UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Your idea of what constitutes a "fact" is incorrect.

No it isn't. It is simply self-evident fact that in the field of ufology you have the knowledgable ones who actually study the cases over many years and you have the ignorant ones who avoid studying any of the cases. And they both reach conclusions. There's no way you can deny this.
 
No it isn't. It is simply self-evident fact that in the field of ufology you have the knowledgable ones who actually study the cases over many years and you have the ignorant ones who avoid studying any of the cases. And they both reach conclusions. There's no way you can deny this.
I deny that there are ignorant ones who avoid studying any of the cases.
You have an opinion, - biased by your own degree of skepticism, and formed at a distance - of some whom you think don't study any of the cases.
You're welcome to it, but don't for a moment, think that opinion constitutes fact. That would be ... irrational.

Now, back on topic.
 
I know the British Air Force has tested several different saucer shaped aircraft
Such as?
I just checked Rose's Flying Saucer Technology (a look at actual aircraft that had circular or near-circular wing planforms[1]) in case my memory was falling apart and there's nothing listed for the RAF having tested one.

several of which are capable of VTOL operations.
So far as I'm aware no one has managed to fly any circular aircraft capable of VTOL, let alone "several".
There was the Canadian (tested by the US) Avrocar (circular and hovered rather than "flew" since it was massively unstable outside of ground effect altitude), the US also flew the V-173 (circular, not VTOL, large propellers - not really "flying saucer") and proceeded to the XF5U (also circular not VTOL etc but never flew).
Avro Canada planned the WS606A (aka/ linked to/ derived from Project Y, Project/MX 1794/ Silverbug) which (in SOME stages of design) was circular, VTOL capable (but also varied between flat-riser and "point it into the sky edgeways before launch") but didn't get past the mock-up stage in any version.
WWII Germany had a couple of attempts (Sack AS-6 for example) but all were propeller-driven and quite small (even for a single-seater in the case of the AS-6) and more likely to fall into the category of "What type of weird 'plane is that?" rather than "That's an alien flying saucer!" if sighted.

1 Note that term "wing planform" - an indicator that, regardless of shape they still relied on known, current aerodynamics for flight and couldn't perform any of the manoeuvres attributed to UFOs.
 
So far as I'm aware no one has managed to fly any circular aircraft capable of VTOL, let alone "several".
There was the Canadian (tested by the US) Avrocar (circular and hovered rather than "flew" since it was massively unstable outside of ground effect altitude), the US also flew the V-173 (circular, not VTOL, large propellers - not really "flying saucer") and proceeded to the XF5U (also circular not VTOL etc but never flew).
Avro Canada planned the WS606A (aka/ linked to/ derived from Project Y, Project/MX 1794/ Silverbug) which (in SOME stages of design) was circular, VTOL capable (but also varied between flat-riser and "point it into the sky edgeways before launch") but didn't get past the mock-up stage in any version.

My apologies - I erroneously attributed John Frosts works with the RAF - I recall he had been a pioneer in British Supersonic aircraft technology, and thought that Project Y and Y2 were RAF - they look to have been USAF. Several of his patents were filed in Britain.

I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that there had been a saucer prototype as part of the Harrier project that was a VTOL testbed... I'll have to dig around to see if I can find what I am thinking of though.
 
My apologies - I erroneously attributed John Frosts works with the RAF - I recall he had been a pioneer in British Supersonic aircraft technology, and thought that Project Y and Y2 were RAF - they look to have been USAF. Several of his patents were filed in Britain.

I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that there had been a saucer prototype as part of the Harrier project that was a VTOL testbed... I'll have to dig around to see if I can find what I am thinking of though.
You might be thinking of the Flying Bedstead. You'd need to be charitable to describe that thing as saucer-shaped.
 
You might be thinking of the Flying Bedstead. You'd need to be charitable to describe that thing as saucer-shaped.

Wasn't that thing more a skeletal framework with some engines attached? If it's what I'm thinking of, calling it an aircraft is being charitable lol
 
Yes. Well it did get airborne.....a bit.......

I saw a video yesterday of a semi truck and trailer going airborne after ramping an overpass due to a runaway diesel engine... Doesn't mean I'd want to fly that way lol ;) but I get what you mean
 
Officially the Thrust Measuring Rig (i.e. not intended to be an "aircraft" per se, merely a proof of concept "breadboard" for jet lift).
Essentially it showed that not only were "flat-risers" eminently feasible but that they were really the way to go for VTOL.
 
leaving trace evidence

I didn't see anything thing about evidence be left in the Normanton case. Come to think about it I have never heard about ANY evidence left behind. I would think any evidence, once science has finished checking it, would take pride of place in a premium museum

have capabilities far exceeding that of humans.

Shades of Superman

Why would alien beings taking tissue samples from abducted humans be so unlikely?

Think they are checking to see if our DNA is a match to theirs. If it does match they might wish to keep it quiet. :)

:)
 
Officially the Thrust Measuring Rig (i.e. not intended to be an "aircraft" per se, merely a proof of concept "breadboard" for jet lift).
Essentially it showed that not only were "flat-risers" eminently feasible but that they were really the way to go for VTOL.

Aye, that's the one! Freaky looking thing! I cannae see anyone mistaking it for a flying saucer though lol
 
MR:

"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public."
The problem with this hypothesis is that skeptics, in general, don't do that.

People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)
The problem is that people don't like to think that they are capable of making mistakes, or acting stupidly. They get all embarrassed. So, it is understandable when people choose to ignore plausible alternative explanations of their experiences that they feel may result in embarrassment for them.

And, it goes without saying that the people who make these kinds of mistakes are often not well qualified to tell whether "science" is impotent.

Some people would rather just be told what they want to hear.

John Alexander, NIDS, “Refuting Fermi: No Evidence for Extraterrestrial Life?”

“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?
It is considered evidence. But time and again, on close examination the house of cards fails to stand up. The so-called "evidence" so often turns out to be misinterpreted, flawed, or simply faked.

There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls.
Apparent intereference. Reported interference.

On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes.
Scopes have their own set of problems.

So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs.
Sure. Some things are unidentified. The problem is jumping from there to "It's an alien spaceship! Run for the hills!"

The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real.
Argument from authority now? Is there nothing better?

Right. A large metallic disc that flies at high speeds silently in the sky and shoots rays out of itself and even lands in fields with small beings that exit it isn't of extraterrestrial origin. How could you know that? What else COULD it be?
When did this large metallic flying disc show up? Details, please! Where's the evidence for the rays, the speed, the disciness, the metallicity, the landing, the small beings, etc? Or is this just another anecdote?

Like I said, the simple lack of any other explanations makes the alien hypothesis quite logical.
But there are just so many other explanations. There's no lack of other explanations, in most cases. That's not the problem.

Why would alien beings taking tissue samples from abducted humans be so unlikely?
Why would they need to keep doing it, over and over and over again? And why all the sneaking around and hiding? Why not be open about what they want? Why abduct, when you could simply ask?

It's all idle speculation, since there are no convincing "alien abduction" stories, anyway. None that I'm aware of, anyway.

UFOs DO repeat, and can be studied, if we're in the right place at the right time.
Why has nobody studied them, then?

Let me know when and where the next alien spaceship is going to land, and I'll do my best to make sure somebody is there to study it.

Yes there is extant evidence of ufos. You claim there isn't. There are over 3500 ufo landing cases that left trace evidence.
Most such evidence is of disputed origin, or else its identification is disputed.

And it was studied by scientists in many cases. All that data is available online. This is solid scientific evidence for the existence of ufos.
No. The evidence is flaky, just like all the other alien spaceship evidence.

Ofcourse not all ufos land in farmer's fields. Some actually hover over nuclear missile sights and shut down operations.
More anecdotes.

Repeatability in a lab is not the standard for deciding if something happened.
Indeed. It doesn't have to be in a lab. But there must be agreement on what the facts are and how they are best to be interpreted.

Also there's a lot of important steps between "something happened" and "An alien spaceship landed in my back yard and little green men took me for a ride."

And if you think encounters with ufo occupants are rare or hoaxed events, here's a database of hundreds of accounts of such encounters gathered over the decades.

http://iraap.org/rosales/#cufos
There are certainly many hundreds of unreliable anecdotes. Nobody disputes that.
 
Right. There are the conclusions of those who have studied this phenomenon for years. And there are the conclusions of those who haven't. Knowledge vs ignorance. It's the same for every field of study.
I have to laugh if you are claiming you have "studied" UFOs for years, Magical Realist.

Every time you're faced with the prospect of actually studying any of your favorite anecdotes, by which I mean looking into them with any level of skepticism or prudence, you run away as fast as your little legs can carry you, only to produce the next shiny bauble that briefly captures your attention. You have no idea what studying something means. Or so you would have us believe.
 
"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)
Vallee was a charlatan. His advocates were low grade morons.
 
Every time you're faced with the prospect of actually studying any of your favorite anecdotes, by which I mean looking into them with any level of skepticism or prudence, you run away as fast as your little legs can carry you, only to produce the next shiny bauble that briefly captures your attention. You have no idea what studying something means. Or so you would have us believe.

Right..I approach evidence objectively and without an agenda of proving it is fake or mistaken. And no, I don't run from threads or debates at all. If anything I put so much effort in arguing my case that my generous contributions have to be snipped and turned into an whole new thread.
 
Back
Top