UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

James R said:
(I'm back on Yazata's ignore list? Did I say something that offended?)
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
You might remember him previously saying "If you want me to respond to your ideas, you might try being a bit less aggressive and confrontational in how you present them."
Maybe, therefore, if he has chosen to once again ignore you, it has something to do with you starting your latest post to him with yet more aggression. To wit: "thank you for replying, for a change."?

However, if not, it begs the question of why you are you that insecure that you start fretting when someone doesn't reply to you within a mere 9 hours?? Sure, he responded to someone else, but maybe he only had the time to respond to one post and is now asleep?

But, above all, if you're really that concerned, rather than once again merely trying to play to an audience, why don't you send him a PM and keep it between yourselves? This site isn't all about you, James R.
 
wegs said:
Okay. Now, this video is definitely one of the more interesting ones out there. Pay close attention, because I didn't see it (the alleged UFO) right away. What do you make of it?

'UFO' spotted on film as man tests out new camera (ladbible.com)
Click to expand...
The relatively poor quality of the footage once again makes it hard to discern what it likely is, and it's not even possible to tell what altitude it's at. As such it could be insects or birds much closer to the camera, for example. Not saying it is, mind, but that would be my guess.
 
Sarkus said:
The relatively poor quality of the footage once again makes it hard to discern what it likely is, and it's not even possible to tell what altitude it's at. As such it could be insects or birds much closer to the camera, for example. Not saying it is, mind, but that would be my guess.
Click to expand...
I don't think they're insects or birds. We can't decipher what exactly it is, but I think this one is easier to say what it isn't.
 
I'm not ''funnin'' with you. lol So, one vote for ''it's a bird'' and my vote is for ''I don't know, yet.''

Let's see what the others think.

To me - ''UFO'' doesn't mean ''alien spacecraft,'' as if that's the default position, although many probably believe that is where the discussion is leading.
 
James R said:
(I'm back on Yazata's ignore list? Did I say something that offended?)
Click to expand...

Reread your own post #8019. It's nothing but a succession of insults, directed at MR for agreeing with me.

I believe that my reply to him in post #8020 addressed your points from post #8018.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
I'm not ''funnin'' with you. lol So, one vote for ''it's a bird'' and my vote is for ''I don't know, yet.''

Let's see what the others think.
Click to expand...

Of the three images in 8030, the middle one does look like a bird. The one on the left looks like a squid. But from context, I'd hypothesize 'bird' as well, though merely as a guess and with a low level of conviction. There are other things it could be as well, ranging from a high flying aircraft or even a satellite. That being said, I'm very much with you in opting first and foremost to "I don't actually know". That's the only thing that I can say with assurance at this point.

Returning to some points made earlier, notice that we are addressing the images on the photograph as given. We aren't immediately defaulting to camera artifacts (which remains another viable hypothesis) or demanding that all possible sources of error be eliminated (probably an impossible task) before we begin to consider the image as shown. All plausible hypotheses as to what accounts for the image need to be considered, which certainly includes photographic artifacts as well as other things.

To me - ''UFO'' doesn't mean ''alien spacecraft,'' as if that's the default position, although many probably believe that is where the discussion is leading.
Click to expand...

I agree very strongly. UFO's occur all the time, since not everything seen in the sky is identified. The ideas that some/many/all of them are alien spacecraft is an expression of a peculiar sort of faith, while the idea that they will all reduce to the mundane (in the "nothing of interest to see here" sense) is equally an expression of a pre-existing ontological belief, the belief that anything outside the "nothing of interest to see here" box must of necessity be dismissed as what they call "woo".
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Of the three images in 8030, the middle one does look like a bird. The one on the left looks like a squid. But from context, I'd hypothesize 'bird' as well, though merely as a guess and with a low level of conviction. There are other things it could be as well, ranging from a high flying aircraft even to a satellite. That being said, I'm very much with you in opting first and foremost to "I don't actually know". That's the only thing that I can say with assurance at this point.
Click to expand...
OK. I concede.
  1. Objects moving in the sky can never be ruled out with high-confidence as non-exotic.
  2. Even if they look like a bird, move like a bird, are in the very place where birds look and fly, and - and I cannot stress this one enough - there is is zero evidence that points to anything other than a bird or insect flying in the sky.
  3. We investigate all objects with equal diligence, even if it takes a thousand years (i.e. more time than we possibly have) to get through them all with a full and complete analysis.
  4. We avoid any prioritizing of our investigations, (such as, say, the most likely to bear fruitful knowledge before the least likely).
  5. We come to terms with the fact that - unless it literally lands and taxis up to us on a runway, where we can touch its still-warm Goodyears, we can't be sure of its origin enough to move on to greener pastures.
  6. The universe is a mystery! It always will be! Science is futile and cannot help us learn anything about the world. All that matters is what we believe in our hearty-hearts.
Anyone disagree with these principles?
If so, be prepared to defend your disagreement in the context of analysis of this particular incident.

:D
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Example: UAPs could be the amphibious craft of an advanced undersea humanoid species. That's certainly possible.
Click to expand...
It's also just as "possible" it's angels or a sea serpent. All of them have never been confirmed.

The salient question I put to all enthusiasts is this:

If your motives really are to seek out the truth (as opposed to wallowing in "It's a Mystery!"), then how much time and effort (considering they're limited) do you want to put into exploring the possibility that its angels or a sea serpent or any other "possible" explanation? Wouldn't you want to concentrate what resources we have on the ones most likely to bear fruit?

Because that's what skeptics want. It only takes one confirmed exotic UAP to throw all our doubts out the window and shut us up and prove you guys right. Everything we do is in an effort to maximize the chances that the 'truth will out'.

Can you say the same?
 
Last edited:
James R said:
[The radars and aviators are generally reliable]

No doubt. But, a UFO encounter is not a "general" circumstance. It is, by its very nature, an unusual circumstance, or set of circumstances.
Click to expand...

It's a sighting report whose explanation is currently unknown.

We can guarantee that the trained radar operator or the trained pilot who is reporting a UFO is not familiar with whatever he or she is reporting, regardless of its actual cause. If it was a familiar radar glitch, it wouldn't be reported as a UFO sighting. If it was a familiar sight on the FLIR, the pilot wouldn't be reporting it as a UFO.
Click to expand...

OK. That's the nature of it being unidentified. It doesn't fall easily into any of the familiar explanatory categories.

We therefore need to be especially wary about the scope for equipment and/or observer error in investigating UFO cases. We certainly should not assume that everything was business as usual, because the very fact that there is a report at all tells us that something unusual must have been going on. Unusual enough to capture the attention of the person filing the report, at least.
Click to expand...

OK. But 'unfamiliar sighting' doesn't automatically translate to 'false sighting' either.

If the instruments and witnesses are generally reliable, it makes sense (if by induction alone) to assume that most likely, they are reliable in the unfamiliar instance as well.

If the new JWST sights some unfamiliar astrophysical event deep in the cosmos, astronomers don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the JWST must be malfunctioning because they've never detected anything like that before.

They should not make any such assumption in advance. They should keep an open mind about the possibility of observer or equipment error, until those can be ruled out, at least with reasonably probability (not based on somebody's a priori assumptions about "business as usual").
Click to expand...

But until they are, the sighting that was reported as given still remains the primary datum to be explained and can't simply be dismissed with a sneer.

I wrote: "What they say there doesn't imply that they are refusing to investigate the reports that they are given. It just says that more likely than not, the instrumentation was working correctly and that the observers are reporting their perceptions accurately."

That's an assumption. You recognise that, don't you? It's actually a guess, based on what happens when things are business as usual.
Click to expand...

It's consistent with what they wrote. They preface the text that you quoted by noting weather, atmospheric effects and interpretation of sensor data. And they conclude by acknowledging that a "select number" of sightings are attributable to things like sensor malfunctions or operator error. So it simply isn't plausible to read them as if they are willfully ignoring such things.

Realistically, this is one sentence in a report, so maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
I'm not ''funnin'' with you. lol So, one vote for ''it's a bird'' and my vote is for ''I don't know, yet.''
Click to expand...
Sure, but bear in mind that "I don't know, yet" is not the same as "I think it equally likely to be a bird, or an insect, or an alien visitation, etc". And ultimately even DaveC is not claiming to know for sure. :)
 
DaveC426913 said:
  1. Objects moving in the sky can never be ruled out with high-confidence as non-exotic.
  2. Even if they look like a bird, move like a bird, are in the very place where birds look and fly, and - and I cannot stress this one enough - there is is zero evidence that points to anything other than a bird or insect flying in the sky.
  3. We investigate all objects with equal diligence, even if it takes a thousand years (i.e. more time than we possibly have) to get through them all with a full and complete analysis.
  4. We avoid any prioritizing of our investigations, (such as, say, the most likely to bear fruitful knowledge before the least likely).
  5. We come to terms with the fact that - unless it literally lands and taxis up to us on a runway, where we can touch its still-warm Goodyears, we can't be sure of its origin enough to move on to greener pastures.
  6. The universe is a mystery! It always will be! Science is futile and cannot help us learn anything about the world. All that matters is what we believe in our hearty-hearts.
Anyone disagree with these principles?
If so, be prepared to defend your disagreement in the context of analysis of this particular incident.
Click to expand...
That big object that seems to be the main focus of the footage, with the clouds forming behind it... that's possibly exotic, right? Aliens seeding our atmosphere with "clouds"? I mean, anyone with a "high-confidence" that it's just a mundane airliner.... pfft... amateurs! ;)
 
Sarkus said:
Sure, but bear in mind that "I don't know, yet" is not the same as "I think it equally likely to be a bird, or an insect, or an alien visitation, etc". And ultimately even DaveC is not claiming to know for sure. :)
Click to expand...
Okay, that's true.

Maybe, none of us will ever know what these flying objects are. Random videos (by themselves) by average sky gazers aren't exactly evidence of anything extraordinary. To know, would require evidence. That said, debunking doesn't require evidence (to debunk and be looked at as an “expert”on the subject) and that seems unfair.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top