UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

foghorn said:
Yeah, you're watching a major drama queen here, in that MR has gone into his classic drama queen mode to avoid admitting he was wrong.
End of story and waste of time.
Click to expand...

No drama here. Just you and Dave griping about what I first posted and then me immediately correcting it.
wegs said:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...enomena-still-unidentified?collection=1163523

“There is very good reason that footage of unidentified objects tend to be terribly low-quality. That is because when footage is of good quality, the objects tend to be identified.”

lol - Well, that makes sense, but for me, my skepticism has more to do with the ''why'' than the ''if.'' As the author of the article mentions, why would aliens be interested in our planet for decades and never make contact with us? If the follow up to my question is ''well, they have made contact with us,'' that's where I'd need proof. Grainy pics could very well be proof of alien spacecraft, but it seems like they're incredibly timid of us humans because they fly away too quickly before we have a chance to 'study' them.

Goes against the typical movie trope anyway, of powerful, evil aliens seeking to take over the Earth. Perhaps, aliens are really the ultimate introverts. :wink:
Click to expand...

I can't ask the why until I know the who and the what they are. Whoever they are, they don't seem willing to engage with us publically.
 
Magical Realist said:
Whoever they are, they don't seem willing to engage with us publically.
Click to expand...
Mundane explanation

They (they is an assumption - as is a suggestion what is supposedly being seen / photographed etc is an sophisticated autonomous mechanical probe) with built in instructions along the lines of "look - don't touch - don't engage"

Even more mundane explanation they or probe are conjured up by the mind from limited information presented to it

:)
 
Even more mundane explanation they or probe are conjured up by the mind from limited information presented to it
Click to expand...

Not when witnessed by multiple eyewitnesses, chased by pilots, picked up on radar and sonar, and captured on FLIR.
 
Magical Realist said:
No drama here. Just you and Dave griping about what I first posted and then me immediately correcting it.


I can't ask the why until I know the who and the what they are. Whoever they are, they don't seem willing to engage with us publically.
Click to expand...

I think that the challenge in this thread is that you’re content with the eye witness reports serving as viable evidence, but from a scientific perspective, others need more. The verdict is still out for me on if some of these unidentified crafts are alien owned and operated, but that doesn’t mean you can’t believe. So, there’s always that. And that's okay.

I don't really see you trying to ''force'' your views on anyone; these threads seem to be more about what you have found to be extraordinary in terms of evidence, but maybe others are trying to simply explain why they don't choose to believe.
 
Last edited:
I don't really see you trying to ''force'' your views on anyone; these threads seem to be more about what you have found to be extraordinary in terms of evidence, but maybe others are trying to simply explain why they don't choose to believe.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain enough about what ufos are to argue passionately for them. There is just enough evidence it seems to keep the door to the unknown ajar. If other people prefer closed and locked doors, that is their perogative. I will continue to dwell in the possibilities.
 
Magical Realist said:
I'm not certain enough about what ufos are to argue passionately for them.
Click to expand...
I'm sure some here will argue that point lol but, I've always felt that you're merely trying to 'prove' why you believe. Or at least why your mind is open.
 
wegs said:
I'm sure some here will argue that point
Click to expand...
Not that one, no.

This one, though is where MR pretends to forget, after 5800+ posts what others are after.
Magical Realist said:
If other people prefer closed and locked doors, that is their perogative.
Click to expand...
The irony here of course is that this is classic projection on MR's part.
It is the skeptics who continue to vie for open possibilities, whereas it is MR who continues to vie for a closed, fixed answer.
We skeptics can accept a whole host of explanations, and can even entertain the possibility of a bona fide alien craft* - we just think it's unlikely and uncompelling.
(*otherwise, we wouldn't even be here analyzing)
MR, historically, only accepts one answer and dismisses, with prejudice, anything that doesn't point to it.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Not that one, no.

This one, though is where MR pretends to forget, after 5800+ posts what others are after.

The irony here of course is that this is classic projection on MR's part.
It is the skeptics who continue to vie for open possibilities, whereas it is MR who continues to vie for a closed, fixed answer.
We skeptics can accept a whole host of explanations, and can even entertain the possibility of a bona fide alien craft* - we just think it's unlikely and uncompelling.
(*otherwise, we wouldn't even be here analyzing)
MR, historically, only accepts one answer and dismisses, with prejudice, anything that doesn't point to it.
Click to expand...


lol ~ Yea, I'd say in any 5800+ post thread, it's not surprising that both 'sides' talk past each other on occasion.

I'd say this thread however has helped me apply a little more critical thinking/Occam's razor mentality when it comes to UFO claims. But, I also like to keep my mind open to the possibilities like MR. Can't we have the best of both worlds?
 
Knowingly telling lies is a breach of our posting guidelines. Avoid doing that in future.
It is the skeptics who continue to vie for open possibilities,
Click to expand...

Yeah the standard pat mundane answers like weather balloons or the planet Venus or birds or whales or radar and camera glitches. That's not opened minded, It's in the name of your ideology---skepticism. You dogmatically deny the possibility of an unknown craft--a bonified UFO-- from the outset. Your whole agenda is to keep that door closed and locked. To deny the evidence so that it will fit your forgone conclusion of it being something mistaken for something else.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
You dogmatically deny the possibility of an unknown craft--a bonified UFO-- from the outset.
Click to expand...
I don't know whom you're talking to but I certainly don't do that - and I've explained it to you before: I conclude scientifically that there almost certainly IS intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. The problem is that we don't know of any way that they could possibly get here. So the only scientific conclusion we can draw is that they have not been here. It doesn't matter how many weird things we witness, the gap of how-did-they-get-here can not be bridged (with our current state of knowledge). "Piloted spacecraft" is not a possible explanation.

And I suspect that most of the skeptics here wouldn't disagree with me by much.
 
So the only scientific conclusion we can draw is that they have not been here. It doesn't matter how many weird things we witness, the gap of how-did-they-get-here can not be bridged (with our current state of knowledge). "Piloted spacecraft" is not a possible explanation.
Click to expand...

If you have already concluded it's impossible for it to be a ufo craft, why do you go thru the trouble of trying to debunk it? You have already made up your mind. The door is locked. There's no point in viewing the evidence.
 
Magical Realist said:
If you have already concluded it's impossible for it to be a ufo craft, why do you go thru the trouble of trying to debunk it? You have already made up your mind. There's no point in viewing the evidence.
Click to expand...
Just thought of something, MR - have you ever viewed a video or whatever of someone claiming to have seen a UFO complete with imagery, but didn't believe that particular claimant's account? I've realized that I've only known you as a ''believer.'' ~ lol

I'd say the ''tic tac'' footage is probably the only case that seems the most credible, even though it's been pretty much debunked.
 
wegs said:
Just thought of something, MR - have you ever viewed a video or whatever of someone claiming to have seen a UFO complete with imagery, but didn't believe that particular claimant's account? I've realized that I've only known you as a ''believer.'' ~ lol

I'd say the ''tic tac'' footage is probably the only case that seems the most credible, even though it's been pretty much debunked.
Click to expand...

Yes..I've seen many videos of supposed ufos that are actually something mundane. People who jump to conclusions before examining it. Statistically around 90% of ufo sightings are mundane in origin. It's the unexplained 10% that I focus on.
 
Magical Realist said:
Yes..I've seen many videos of supposed ufos that are actually something mundane. People who jump to conclusions before examining it. Statistically around 90% of ufo sightings are mundane in origin. It's the unexplained 10% that I focus on.
Click to expand...
Good to know! I'm not sure anyone has ever discussed that with you, but it shows that you're not just believing any and all claims.

Some of the claims are also complete and utter hoaxes, too. Just bored people wanting a little attention (and money).
 
Magical Realist said:
If you have already concluded it's impossible for it to be a ufo craft, why do you go thru the trouble of trying to debunk it? You have already made up your mind. The door is locked. There's no point in viewing the evidence.
Click to expand...
There's always a point in viewing the evidence. Evidence can change conclusions. New evidence can give us clues to what the phenomenon actually is.

You're approach, on the other hand, is to jump to the conclusion that it must be a piloted craft, and since we don't have the technology to build such a craft, it must be extraterrestrial.

We agree about the state of our knowledge being able to build such a craft. We disagree about what that means.
 
You're approach, on the other hand, is to jump to the conclusion that it must be a piloted craft
Click to expand...

That's because I only post the accounts that are already unexplainable as a mundane object or event. It looks like I'm being dogmatic but I'm not. I am simply posting only the most convincing accounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top