UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,520
    The following is an account and video footage of 2 ufos seen in Great Falls Montana in 1950. The eyewitness seems credible and the footage is interesting. Birds? Conventional aircraft? Or ufos? See what you think.

    "This guy named Nick Mariana, the general manager of a Great Falls minor league baseball team, saw something strange in the sky, so he grabbed his movie camera, picked up the objects in the viewfinder.

    "And pressed the trigger. The discs appeared to be spinning like a top and were about 50 feet across and about 50 yards apart. I could not see any exhaust, wings or any kind of fuselage."


    Now that's an excerpt of Mariana himself in what I'll loosely call a documentary from 1956 called U.F.O. The incident is thought to be one of the first unidentified flying objects ever captured on film. Since then, 100 more UFO incidents over Great Falls have been reported, apparently making it one of the most active UFO locations in North America."--- Excerpt from
    article: https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2022-09-14/why-are-there-so-many-ufo-sightings-in-montana

     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2022
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    Well which is right?
    Are those 50 yards apart? Or are they 50 feet across?
    Because they're not both.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    One of those estimations is off by a factor of about 5.

    It's ... its almost ... almost as if human perception and memory are not completely reliable.

    But ... that would mean ... that when a human makes a statement about what he saw (or thinks he saw) we should ... question its accuracy? Even *gasp* not take it at face-value?




    Thanks MR. Leave it to you to debunk beyond a shadow of a doubt one of your most long-standing cherished claims.

    Here's a tiny smattering of the time wasted on this stupid personal myth:
    How many more falsehoods will do?
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2022
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,807
    I think he was saying that each "aircraft" was 50' across its body and the space between the "aircraft" was 50 yards apart.

    There is enough "craziness" in this subject to critique without having to manufacture some.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is just my interpretation so hopefully you won't report me...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    Yes.

    Reread my post.

    If the witness said the objects were about 50 yards apart:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    then that lower red bar shows how large 50 feet would be. The objects should be that large.

    Alternately, if he got the size right, then he severely underestimated the distance between them. They're more than 150 yards apart.

    His own footage shows his perception (or recollection) is off by a factor of about 5.


    This is what 50 foot objects 50 yards apart would look like:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    (This is where MR steps in with his "LOL" tick and says "Oh what's a factor of five or so between friends".)
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
    Seattle likes this.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    Hmmm. So, just in the past few days, we saw this exchange between myself and Magical Realist:
    It has now been brought to my attention that I might have been too hasty in accepting Magical Realist's assertion about what he "never claimed".

    Because what do we find way back in post #5586, posted by Magical Realist back on 28 December 2021? We find this:
    Now it turns out that this statement prompted a bit of a discussion, back in December last year. As part of that discussion, I helpfully educated Magical Realist on what the term "totally reliable" means. You can read my post #5602:
    The question now is: what shall we do about all this?

    I think we can sort this one out amicably. I will just ask Magical Realist to state for the record his current views on human perception.

    Magical Realist:
    1. Is it true, in your opinion, that human perception is fallible?
    2. Did you, in the past, claim that human perception is "totally reliable"?
    3. Do you agree that if human perception was actually "totally reliable", that we mean we could always rely on it?
    4. Do you agree that we cannot always rely on humans correctly perceiving things?
    5. Do you agree that it is correct to conclude that human perception is not "worthy of reliance or trust to a complete degree"?

    Simple yes/no answers to these will suffice. Please state your answers for the record, Magical Realist. Then there will be no reason for future confusion on where you stand on this matter of human perception.

    Thanks.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    Seattle,

    Thanks for your questions. Perhaps the following discussion would be better suited to the "Site feedback" subforum. Please consider that.
    It's hard to tell. I don't have access to all of the site traffic metrics.

    Does size matter?
    I don't know. You could start a poll, if you're really interested to find out!
    I hope so. I don't know about you, but I'm trying.
    "Monsters" would appear to cover that base. Besides, I don't see anybody clamoring for such a sub-forum. Also, I'm not convinced it would fit well with the overall ethos of our community, such as it is. What do you think?
    No. Not just by that.
    Try googling "democracy", perhaps?
    Maybe you should start a site of your own!
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,807
    That's not a very democratic response is it? I think there is more to this site than democracy, wouldn't you agree? I'm getting the impression that you are anti-unicorns but not anti-monsters. I don't think a unicorn is a monster is it?

    I can see that I have a lot more to learn about monsters but at least I'm at the right site. I also don't think it would be fair for me to start a site of my own. If I took away any traffic from this site, it would have to close down, wouldn't you agree?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    Yes, I agree!
    I'm not anti-unicorns. Actually, I think they're kind of cute. Although, having said that, some people go too far with it, IMHO. (What are those middle-aged men who love "My little pony" called, again?)

    My Monster Manual includes unicorns. I think there's probably room for debate on the question, though.
    With 7 billion potential readers on the planet, give or take, I don't think we here at sciforums will panic if you start your own site, even if you choose to compete for the same audience.

    You might even generate more traffic for this site. People might visit your site and be inspired to see what alternatives are on offer!
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,807
    Tiassa? I don't know the reference I guess.

    There may be 7 billion potential readers but there's more like 7 actual readers on this site, wouldn't you agree?

    Have you ever thought about starting your own site (not that I'd like to see you go)?

    How would you describe the "audience" here at Sciforums? What would you say is the most rewarding aspect of your moderator role here? The money, the chicks, or the personal fulfillment?
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,287
    Bronies. Look it up. (You've been warned!)
    No. I think there's at least 8.
    Yes, I have thought about that. Maybe I have already done it!

    I can multitask. Well, a bit. I'm a bit of a multitasking skeptic, to tell you the truth. Let's just say I don't spend all my time on sciforums. Surprise!

    How about you?
    What is this - Interview the Moderator day? I'm flattered, but don't you think we've strayed quite far off the topic already?

    Another time, perhaps. We can exchange stories, maybe have a few laughs.
     
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I've often wondered that myself.

    My guess is that discussion of unwelcome topics was perceived to be fouling the more conventional "science" fora in the opinion of some of the moderators. So alternative fora were created to which offending posts could be banished so as to keep the science fora pure and proper. The "fringe" fora were never about open-minded free-wheeling discussion of edgier topics, they were always about suppressing them and removing them from science discussion.

    (Which leaves open the question of what the point of the science fora is. What should they ideally be, given that Sciforums is a laypeople's discussion board populated by few if any trained and practicing scientists. It's certainly not a professional's shop-talk forum.)

    I'm not prepared to concede that. They are evidence, just not evidence of the quality that some (including me) might desire.

    So to loop back to NASA's panel considering how best to study UAPs, priority #1 might be to improve the quality of the evidence available. What would various specialists like to see in order to conduct their investigations? Physical evidence, sure. But absent that, multiple observers? Multiple detection modes? (radar, multspectrum photographic, high speed cameras etc.) Clearer visual photographic images? Air to air intercepts if possible? Good data on flight performance, velocities and accelerations etc.?

    (I expect that they already have lots of that, but security classification keeps most of it locked up and outside the hands of the scientific community.)

    Part of the problem is that most of this data collection up until now seems to have been entirely ad-hoc, happening in a context in which military personnel knew that their superiors were "skeptics" and that even reporting what was seen might damage their careers and reputations. So procedures have to be put in place to collect this information, to protect those providing it, and to bring as many sensors to bear as quickly as possible.

    Right. About all that we are in a position to do here is to discuss the range of hypotheses about what these things might possibly be.

    Space aliens is certainly one of them, regardless of how viciously those who might want to discuss it are attacked by our movement "skeptics". (Open-minded thoughtfulness has never been their strength.) Secret earthly R&D vehicles is another possibility that I've discussed several times in the course of this never ending (but strangely interesting) thread. The "skeptics" favored misidentified familiar objects remains on the table too. I've even been attacked for echoing the 'UAP Preliminary Assessment' by saying that Something was physically there and I don't know what it was, mainly because I also expressed reluctance to immediately default to 'misidentified familiar objects'.

    You know Wegs, I'm struck by how similar this argument is to the atheist vs theist battles. Our "skeptics" are analogous to our atheists (and often the very same people in fact). Their arguments are much the same. Where I differ from them is that in both cases, I'm happy saying that I don't know, assuming an agnostic position with regards to both the ultimate metaphysical questions and the possibility of extraordinary phenomena oberved in this world.

    I've even been attacked here for using the word 'extraordinary'. Which kind of illustrates what one of the basic points at issue might be.

    Right. Addressing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of various hypotheses would be much more productive than incessant personality battles and ad hominem attacks.

    And in the interests of fairness, not every self-styled "skeptic" is a bullying closed-minded asshole. (Which is how I often perceive them, probably unfairly. But it explains my hostility to them.) It works both ways.

    I emphatically agree.

    I think that the initial issue is what kind of data is necessary in order for investigators to reach intelligent conclusions about what these things are (and aren't), and then how to best acquire that data.

    A valuable question might be to determine first off, what kind of investigators are most needed and appropriate. Most of the sciences wouldn't seem to be directly applicable. I'd be inclined to invite experienced photographers over optical physicists, since the former are probably more familiar with real life photographic issues as opposed to theory. Experienced jet pilots if part of the data is air to air. Radar specialists. Engineers as opposed to theorists. The theorists might be more appropriate at a later stage perhaps, after hypotheses have been generated.

    (It's like James Randi said about Uri Geller. The most useful people in investigating his claims would be magicians, not physicists.)

    I like this subforum. But I agree with you that it could use more mature participants. The point here shouldn't be to insult board members that we disagree with into silence.

    The bottom line is that we need to stop expecting everyone to agree with us and stop taking it as a personal afront if they don't. We need to develop greater tolerance for disagreement, which seems to be an inevitable part of the human condition.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
    wegs and Magical Realist like this.
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,520
    James R said: I think we can sort this one out amicably. I will just ask Magical Realist to state for the record his current views on human perception.

    Magical Realist:
    1. Is it true, in your opinion, that human perception is fallible?

    Yes.

    2. Did you, in the past, claim that human perception is "totally reliable"?

    Yes.

    3. Do you agree that if human perception was actually "totally reliable", that we mean we could always rely on it?

    No. We could totally rely on perception until the day it proves unreliable.


    4. Do you agree that we cannot always rely on humans correctly perceiving things?

    True.

    5. Do you agree that it is correct to conclude that human perception is not "worthy of reliance or trust to a complete degree"?

    True....but: I use the car analogy. We totally rely on our car to get us places. But it isn't infallible. One day it may not start. But that doesn't mean we didn't totally rely on it. It was totally reliable until the day it wouldn't start.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    There's no reason why the entire subject of UAPs has to live within the confines of a single thread.

    I think it might be constructive to start a new thread that breaks with the tone and baggage of this current one (which has been primarily focused on strength of evidence). It might specify in the OP what its focus is intended to be, i.e. this thread is not about *whether* UAPs are real, but *assumes* for the sake of discussion that they are, and attempts to explore hypotheses about their origins - or some such.

    Anyone who starts down the "but there's zero evidence for that" would be referred back the OP.

    I would do my best to respect that premise (possibly by simply keeping out if it, but we'll see). I hope others would respect it too.

    What think?
     
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I think that I will take a shot at JamesR's questions too.

    1. Is it true, in your opinion, that human perception is fallible?

    It's subject to error, yes.

    2. Did you, in the past, claim that human perception is "totally reliable"?

    I don't recall ever saying that. My view is that it's reliable most of the time, more often than not. It's how we all conduct our lives after all, so it's existentially reliable even if we don't want to use the word 'totally' or deny the possibility of error. We trust our lives and everything we value to it.

    3. Do you agree that if human perception was actually "totally reliable", that we mean we could always rely on it?

    I think that we can/should rely on it absent some more convincing reason not to. Of course that more convincing reason will itself involve use of human perception. So we can't ever really escape from it.

    4. Do you agree that we cannot always rely on humans correctly perceiving things?

    We shouldn't rely on it if we have some convincing reason not to.

    5. Do you agree that it is correct to conclude that human perception is not "worthy of reliance or trust to a complete degree"?

    Considering that we don't seem to have any access to objective reality apart from human perception (assuming we are empiricists), then we wouldn't seem to have any choice. Verification by others involves their perception and our knowledge of their verification involves our perception. That's a useful way to reduce subjective variables, but it doesn't do away with the centrality of human perception in human cognition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
    Magical Realist likes this.
  18. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Unless the rules apply for everyone to follow, creating new threads will continuously fall flat. It seems that when skeptics call UFO enthusiasts names, they're not warned, let alone banned. But, if MR posts something that breaks forum rules, he's banned.

    And the skeptics know this, so they push at MR, knowing they won't get banned, and he will when he ''fights back.''

    Comparing MR to someone who denies the Holocaust is really low, but that comment went entirely overlooked. I don't want to see Dave banned, but just saying...that comment went overlooked because the rules apply differently to skeptics?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Yazata and Magical Realist like this.
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I call Cow Pat on that

    In calling that I am presuming any expert scientists required to bring their expertise to examine UFO evidence within their field would be high enough to either be already classified to handle secret information or suitable to be added

    Also sections of the evidence do not require scientists

    Examining grainy video might be better performed by a photographer

    Those tasked with classifying people to security levels might baulk at classifying a "mere" expert photographer to any security level

    I would contend physics would put Space Aliens way way down on any graded list. I would even put them under Bigfoot making a craft in his habitat and taking it for a spin

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    explore hypotheses about their origins

    Put me down for my Bigfoot hypotheses
    I would contend physics would put Space Aliens way way down on any graded list. I would even put them under Bigfoot making a craft in his habitat and taking it for a spin

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    They do.

    Truth is a valid defense, even in a court of law. I doubt there is a name that a UFO enthusiast has been called here that is not grounded in truth.

    Yes, that's how it works.
    Note that MR, like everybody else, agreed to those forum rules when he signed up.

    They do.
    For example, I have never doubled down on calling someone a liar who was able to prove that they were not lying.

    I outlined how such a thread could succeed.

    MR could simply
    a] follow the rules,
    b] argue in good faith,
    c] not troll.
    Esp. since he agreed to do that when he signed up.

    I would argue that it is you who formed the generalization - by suggesting that intolerable behavior - met with opposing criticism - makes both somehow the same level of wrongness. All I did was cast your logic against an analogy of intolerable behavior that's opposed by justifiable criticism.

    If I had used a different analogy, would that have changed anything?

    Child 1: "I'm taking all the cake for myself!"
    Child 2: "Stop it, that's rude! I say we share the cake."
    wegs: "You shouldn't argue. Both of you should go to your rooms."

    Do you defend Child 1 for his "unconventional" thinking? Is that even-handed to you? Do all viewpoints have equal value and merit?

    Remember, every one of us promised - explicitly, and before we came to the party - that we would behave.

    Finally, I have been extremely patient and well-behaved with MR, historically. The record shows scores, if not hundreds of posts where I walked him through the sciences that are critical to study of the paranormal. He laughed at all of it, dismissed it, and doubled down on his ignorance. Is that behavior that deserves respect - from you, let alone from me?
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2022
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    All points of view don’t have equal value and merit, but all people do. You can disagree and attack even, someone’s point of view. Once you cross over to attacking the person, then the violation of forum rules kicks in. But, it seems to only apply to MR (in this thread).

    I’m not suggesting that you give MR’s opinions or versions of evidence, a pass. Attack what his ideas and opinions are all day long. I’m simply saying that you violated forum rules when you compared him to a Holocaust denier.

    Anyway, I’d be open to someone creating a new thread in this section, but only if everyone is held to the same standard of forum etiquette.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,807
    Don't you think there is a difference in politeness between "You're a liar!" and "That's not true and you know it?".

    You are a fatass might be true but it's not polite.
     
    wegs likes this.
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    Even (hypothetical) trolls who are on record lying? Even (hypothetical) ignoramus' who habitually deny and dismiss the human knowledge at the core of the very thing being discussed?

    At what point does it destroy the progress and integrity of the thread?
     

Share This Page