UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

I remember you complaining about us for "living in the mystery". Now it's because we believe too much? There's just no pleasing some folks I guess.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. Both those things. They both run counter to good science, which is ostensibly why we all joined this science forum. If believing in mysteries is a thing you enjoy, you might consider a religion forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"We are bathing in mystery and confusion on many subjects, and I think that will always be our destiny. The universe will always be much richer than our ability to understand it."--Carl Sagan

“The most beautiful thing that we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.”-- Einstein

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you start arguing against the points that were specifically addressing that the conclusion does not "perfectly replicate" the reported observations, is it really that surprising that you're assumed to be implicitly supporting that claim? If I am mistaken that you were supporting the claim of "perfectly replicable" then, okay, your points were simply irrelevant to the post you're replying to. I (wrongly, it seems) assumed you were at least being relevant, but I really couldn't care less which it is: you being wrong and your rebuttals being irrelevant, or your points simply being irrelevant. Sure, let's stick with the latter.

Not the words per se, but your subsequent "analysis" (e.g. post #7992) suggests you have taken things opposite to what was reported:
To wit: he wrote: "As they got closer to the first one..." and your analysis says: "The witness does not give details about the relative spacing between the objects he reports..." - yet by specifically saying that the apparent relative distance got shorter (that is what is meant by "closer") it is quite clear that he does give detail.
You further say: "This is consistent with the witness's (lack of) a statement about the spacing." So you have clearly altered, even if just in your head, what it is that he has said, and referenced (the lack) twice. Whether a deliberate divergence on your part or accidental, I'm not going to speculate other than to note that you do have a history with incorrectly summarising other people's positions.
You do specifically address this, though, as you go on:

Here you specifically alter, even in just your head, what is quite clear he said. You then use your altered wording to support your case: i.e. you have altered what he reported to suit your conclusion. Is your conclusion based on what he said? No, it is based on what you seemingly want him to say, what fits the conclusion you want to reach.
This is quite clear, James R.

Demonstrably not: you argued against a post that said the conclusion of Mars/stars does not perfectly replicate the reported observations, and in that context, whether you support that claim or not, you did so with points that don't address that issue. I.e. your post is irrelevant to the point you argued against.
Need I go on? Or are you going to own your mistake, James R. Accept that you respond irrelevantly to the point that was being made, and move on?

So you're not interested in what it actually is? Okay.

I'd like to know with a high degree of confidence what it actually is. I'm confident that it isn't non-mundane. But not because of what is/is not reported but because my bar to conclude that is rather high, and this report is too vague to ever achieve that. In terms of knowing what it is with that degree of confidence, no, we're not "solved".

There is no misrepresentation from me, James R. You were being irrelevant to the post you were replying to. That's clear and obvious, implicit by your own admission. Own that and move on.
I'll happily own the snarkiness, though, as it's not going to change.

Yet if you misunderstand what the rational result actually is, your confidence will be misplaced. You have altered (demonstrably so) the reported observation to suit your conclusion. The sheer amount of wooliness that you have had to tried to cut through should, rationally, mean that any specific conclusion is similarly woolly / open to doubt. So while the rational conclusion is "high confidence", the rational conclusion from the info given is only that the observation might probably be Mars/stars. And by all means have a high confidence that it might probably be that. Do not confuse a high confidence in a reasonable probability of X with a high confidence that it is X.

You mean holding you to account for the garbage you too often write? No, I'll keep doing this version, thanks. If it's getting tiresome for you then by all means cut out the garbage.

 

I’ll reply later to the rest of your post, James, but thought I’d answer your question on leeway. Perhaps allowing for a greater margin of error or not getting upset if MR doesn’t agree with you, is what I mean by “leeway.” You’re arguing with science in mind, and obviously, that’s fine because this is a science forum after all, but your expectation of MR (just using him as an example) is that he will eventually stop trusting eye witness reports and convert to your way of thinking. Your way of thinking isn’t wrong at all, because your approach is in defense of science. And that makes sense.

That said, I don’t think MR opposes science (in general), but on this topic, his mind is open to more possibilities than science can (yet) provide answers.

So, by leeway, you shouldn’t ban anyone who thinks outside of the scientific parameters, when it comes to UAP’s. Unless of course, the ban is due to another type of forum violation.

And this doesn’t mean this section of the site should be a “free for all,” but the general heading (“monsters” included) doesn’t give the impression that it’s to be taken too seriously, like other sections of SF. Debate is to be expected here, but ad homs and bans? Seems excessive considering the topic.

Anyway, that’s what I meant.

 

You are the one claiming to know the time and the date and the year of the sighting. I'm asking you how you know this. If you are going to be evasive and accusatory, I will assume you don't really know this. Simple as that.

 

No problem. It simply means you've drawn attention to the fact that the incident is of even lower quality than you thought. We don't even know whether this incident occurred in the second millennium or the third!

Heck, the Bible has more accurate accounting than this incident...


I don't suppose you'll be apologizing for wasting everyone's time ...

But if it still fascinates you, you can't rule out that it was a night where Mars - or another planet - along with some bright stars - can be seen over Mt. Shasta. Until you can rule that out, it remains highly plausible and certainly fits the incident report well.


Moving forward: for the sake of thread progress, consider stepping up your game, quality-wise. Avoid incidents - indeed, avoid websites - where they can't be bothered to list years - let alone dates - in the reports they post.



Let's move on.

 

LOL So there is no knowledge of the time and day and year of the sighting. You and James' credibility as objective investigators just dropped to zero. There's absolutely no reason to think the eyewitness saw the stars and planet much less mistook them for strobing lights. It doesn't fit the account and assumes as usual the incompetence of the eyewitness based on nothing more than an unevidenced and forgone conclusion.

No..it's not my job to rule out your unevidenced claim. You need to support your claim with evidence. This is still a science forum afterall.

 

Is there any reason ThazzarBaal,chatbot, is leaving this thread alone?
Is it busy reading the ads?

 

And thanks to you we can now add to it the incompetence of the source you chose to peruse and bring here.

Bringing that crappy stuff here reflects upon your competence too.

Hypothesis supported with facts, here. Please keep up with the thread so as not to waste readers' time.

1. A hypothesis is not a claim. 'Plausible' =/= 'is'. Brush up on your discussion skills.
2. Disagreeing with a hypothesis is OK. Don't overreach.
3. Lying about a hypothesis not being supported by evidence is not OK.


Stop lying. Stop trolling.

 

Oh, do you think Thazzar is a bot? The writing style reminds me of another member who hasn’t posted in a long while but wasn’t banned, to my knowledge. Hmm.

 

You have no evidence that this was the time and date of the sighting. You basically just pulled it out of your ass. Once again an unevidenced claim.

 

You have no evidence it wasn't. Therefore you can't rule Mars out based on dates.

The takeaway is that the site is crap. Don't rely on it or that crap will stick to you.

Moving on.

 

I agree, and I'm dyslexia

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I may at times appear to be antiscience, but really I'm not. I oppose scientism, which is the veneration of science and the scientific method as some sort of ultimate epistemological truth. It is not. Alot of our experience is not subject to the analysis of science. There are even aspects of reality that exceed reduction to the physical properties science deals in. Consciousness and the mind are that sort of phenomenon. The paranormal and uaps and other fortean anomalies are I suspect that sort of phenomenon too. The universe in its very being is inherently incredible, and some things just have to be experienced firsthand to be believed.

 

There ya go. You're a skeptic at heart.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm not certain enough to be a skeptic. I am basically an agnostic. A mystic. "I don't know" is the closest I get to a belief.