UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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 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.”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

And for ufos we have: ''ARE''

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

The wheels on the bus go round round round.

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.

 

Yes.

Uncountably large.

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.

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.)

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

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Doubtful. Needs being the same, anatomy will follow

Untrue

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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?

Yet that is exactly what you have done.

So maybe you want to go back and try again?

"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.

 

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.''

Okay.

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.

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.

 

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:

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

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

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

 

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

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.

 

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?

 

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