UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Most things look like what they are most the time. Birds look like birds and spherical uaps look like spherical uaps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Until they don't. See example.

I'm not saying its a goose, Im just saying if we're examining UAPs that walk like a goose and talk like a goose this is gonna continue to be one lame-ass thread.

Come on, the film rolls oughtta be lousy with things zipping around at supersonic speeds. Where is all this amazing footage? It's been three quarters of a century...

Moving on...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you think it's a goose because it doesn't look like one. lol! Fine...awaiting other more serious responses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pelicans?

 

Do we really think NASA would bother creating a group to zealously research some of these reported UAP claims if “birds” were a strong possibility? I can’t. -_-

 

This isn't from NASA.

MR is not curating the content he puts up; just anything that any ol pilot takes a snapshot of and gets signal-boosted by UFO fan culture.

 

I know, but “it could be birds” has been the go to “explanation” for quite a few of these UAP’s. In a broader sense. As though there’s this mindset out there that enthusiasts never consider mundane explanations, causing skeptics to feel that they are the lone voice of reason. That’s more of where I’m coming from.

I suppose he wants feedback.

 

Video evidence is video evidence. If that's not sufficient for you then maybe you should move on to another thread.

 

Really? Because he reacts rather poorly when he gets it.

 

The video was infrared, as you seem to have forgotten.

Here is an example of an infrared sequence of a bird in flight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The wings are mostly feather and retain little heat and can thus be hardly visible. The flight muscles are where most of the heat is generated and are grouped near the body, resulting in the appearance of a roughly spherical shape in infrared.

Under the right conditions in infrared, a bird (or two) in flight can very well be - to all intents and purposes - a sphere-shaped non-flappy blob several feet across of about 105F, moving against the wind.

Look, we get you're not interested in science or analysis, that's fine, but how about less trolling and more getting out of the way of people who are serious about analysis of UAPs, mKay?

 

LOL! Awaiting other more serious responses..

 

Serious question: given the analysis presented, name ONE way this is NOT consistent with a couple of large flying birds seen in Infrared.

I await a serious response.

 

I don't think that NASA has set up a group to research UAPs as of yet. The committee that just streamed its open meeting was set up to consider how best to research UAPs, what kind of data they feel they need and similar questions. I believe that this committee was preliminary to setting up a NASA UAP research office, which both the committee and the NASA Administrator seem to favor.

(NASA seems to want to argue that it's a positive that they aren't considering classified reports, Except that they themselves admit that military sighting reports are classified if they contain data obtained by classified sensors. Which presumably means some large percentage of them.)

The Defense Department does have a UAP research body, Sean Kirkpatrick's AARO.

I believe that the DoD has instructed military personnel to report sightings that they feel are "anomalous" in Sean Kirkpatrick's sense, namely sightings that appear extraordinary and inexplicable to the one making the report. Standardized reporting procedures have been put in place to facilitate that.

Then the investigators set about trying to reduce the reports to known explanations. (Birds, balloons, cavorting whales or whatever.) Reducing the unknown to the known is what 'explanation' is, after all. So a sighting that appears 'anomalous' to the one making the report might not remain anomalous if a plausible and convincing explanation can be found for it in terms of what is already known and understood. The 'anomalous' file tends to shrink over time.

Some large percentage of reports (>50%) aren't reducible in that way, mainly because the available information is insufficient to make a determination.

And some small percentage of reports (2-5%) appear to show characteristics that seem to resist explanation and appear to be incompatible with conventional explanations: well-attested exotic aerodynamic behavior and so on.

Getting back to your point Wegs, I agree very strongly with you that what we aren't seeing with NASA or the AARO is an a-priori assumption based on pre-existing faith that all UAP reports must somehow be reducible to what is already known. They explicitly oppose and want to eliminate the stigma that dismisses all these kind of reports as "woo". They don't automatically dismiss those making the reports as tinfoil-hatted cultists or people who are making elementary logical or perceptual errors.

They actually hold open the possibility that there might be something interesting and even important to discover here. Something that isn't found among the ideas that are already known and believed by the "skeptics".

It's the difference between an open and closed worldview, I guess.

 

I remember Sean Kirkpatrick telling the congressional subcommittee that there were 650 anomalous cases currently. That's quite a few. I don't know if these were previous to ruling out other things or after it. But I'm assuming many are classified and will remain so because they expose the military's sensor capabilities. Kirkpatrick's alluding to those anomalous metallic spheres "seen all over the world" must be based on their analysis of these accounts. I'd say this weights the evidence towards a definitely "open" worldview. I wonder if skeptics can handle that.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/us-government-ufo-reports/index.html

 

You've certainly got sizzle in the form of abstract rhetoric; I'd like to see some bacon - to see if you have skin in this game and its not just academic entertainment for you.

Case in point: do you personally think that MRs post about the UAP off Puerto Rico is a good use of our time in analyzing to see if there's something here that isnt found among already known things?

And if so, I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

You spend far more time and bandwidth here whining and bitching about me than contributing anything useful to the analysis of the posted accounts. If there's any trolling or time-wasting goin on it's all from you and not me.

 

I've asked you a direct question about actual analysis of the video. So far, you have no response except more trolling. If not a hypocrite, lets have an answer. To-wit:

given the analysis presented, name ONE way [the video] is NOT consistent with a couple of large flying birds seen in Infrared.

 

For the third time: I'm waiting for other people to seriously respond. I've moved on and so should you. The suggestion that this is a bird is simply ludicrous..

 

Show your logic.

 

1) the signature of the uap looks nothing like a bird in flight. I've posted birds in flight on FLIR (see below) and you can plainly see their wings flapping. There are no flapping wings on the uap.

2) the uap skims the water and then goes under reemerging again at full flight speed. Birds can't do that.

3) the uap is traveling too fast against 18mph winds to be a bird, especially one measuring 3-5 feet.

4) the uap splits into another one. Birds don't do that.