't permit it, for whatever reason, then no technological advance will ever be sufficient to bridge the gap.
'Aliens' requires arguably a vast array of things:
1] an unknown technology to bridge the (spatial) gap
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. In principle we could use known technology right now to send a spacecraft to another (nearby) star, if we were willing to spend lots of money and resources on it.*

We currently don't know for sure that technologically advanced civilisations don't live on relatively nearby stars, so it is a possibility.
AND
???] the existence of an entire unknown alien civilization, and all its associated technical infrastructure. (This seems require something on the order of billions of years.)
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that we already know of one civilisation in our galaxy with a reasonably advanced technical infrastructure: us. It took us 4.5 billions years since the formation of the solar system to get to this point. But there's no reason to suppose that extraterrestrial civilisations could not have evolved in parallel with our civilisation; that is, there's no reason to suspect that we'll have to wait several billion more years to see another civilisation at least as advanced as ours. In fact, it could be the case that there are civilisations out there which are vastly more advanced than our own.
The 'aliens' hypothesis requires the multiplication of a colossal number of entities.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'd still put it ahead of time travel if we're trying to guess at likely visitors from "elsewhere".

---
* With a little more advanced technology, there are smarter ways to send spacecraft out to explore the galaxy, too. A sensible move would be to send out a bunch of automated AIs that are capable of gathering resources as they go and building copies of themselves (reference: von Neumann machines). It's what I'd do if I required physical exploration of the galaxy (as opposed to far-easier methods for making contact, such as sending radio messages).
 
Magical Realist said:
Disparagment and derision run rampant thruout this whole thread, especially from James R who seems to take some pleasure labeling us "ufo nuts" and "conspiracy kooks". And when we object to such treatment he calls us "babies". I can't imagine what other intended effect this is meant to have other than trolling us and derailing the thread from serious discussion of the ufo issue. That is effectively silencing the issue.
Click to expand...
There's a distinction between looking to close down an issue, and looking to close down a poster because of the way they post. Sure, referring to people as "ufo nuts" or "conspiracy kooks" doesn't necessarily help the issue, but they seem more aimed at closing you down than the issue of ufos itself. Unfortunately it is the lack of serious discussion from you on the matter that has likely led them down that path.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Nope. Not even that.

Just crappy analysis and logic.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should clarify: by "you" I meant what he, personally, is bringing to the table (in this case, as you say, "crappy analysis and logic"), as opposed to the subject matter itself. In no way did I mean to suggest that there was anything personal in it.
 
foghorn said:
That eyewitness would be Robert Salas.
Have you checked out Salas?
There seems to be some baggage attached to him:
https://www.scribd.com/document/130272506/Hoaxes-Involving-Military-Incidents
Click to expand...

Claimed by your article:

"All of the confirmatory witnesses named by Salas, Klotz, and Hastings insist that the claims made were false, and that they never confirmed the UFO claims attributed to them. They insist as well that no UFOs were sighted,reported, or investigated, and that the actual cause of the missile failures was well established as an electrical malfunction by those charged to investigate the incident"..

Can you post where they made these statements? I'm calling BS on this. I saw Hastings and Salas give lectures at the Mcminnville OR UFO festival about 4 years ago and they haven't retracted anything.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
No..The eyewitness gives his first-hand account to the interviewer.
Click to expand...
According to your own clip...
Robert Salas was 60ft down in the bunker, and had taken a call from the guards above, the guards described to Salas over the phone what they were ''seeing''.
No where in that clip does Salas say he saw the ufo himself. So, it does appear that it was a second-hand anecdote. Guard to Salas, so to speak


Magical Realist said:
Can you post where they made these statements? I'm calling BS on this. I saw Hastings and Salas give lectures at the Mcminnville OR UFO festival about 4 years ago and they haven't retracted anything.
Click to expand...
You have to show where Salas says in that clip, that he, himself, saw the ufo.
 
foghorn said:
According to your own clip...
Robert Salas was 60ft down in the bunker, and had taken a call from the guards above, the guards described to Salas over the phone what they were ''seeing''.
No where in that clip does Salas say he saw the ufo himself. So, it does appear that it was a second-hand anecdote. Guard to Salas, so to speak


You have to show where Salas says in that clip, that he, himself, saw the ufo.
Click to expand...
'

Salas received the phone call about the ufo. He also saw the nukes go offline. He was definitely a firsthand witness to that part of the event. Did you track down those statements yet? I found a Wiki report about an article that was claiming this event was a hoax, but it was rejected because it didn't have enough evidence. I'm thinking this is the same author of your posted article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_UFO-related_hoaxes

More details about this and other ufo encounters at other missile sites:

https://www.military.com/daily-news...ievers-return-newly-attentive-washington.html

"Salas has spent years gathering other Air Force veterans who have signed witness affidavits describing their own alleged encounters decades ago. He claims the evidence shows UFOs appeared at various times and took 20 Minuteman ICBMs off-line at sites in the central U.S. over an eight-day period."

"
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately it is the lack of serious discussion from you on the matter that has likely led them down that path.
Click to expand...

Seriously? We're on post # 5416 of this thread. I've probably contributed more serious discussion about uf0s than anyone else in this thread. So it's definitely not that.
 
Magical Realist said:
Seriously? We're on post # 5416 of this thread. I've probably contributed more serious discussion about uf0s than anyone else in this thread. So it's definitely not that.
Click to expand...
Again, quantity is not quality.

It would be informative to judge quality of contribution by number of warnings and bans:

James R said:
Moderator note: Magical Realist is warned for spamming our forum with cut-and-pasted UFO anecdotes from other sites.

On several previous occasions, MR was advised that he is required to provide at least some commentary or preliminary analysis of his own when posting this kind of content, and that unaccompanied cutting and pasting of this kind would be treated as spam. Clearly, he has chosen to ignore previous warnings and has chosen not to modify his behaviour in light of previous temporary bans.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for spamming UFO videos.

On several previous occasions, MR was advised that he is required to provide at least some commentary or preliminary analysis of his own when posting this kind of content, and that unaccompanied cutting and pasting of this kind would be treated as spam. Clearly, he has chosen to ignore previous warnings and has chosen not to modify his behaviour in light of previous temporary bans.
 
James R said:
Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for spamming UFO videos.

On several previous occasions, MR was advised that he is required to provide at least some commentary or preliminary analysis of his own when posting this kind of content, and that unaccompanied cutting and pasting of this kind would be treated as spam. Clearly, he has chosen to ignore previous warnings and has chosen not to modify his behaviour in light of previous temporary bans.
Click to expand...

Which video did I post that didn't include relevant commentary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top