UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[wegs]

wegs:

See my previous post. The fact is: no UAP report has ever been confirmed as an alien craft, while many thousands of reports have been confirmed to be mundane (i.e. there is conclusive evidence the UFO was mundane - at least to a "beyond reasonable doubt" level).

How is this not a reference point?

That's true. But what is the standard method that’s being used to evaluate these claims? It doesn’t seem like there is one.

The "tic tac" evidence is a lot stronger than, say, the evidence in the blurry video recently posted to this thread. There is no argument that some UFO cases are better evidenced than others. But the fact that even in the tic-tac case - one of the best evidenced cases we know of - the evidence is quite unconvincing, insofar as it points towards alien craft or other woo.

The tic tac flying object could have been advanced technology from another country. Do you consider that “other woo?” I’m not judging your response, (in a negative way) …just wondering what you mean by “other woo.”

 

[Magical Realist]

An interesting conjecture. But that door swings both ways, does it not?

As a primitive litmus test, what if you were to tally up the word-count of contributors here - boiling off all bickering and rhetoric on both sides, and leaving only direct analysis - which camp would you say has made a bigger contribution to actual analysis of the data?

Would you say Enthusiasts have performed anywhere near the amount of rolling-up-the-sleeves-and-getting out-the-pencils analysis as Skeptics?

Not that I want to hoot my own horn, but has any Enthusiast attempted any analysis like this? That's just one example. This thread is littered with examples of such analysis.

Which camp here has a better demonstrated track record of doing any actual analysis?

Shouldn't the outcome be weighted by those who actually walk-the-walk?

Don't forget the "analysis" of the 3 strobing stars and the planet Mars flying about the sky over Mt. Shasta. We were all SO impressed by that one!

 

[James R]

That's true. But what is the standard method that’s being used to evaluate these claims? It doesn’t seem like there is one.

Generally, skeptics tend to rely on typical scientific methods in analysing data and the claims made about it.

The tic tac flying object could have been advanced technology from another country. Do you consider that “other woo?”

No. That would be an example of what we have all been calling a "mundane explanation" in this thread.

I’m not judging your response, (in a negative way) …just wondering what you mean by “other woo.”

The woo is anything alleged to be paranormal. We've been through this before.

Classification of something as "woo" is, by the way, an evidence-based classification, not an a priori assumption. Typically, "woo" involves wild claims about the existence of objects, persons or phenomena for which there is very little or no reliable evidence.

 

[James R]

Don't forget the "analysis" of the 3 strobing stars and the planet Mars flying about the sky over Mt. Shasta. We were all SO impressed by that one!

You've changed your tune!

 

[foghorn]

There’s really no reference point when it comes to UFO’s, because there isn’t any conclusive evidence when it comes to any claims so far.

For want of a reference point we have:
''But we do know '' ufonauts

But we do know that ghosts manifest consistently as if they are the spirits of deceased persons, and that ufonauts manifest consistently as if they are from another world..

And for ufos we have: ''ARE''

UFOs ARE craft of unknown origin and nature. That's clear from all the evidence posted here.

And we know ufos have the ability ''to decide'' to reveal themselves even though we don't know what they are:

Speculation always has its place, but in the end nobody really knows what ufos are until they decide to reveal themselves.

The wheels on the bus go round round round.

 

[DaveC426913]

Don't forget the "analysis" of the 3 strobing stars and the planet Mars flying about the sky over Mt. Shasta. We were all SO impressed by that one!

Yeah, I'm pretty pleased with that one. They don't usually get demystified so easily. It's rare to say "Wouldja lookit that! What he described is perfectly replicable!" The nigh-Holy Grail of analysis.

 

[foghorn]

You could say it was the peak of an analysis.
Mt. Shasta.

 

[Sarkus]

Yeah, I'm pretty pleased with that one. They don't usually get demystified so easily. It's rare to say "Wouldja lookit that! What he described is perfectly replicable!" The nigh-Holy Grail of analysis.

While I don't think Mars/stars is not plausible, it does not "perfectly replicate" what was reported.
The report says that one light stopped and that the others moved toward it. Planets and stars don't do that.
The report says that they were stationary for 30 to 40 minutes, and in 40 minutes Mars/stars would have moved quite considerably relative to Mt Shasta. Certainly not stationary.

So, sure, assume he's mistaken on some points and you can fit Mars/stars to what else he has said. And maybe it's the most plausible explanation of those that have been given, but to say that it "perfectly replicates" is simply not the case. It might be Mars/stars, but personally I think there is inadequate detail within the report to reach that conclusion with such confidence.

 

[foghorn]

You know, I think Dave and JR were just joshing MR because of how he behaves whatever is said against one of his cut&pastes.
I got idea when they didn't take note of when the sighting took place. It could have been 3 years ago but posted on 26 th Dec.
But aho that's the way it goes around here.
The wheels on the bus go round round rounnd.

 

[Yazata]

DNDC

I play the numbers and conclude

the Universe is big

Yes.

number of planets really uncountable (well not worth doing)

Uncountably large.

number capable of technology - as above

My feeling is that life is a rare thing in the universe. How rare is the question. Life that's biochemically and anatomically identical to Earth life might be a one-off, only found on Earth. (I'm doubtful that the humanoid aliens of Science Fiction [and some UFO lore] exist. If they do, they probably aren't space aliens. Their anatomical similarities would suggest common ancestry. Time travelers?)

Life based on similar biochemical principles but with a totally different evolutionary history might be more likely. And things that are functionally similar to life as we know it (replicators capable of natural selection) might be more likely than that, no matter how different their underlying principles.

But even if we throw our net widely by considering even the functional equivalent of what we know as life (however different its biochemistry and physiology), the examples that possess space-faring technology are probably very few and far between in my estimation.

Considering that for most of Earth's history, life here was single-celled prokaryotes, I'd speculate that most planets with life out there in the universe only possess the alien equivalent of bacteria, no matter how different its biochemistry.

distance between technology planets - to far for any prospective chance to be traversed in reasonable time frame

I agree with the idea that civilizations capable of interstellar travel are probably spread very thinly through the universe.

But a great deal depends on what "reasonable time frame" means. If superluminal travel is possible to a suitably advanced science, that would be a game changer. (I'm not 100% convinced by the Einstein speed limit thing.)

any inteligent life form is not even going to try

Another possible game changer would be self-reproducing robots. Being robots, they wouldn't have limited lifespans. Imagine a robot able to make two of itself. Its creator sends it out. It makes two more robots, Each of them make two more. And on and on. Self reproducing robots could spread through large parts of the universe exponentially. It might take them thousands or even millions of our years, but that's not a problem for them. (It's a familiar idea from Science Fiction.)

Self-reproducing robots could even be considered 'life' in the broad functional sense since they could compete, form ecological specializations and whole ecologies, and evolve by natural selection. Given AI, they would even qualify as being intelligent life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

 

[Sarkus]

You know, I think Dave and JR were just joshing MR because of how he behaves whatever is said against one of his cut&pastes.
I got idea when they didn't take note of when the sighting took place. It could have been 3 years ago but posted on 26 th Dec.
But aho that's the way it goes around here.

"Joshing" is one way of putting it, I guess.

And yeah, do we even know that Mars would be visible over Mt. Shasta on 26 Dec? If not, which dates would it be? And do these coincide with the date of the observation.
"I don't know" is a perfectly good response, btw.
Or maybe we should just assert that the observations fit whatever conclusion we want, and determine from that which of the comments from the report we take at face value and which we deem to be mistaken?

Just asking for a friend.

The wheels on the bus go round round rounnd.

Yeah, cos if it goes less than 50mph.... well, you know what happens then.

 

[Michael 345]

life is a rare thing

Considering the variety of life (virus to human) all operate (at basic level) by self replication

For each 10 planets 1 with life I would not consider rare

Life that's biochemically and anatomically identical to Earth life might be a one-off, only found on Earth.

Doubtful. Needs being the same, anatomy will follow

Being robots, they wouldn't have limited lifespans.

Untrue

 

[James R]

While I don't think Mars/stars is not plausible, it does not "perfectly replicate" what was reported.

We already established that the eyewitness is far from an expert observer or reporter. We have to work with what we have.

The report says that one light stopped and that the others moved toward it. Planets and stars don't do that.

I already discussed this aspect of the report in some detail, above.

The report says that they were stationary for 30 to 40 minutes, and in 40 minutes Mars/stars would have moved quite considerably relative to Mt Shasta. Certainly not stationary.

I already discussed this, too. It is ambiguous as to whether the eyewitness was referring to objects being stationary with respect to the terrain, or merely stationary with respect to one another.

So, sure, assume he's mistaken on some points and you can fit Mars/stars to what else he has said.

It's a fair assumption. There are clues that the assumption is reasonable in the report itself.

And maybe it's the most plausible explanation of those that have been given, but to say that it "perfectly replicates" is simply not the case. It might be Mars/stars, but personally I think there is inadequate detail within the report to reach that conclusion with such confidence.

What is your #1 candidate for most probably explanation, then, if not Mars and stars? And why?

And yeah, do we even know that Mars would be visible over Mt. Shasta on 26 Dec?

Yes. DaveC checked the visibility explicitly. You could check it yourself, if in doubt. (Didn't you read the previous posts in the thread?)

And do these coincide with the date of the observation.

Basic information, such as the date of observation, was not given by the eyewitness. However, contextual clues suggest an approximate window of time in which the observation was most likely made. Again, we have to deal with what we have.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good response, btw.

"I don't know" can mean a lot of things, though. If you're 99% confident the thing was X, does that mean you don't know it was X? If you want to be pedantic, then yes it does. How about 99.9999% confidence, then?

At what level of confidence will you be willing to say the case is solved? Will only 100% do? Is that ever achievable?

Or maybe we should just assert that the observations fit whatever conclusion we want, and determine from that which of the comments from the report we take at face value and which we deem to be mistaken?

That would be confirmation bias, which is a no no. The better approach is to start with an open mind and try to narrow down the possibilities, then to rank probabilities of the various explanations.

This particular case was a relatively staightforward one, delivering a high-confidence result.

 

[James R]

One more thought on the Mt Shasta case...

Along with what the eyewitness reported, it is also well worth considering what the witness did not report. (This is a generally-useful facet of reports that is often ignored.)

In particular, since we know that Mars and several bright stars were in the exact region of sky that this particular eyewitness was looking at, at the relevant time, we might well ask: why didn't the eyewitness report seeing Mars or the stars?

If the witness had recognised the planet Mars, for example, would he not say "Mars was in the sky, and the UFOs flew right past it!" or something like that? Would he not compare the brightness of the UFOs to the brightness of the planet Mars, which was right there in the same field of view? If not, why not?

Of course, such questions become moot if we accept that the witness did not recognise the planet Mars for what it was.

 

[Sarkus]

We already established that the eyewitness is far from an expert observer or reporter. We have to work with what we have.

I already discussed this...

I already discussed this, too.

It's a fair assumption. There are clues that the assumption is reasonable in the report itself.

Al I see here is you confirming that his report is not "perfectly replicable", and that to reach the conclusion of Mars/stars you have had to assume he is inaccurate in what he reported.
If you still want to argue that it is "perfectly replicable" then you probably shouldn't start by assuming he meant other than what he actually wrote.

So, please, before wasting yours and everyone else's time on a response, make sure that it actually addresses what it is you're responding to. You could have just as easily said "Yeah, sure, it's somewhat of an exaggeration to say that it is perfectly replicable, but the conclusion is still out best fit" or some such. That would have shown you knew what it was you were actually responding to, and addressed it.
But, sure, whatever.

What is your #1 candidate for most probably explanation, then, if not Mars and stars? And why?

I think the most likely is Mars etc. But to get there takes assumptions of errors in the report, and my point stands that it therefore does not "perfectly replicate".
Altering what was reported also reduces the level of confidence in the conclusion.

Again, we have to deal with what we have.

Indeed we do. I'm still struggling to see how this supports the notion of it "perfectly replicating". Maybe you'll answer that in time rather than just the straw men you've currently put yourself up against?

"I don't know" can mean a lot of things, though. If you're 99% confident the thing was X, does that mean you don't know it was X? If you want to be pedantic, then yes it does. How about 99.9999% confidence, then?

You can be 100% confident without knowing, James R. The main requisite of knowledge is it being true. You can certainly believe it true, and be confident it is. But then so can MR, of what he believes.

At what level of confidence will you be willing to say the case is solved? Will only 100% do? Is that ever achievable?

"Solved" with regard what? That it isn't an alien craft, or some other paranormal phenomenon? Or in terms of actually knowing what it was? Or simply having an idea of what it might reasonably be?
"Solved" very much depends on the question you're asking. So what question are you asking?

That would be confirmation bias, which is a no no.

Yet that is exactly what you have done.

The better approach is to start with an open mind and try to narrow down the possibilities, then to rank probabilities of the various explanations.

So maybe you want to go back and try again?

This particular case was a relatively staightforward one, delivering a high-confidence result.

"High confidence" in this case is not a rational result but rather borne from your own beliefs and agenda on the matter. "Reasonable" confidence, maybe, but when there is such a paucity of information, when you have to alter what was reported to fit your conclusion, well... the only rational conclusion is really one of moderate confidence.
But, hey, you do you, right.

 

[wegs]

Generally, skeptics tend to rely on typical scientific methods in analysing data and the claims made about it.

True, but we've been over this in that it's difficult to apply scientific methods to things that are completely unknown to us, and where the only evidence is from eye-witness reports, sketchy videos and pics, etc...

Perhaps, it works to rule out what these UFO's are not, so it's more useful in terms of debunking. Simply because we can't control the experiment or test any ''theories.''

No. That would be an example of what we have all been calling a "mundane explanation" in this thread.

Okay.

The woo is anything alleged to be paranormal. We've been through this before.

We have, but we've also discussed stretching the term a bit to mean commonplace, as opposed to something extraordinary, that is thought to be made by humans.

Classification of something as "woo" is, by the way, an evidence-based classification, not an a priori assumption. Typically, "woo" involves wild claims about the existence of objects, persons or phenomena for which there is very little or no reliable evidence.

You had to know that this section would draw some ''wild'' claims, considering the topic. I understand what you're saying...but, I've always thought we should give a little more leeway, while still applying reason.

 

[foghorn]

And yeah, do we even know that Mars would be visible over Mt. Shasta on 26 Dec? If not, which dates would it be?

I know that may be rhetorical, but here's what I mean:


Looking at MR's link to the article, I see the before and after articles also dated 26th Dec, these articles having nothing to do with the 26th Dec.

So, to me the 26th is just the posted date.

MR's link:

https://sasquatchchronicles.com/strange-lights-on-mount-shasta/
Examples of other articles on that site having nothing to do with top date:

Dec 25
SC EP:915 Why Is That Guy Running?Drew writes “I had an encounter with a Sasquatch 6 years ago in the Navy while on leave back home in Arkansas duck hunting. Visual sighting then what I assume was the animal in the woods about 2 hours later while hunting.

https://sasquatchchronicles.com/sc-ep915-why-is-that-guy-running

Dec 24
A listener writes “2018 is when the event happened. I honestly don’t know how much you want me to put in this email but I could go on and on.

Dec 27
I say that to say this, I’ve been a trusted and productive member of society. What I write to you now, though, happened 2 weeks before I left for boot camp.
One of my best friends and I went camping in December of 2005,

https://sasquatchchronicles.com/it-continued-right-past-our-campsite/

"I don't know" is a perfectly good response, btw.

But, alas only for some it seems, see the quotes in my post #8065
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-404#post-3709100
And in 2021 MR said he

Meh..I stand by every one of those statements.

 

[DaveC426913]

True, but we've been over this in that it's difficult to apply scientific methods to things that are completely unknown to us, and where the only evidence is from eye-witness reports, sketchy videos and pics, etc...

No. That is the ideal time and circumstance to apply scientific methods.

You had to know that this section would draw some ''wild'' claims, considering the topic. I understand what you're saying...but, I've always thought we should give a little more leeway, while still applying reason.

See, that's what separates contributors based on motive. Skeptics are motivated to take the most efficient path to the truth. Wild claims will not get us there, since, but their nature, wild claims will raise more questions than they answer.

Now, that's not to say that, generally, wild claims have no value (in the larger picture of learning something new), it's just that such cases surely need a lot more narrative to make their case. That's not really happening here. I could see a given theory being its own thread, but it would have to be controlled in its scope to provide that extra leeway.

 

[Magical Realist]

Jamesm R wrote: "In particular, since we know that Mars and several bright stars were in the exact region of sky that this particular eyewitness was looking at,"

Really? How did you ascertain the time and the date and the year of the sighting? Foghorn has repeatedly shown that Dec 26 was not the date of the incident but rather the date of the article's posting as it is repeated several times on other articles. It does seem like you and Dave are joshing us. Do you really believe your own horseshit?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you really believe your own horseshit?

No. 'Belief' is your modus operandi, remember?