UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[James R]

I'm not convinced by their probability argument because we aren't just talking about "weather events" or "birds". We are talking about very specific observed "UAP" phenomena to which the weather phenomena or birds would have to somehow conform if the weather or birds are to serve as the explanation of the observations.

You still seem to be insisting that all UAPs must have the same, single explanation. Why?

What's more, we are supposed to believe that a whole series of these supposedly common high-probabity events somehow came together in just such a way as to explain all aspects of the UAP report. And that coherence will be less likely by its nature.

"Supposed to believe"?

You're Mr Open Mind on this, aren't you, Yazata? What you're supposed to do, with your open mind, is to wait until there is sufficient evidence to believe in alien spaceships, or birds as an explanation, or something else. That's what you keep telling us that you do. Yet strangely, all of your posts seem to lean towards your accepting UAP reports as prima facie extraordinarily and inexplicable by mundane causes of any sort. Why is that? Do you know something we don't?

I mean a bird that's able to stay ahead of an F-18 jet fighter and able to display the lateral velocities necessary if the camera images are to be explained by parallax, would suggest a bird able to fly at something like 500 mph. That would be an extraordinary zoological discovery if true and it seems very unlikely, given what is known about birds.

Indeed. That means that it is very unlikely that if we ever have good evidence of a UAP staying ahead of an F-18 jet fighter, etc., that birds will be a viable explanation.

If you're thinking of videos such as the "Go fast" video of a "tic tac", though, there's no solid evidence of that object moving very fast at all, despite many breathless claims to the contrary. There's also some persuasive evidence that a video of a slow object (like a bird, say) could look just like that in a video taken under the right conditions (e.g. from a very fast F-18 jet).

A bird able to keep pace with jet fighters and also able to conform with the radar observations, ascending and descending to the edge of space at what appear to be ballistic missile velocities, would seem to me to be vanishingly unlikely.

Correct.

So, have you got any good evidence for a single object ascending and descending to the "edge of space", with characteristics outside the known capabilities of human technologies? If so, perhaps you should present it. Note: mere anecdotes of pilots' estimates of speeds and reports of extreme manoeuvres probably aren't going to meet the threshold for establishing an extraordinary new discovery of alien life/technology, on their own.

If we start out with the a-priori assumption that the probability of the UAP is zero, then any mundane explanation that has any likelihood at all, however small that likelihood is, will be more probable.

Yes.

What puzzles me, at this point in time, is why you persist on addressing this straw man. Who has said the a-priori probability of a UAP is zero? Has anybody actually made the argument you're so keen to refute, over and over again?

Wouldn't it be better to engage with the skeptics, based on arguments that they (we) have made, Yazata? Harder to shoot down those arguments, I know, so maybe that's why you won't engage on that. The straw men are far easier.

But we don't really know that the probability of the UAP is zero, do we?

Everybody agrees that there are UAP, Yazata ("unidentified aerial phenomena"). There's no need to estimate a priori probabilities for UAPs when we have many actual examples of UAPs at hand. The probability that there are UAPs is 1.

Do you think we can move on to discuss what the UAPs might be, now, so that we can eventually relabel them as IAPs?

If in fact experimental aircraft prototypes are being tested out there, or (horrors!) space aliens are really buzzing us in their high-tech craft, then the probability of those things happening would be one (certainty) just by definition.

Is that an a priori probability or an a posteriori probability you're talking about? You need to be careful to distinguish the two.

 

[James R]

To be clear, I don’t see these various UAP sightings as resembling birds of any type. I’m not dismissing anything, and not leaping to any conclusions one way or the other.

Did you watch the Mick West analysis video where he explained why the object in the so-called "Go fast" video is consistent with a slow-moving object, such as a bird. It looks very much as if that particular UAP resembles what a bird would look like, if filmed under the same conditions.

 

[wegs]

Did you watch the Mick West analysis video where he explained why the object in the so-called "Go fast" video is consistent with a slow-moving object, such as a bird. It looks very much as if that particular UAP resembles what a bird would look like, if filmed under the same conditions.

I did, and his perspective makes sense, but I’m skeptical of someone who makes a living off debunking UFO claims. I’m fine going with “unexplained” for the answer to the tic tac video. Why assume it’s something mundane, if it’s truly inconclusive/unexplained?

 

[Sarkus]

I did, and his perspective makes sense, but I’m skeptical of someone who makes a living off debunking UFO claims.

Why does his profession, him making money from debunking, alter what he actually says? Are you saying that if it was anyone else, someone who wasn't making money from it, then you'd not be skeptical of his explanations? It's good to be skeptical, but not simply because they make a living from what they're saying (bear in mind that many people make a living from what they say/write) but because it is good to have a healthy level of skepticism.

I’m fine going with “unexplained” for the answer to the tic tac video. Why assume it’s something mundane, if it’s truly inconclusive/unexplained?

They're not mutually exclusive. It's quite okay to say "it's unexplained, but until proven otherwise I'm assuming it's something mundane, although exactly what it is I couldn't say, and it might not be mundane at all".

 

[wegs]

Why does his profession, him making money from debunking, alter what he actually says? Are you saying that if it was anyone else, someone who wasn't making money from it, then you'd not be skeptical of his explanations? It's good to be skeptical, but not simply because they make a living from what they're saying (bear in mind that many people make a living from what they say/write) but because it is good to have a healthy level of skepticism.

That’s not my sole reason. But it seems like skeptics believe other skeptics more readily than say the pilots who have many years of experience witnessing various flying objects and the tic tac video wasn’t something that they had ever seen before. Why not believe experienced pilots who were actually there who have nothing to gain from their claims?

They're not mutually exclusive. It's quite okay to say "it's unexplained, but until proven otherwise I'm assuming it's something mundane, although exactly what it is I couldn't say, and it might not be mundane at all".

Agree. Adding to that, just so I’m clear, stating that something is a UFO (to me) doesn’t mean we should be thinking “space aliens” or some outer worldly craft. The term “unidentified” seems to be a bit taboo. Either side (UFO enthusiasts and skeptics) sometimes have extreme viewpoints in this regard.

 

[Yazata]

What do you all think of the idea that maybe a space alien civilization existed long ago, and has since died out?

Somewhere in the rest of the universe? I'd personally give that possibility a high likelihood. (I have no way of knowing obviously, so it's just a speculation.)

I'm reasonably confident that intelligent beings exist elsewhere in the universe right now, and if we are talking about the ~15 billion years the universe has been in existence (according to contemporary cosmology), the possibility that other civilizations have risen and fallen just increases.

A speculative add-on to the idea of alien civilizations that have since died out is the sci-fi speculation that at least one of these civilizations released a fleet of self-reproducing exploration (and maybe resource recovery) robots before their creators ceased to exist.

The speed-of-light velocity limit wouldn't hinder robots as it would beings with finite lifespans. The robots could survive until they wear out and long duration interstellar voyages wouldn't bore them. And as the robots spread into an ever-greater volume of space, they could make more of themselves. It's even possible to imagine them undergoing a sort of natural selection as their never-ending journey proceeds.

I believe that some versions of the so-called "Fermi paradox" are based upon that kind of speculation.

 

[DaveC426913]

I did, and his perspective makes sense, but I’m skeptical of someone who makes a living off debunking UFO claims.

I’m fine going with “unexplained” for the answer to the tic tac video. Why assume it’s something mundane, if it’s truly inconclusive/unexplained?

Why not believe experienced pilots who were actually there who have nothing to gain from their claims .

What claims are they making that aren't being believed? Are they claiming it must be little green men?

 

[Magical Realist]

What claims are they making that aren't being believed? Are they claiming it must be little green men?

James R: "Note: mere anecdotes of pilots' estimates of speeds and reports of extreme manoeuvres probably aren't going to meet the threshold for establishing an extraordinary new discovery of alien life/technology, on their own."

 

[Sarkus]

Somewhere in the rest of the universe? I'd personally give that possibility a high likelihood. (I have no way of knowing obviously, so it's just a speculation.)

There is a school of thought that suggests that one should really fall into two camps on the matter, when considering the entire universe: either one considers human existence to be unique (as some religions might claim) and therefore we are alone (i.e. probability of zero), or one has to assume the probability to be one, that there is/was certainly other life in the universe. The Drake Equation is a probabilistic argument for such life in our own galaxy, but could be adapted to such a question regarding the entire universe, but the sheer size of the universe, and number of stars etc, would suggest an assumption of the probability being one is a good place to start.

 

[wegs]

What claims are they making that aren't being believed? Are they claiming it must be little green men?

James was referring to Mick West’s analysis and the thing is, he does a good job with the evidence (not the best video of the tic tac image) but it shouldn’t override the eyewitness testimony in this case, seeing that it’s coming from highly skilled and experienced pilots. I don’t think Mick West is being dishonest, but he’s not willing to admit that most likely, the video is of something currently unknowable. Just my opinion.

 

[Sarkus]

That’s not my sole reason.

Okay.

But it seems like skeptics believe other skeptics more readily than say the pilots who have many years of experience witnessing various flying objects and the tic tac video wasn’t something that they had ever seen before.

I would say they might believe what other skeptics say (i.e. their argument, analysis etc) rather than simply believing the skeptic. If you look at sites such as Mick West's own metabunk you should see that much of it is actual discussion of evidence, analysis etc, and often much disagreement regarding interpretation. Noone simply says "Oh, Mick West says X therefore it is X", but they might look at his argument, his analysis, and reach the same conclusion. Or they may disagree with it, while still not considering it a non-mundane explanation etc.

Why not believe experienced pilots who were actually there who have nothing to gain from their claims?

If the claim they're making isn't extraordinary, one might believe them at face value. If, however, they say they saw something extraordinary, why would you believe them at face value? At what point would you accept that it is more likely their interpretation of what they saw is somehow flawed / inaccurate, than the reality of what they're claiming?

Agree. Adding to that, just so I’m clear, stating that something is a UFO (to me) doesn’t mean we should be thinking “space aliens” or some outer worldly craft. The term “unidentified” seems to be a bit taboo. Either side (UFO enthusiasts and skeptics) sometimes have extreme viewpoints in this regard.

Another issue with UFO is the F. "Flying" implies an agency, whereas "Aerial Phenomenon" doesn't. But yes, the U means "Unidentified", which doesn't mean "alien" or "extraterrestrial" etc. It means that it has not yet been identified to any reasonable level of consensus as to what it was.

This is why people accept that UFOs / UAPs exist. There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about what some believe the phenomenon to therefore be, either before or after analysis of the information. And unfortunately some seem to have an a priori belief that if something is Unidentified that it must therefore be considered alien / superhuman until otherwise shown, and will use that bias in their analysis.

 

[Magical Realist]

What about modern-day sightings of the Virgin Mary?

Multiple simultaneous sightings? Video? Radar?

 

[wegs]

Okay.
I would say they might believe what other skeptics say (i.e. their argument, analysis etc) rather than simply believing the skeptic. If you look at sites such as Mick West's own metabunk you should see that much of it is actual discussion of evidence, analysis etc, and often much disagreement regarding interpretation. Noone simply says "Oh, Mick West says X therefore it is X", but they might look at his argument, his analysis, and reach the same conclusion. Or they may disagree with it, while still not considering it a non-mundane explanation etc.
If the claim they're making isn't extraordinary, one might believe them at face value. If, however, they say they saw something extraordinary, why would you believe them at face value? At what point would you accept that it is more likely their interpretation of what they saw is somehow flawed / inaccurate, than the reality of what they're claiming?
Another issue with UFO is the F. "Flying" implies an agency, whereas "Aerial Phenomenon" doesn't. But yes, the U means "Unidentified", which doesn't mean "alien" or "extraterrestrial" etc. It means that it has not yet been identified to any reasonable level of consensus as to what it was.

This is why people accept that UFOs / UAPs exist. There is no dispute about that. There is dispute about what some believe the phenomenon to therefore be, either before or after analysis of the information. And unfortunately some seem to have an a priori belief that if something is Unidentified that it must therefore be considered alien / superhuman until otherwise shown, and will use that bias in their analysis.

Very true, and I’m not in the camp that believes that extraterrestrial/space alien life is the only alternative to mundane explanations. The tic tac “flying object” could have an atypical, mundane reason that we simply don’t know based on our experiences, equipment, and measures of testing. That’s entirely possible, which is why “unexplained” seems to be the best answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

James was referring to Mick West’s analysis and the thing is, he does a good job with the evidence (not the best video of the tic tac image) but it shouldn’t override the eyewitness testimony in this case, seeing that it’s coming from highly skilled and experienced pilots. I don’t think Mick West is being dishonest, but he’s not willing to admit that most likely, the video is of something currently unknowable. Just my opinion.

Nobody's doubting that the pilots saw something they can't make sense of.
The problem is that the pilots have no business stating that they saw something unknowable.

There is a big difference between
I don't know what it was but, for lack of a better description, it kind of resembled a big tic tac shape. You tell me.
and
What I saw - despite the distance and other difficulties with my recon - was, in fact, a big hovering tic tac.

So, yes, we take the pilots' account of their observations at face value. We do not take conclusions they might draw at face value.

Pilots are "highly skilled and experienced" at observing; but they are no more highly skilled or experienced with hovering tic tacs than anyone else.


In fact, in a proper investigation of any kind (including enemy encounters, crashes, etc.), a pilot stating his conclusions about what he saw hurts the investigation because it means the pilot is at risk of biasing his account. (Yes, this happens. Yes, investigators must wrestle with this.) He is trained to state his observations without making conclusions. Every pilot knows that is not his job.

That, by the way, is the reason for the old saw "Just the facts, please."

 

[wegs]

Nobody's doubting that the pilots saw something they can't make sense of.
The problem is that the pilots cannot state that they saw something unknowable.

There is a big difference between
I don't know what it was but, for lack of a better description, it kind of resembled a big tic tac shape. You tell me.
and
What I saw - despite the distance and other difficulties with my recon - was, in fact, a big hovering tic tac.

You're right, likewise the Pentagon can't state that what they evaluated was something knowable. For now, they don't know.

So, we go with unexplained. Feels like we're basically stating the same things.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're right, likewise the Pentagon can't state that what they evaluated was something knowable.

Nor do they. Unless they do.

Someone posted an example of a UAP account a little while back that matched up perfectly with a documented, confirmed release of a weather balloon. They can state that is solved.

And we should never lose track of the fact that, historically, 99.99% of UAP reports have happened much like that. That doesn't mean "well, the other .01% most be unknowable". What it really means is "the other .01% are probably like this, it's just that there isn't always that clear evidence to check them off."

 

[DaveC426913]

What puzzles me, at this point in time, is why you persist on addressing this straw man. Who has said the a-priori probability of a UAP is zero? Has anybody actually made the argument you're so keen to refute, over and over again?

Wouldn't it be better to engage with the skeptics, based on arguments that they (we) have made, Yazata? Harder to shoot down those arguments, I know, so maybe that's why you won't engage on that. The straw men are far easier.

This. Argh!
Yazata, this is vexing behaviour, coming from you. You are better than this.

 

[wegs]

Nor do they. Unless they do.

Someone posted an example of a UAP account a little while back that matched up perfectly with a documented, confirmed release of a weather balloon. They can state that is solved.

And we should never lose track of the fact that, historically, 99.99% of UAP reports have happened much like that. That doesn't mean "well, the other .01% most be unknowable". What it really means is "the other .01% are probably like this, it's just that there isn't always that clear evidence to check them off."

Hmm, you mean like an incredibly low quality video of a tic tac shaped flying object? lol

That makes sense.

I’ll add though that it’s the eyewitness testimony of the skilled experienced pilots that I believe insofar as they’ve never seen anything like that before. (And apparently it wasn’t distinguishable enough to label it with a mundane explanation.) So, that is why I find their claims to be credible.

 

[Magical Realist]

I’ll add though that it’s the eyewitness testimony of the skilled experienced pilots that I believe insofar as they’ve never seen anything like that before. (And apparently it wasn’t distinguishable enough to label it with a mundane explanation.) So, that is why I find their claims to be credible.

Add to that the over 400 uap accounts reported to the Navy by pilots/sailors over the past year and you definitely increase the odds that it was something unknown and unique and not something mistaken for something else.

"Spotting an UFO sounds like the most extraordinary thing you could witness—but, according to former U.S. Navy Lt. Ryan Graves, pilots see them every single day off the Atlantic coast. Graves was one of many current and ex-military officials to speak about their UFO experiences on Sunday’s 60 Minutes. He said UFOs should be considered not as an outlandish conspiracy theory but as a very real national-security risk. Graves said he first saw a UFO in restricted airspace near Virginia Beach in 2014, and the object showed up on his radar and infrared targeting cameras. He said the sightings have happened “every day for at least a couple years” and has three explanations: top-secret U.S. technology, foreign spying devices, or something not from this planet. “The highest probability is it’s a threat-observation program,” said the pilot, adding: “If these were tactical jets from another country that were hangin’ out up there, it would be a massive issue. But because it looks slightly different, we’re not willing to actually look at the problem in the face. We’re happy to just ignore the fact that these are out there, watching us every day.”---- https://www.thedailybeast.com/ryan-...ots-have-seen-ufos-every-single-day-for-years

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I did, and his perspective makes sense, but I’m skeptical of someone who makes a living off debunking UFO claims. I’m fine going with “unexplained” for the answer to the tic tac video. Why assume it’s something mundane, if it’s truly inconclusive/unexplained?

tic tacs are real

imagine our drone technology once quantum computers have become mainstream

ive seen them several times