UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[C C]

I don't expect anything to come of this in terms of alien technosignatures or fallen UAPs of exotic origin (i.e, slim chance of it being THAT kind of IO). But if you've got a shot at finding traces of a small version of what ʻOumuamua was, then go for it.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Scientists Are Hunting for Alien Objects in the Ocean, And They've Just Found Something
https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3w...-in-the-ocean-and-theyve-just-found-something

INTRO: Scientists are currently searching for the submerged remains of an interstellar object that crashed into the skies near Papua New Guinea in January 2014 and probably sprinkled material from another star system into the Pacific Ocean, according to an onboard diary by Avi Loeb, the Harvard astronomer who is leading the expedition.

The effort, which kicked off on June 14, aims to recover what is left of the otherworldly fireball using a deep-sea magnetic sled. The team has already turned up “anomalous” magnetic spherules, steel shards, curious wires, and heaps of volcanic ash, but has not identified anything that is unambiguously extraterrestrial—or interstellar—at this point... (MORE - details)
_

 

[DaveC426913]

Dam that's cool.

 

[Magical Realist]

Here is a sphere and a hemisphere. Which is which?

I infer they're both spheres. Always suspect a horse over a zebra.

 

[DaveC426913]

I infer they're both spheres.

No. I've told you one is a hemisphere.

You seemed to feel you can tell the difference between a sphere and a hemisphere even though you can only see one angle.
Can you or can you not?
I'll save you the trouble: you can't.

Thus, this statement is unfounded:

If you look at the close up of the uap in the video (see above) it is clear the uap is an entire sphere and not a hemisphere.

Always suspect a horse over a zebra.

The problem is that assuming it's a sphere in the video leads to many more problems and questions. (as you point out: how could it fly?)

A camouflaged drone is by far the simplest explanation (so far offered) that is consistent with the video. To posit a more complex or more exotic explanation, one should start by showing how (if at all) the simplest explanation is inconsistent with the facts as we see them.

In other words a spherized drone is actually the zebra and a hemisphere- (or disc)- sporting drone is the horse.

And, as you say, think horses before zebras. (i.e. Occam's Razor)

 

[foghorn]

Even on one of Sean Kirkpatrick's slides the word apparent is used:
Middle East, 2022: MQ-9 observed apparent spherical UAP via electro-optical sensors...

Pdf of slides:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Sean Kirkpatrick - 1100am to 1130am.pdf
My arrow.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good eye.

Even on one of Sean Kirkpatrick's slides the word apparent is used:
Middle East, 2022: MQ-9 observed apparent spherical UAP via electro-optical sensors...

That would be because Kirkpatrick
- does not jump to unevidenced conclusions, and
- knows that what something may appear to look like is not necessarily what it actually turns out to be.

 

[Magical Realist]

I googled "salad bowl drone" and got nothing. Apparently not only do these not exist, but they aren't even imagined to exist. Except by you.

 

[DaveC426913]

I googled "salad bowl drone" and got nothing. Apparently not only do these not exist, but they aren't even imagined to exist. Except by you.

To the discerning reader, Magical Realist is surely being a bit tongue-in-cheek here but it has provided an opportunity for a lesson in critical thinking 101.

Socrates: "I just saw something unusual. It may have been a dog, riding in a yellow school bus."
Anytus: "No. I personally have never seen a dog riding in a yellow school bus. I asked my two friends if they've ever seen a dog riding in a yellow school bus, and they said no."
Socrates: "You grant the existence of dogs; you grant the existence of yellow school buses, and you grant that school buses are capable of containing dogs. Is it possible, even plausible, for a dog to be seen riding in a yellow school bus? "
Anytus: "No. Two admittedly granted things can never be combined. If I, or my two friends, have not seen such a combination, not only does it not exist, it isn't even imagined to exist."


Which if these two people is exhibiting logical, critical thinking skills? Magical Realist, be sure to weigh in here as well.



And good stuff. Keep it coming.

 

[Magical Realist]

Sounds like a justification to believe in any old unevidenced thing..

Horns exist. Horses exist. Therefore a horse with a horn (a unicorn) must exist.

 

[DaveC426913]

You should really walk through the exercise in my post. It highlights the flaws in your ideas. Note especially the similarity between your logic and Anytus'. That would have saved us a long-form critique. But for the benefit of our readers:

Sounds like a justification to believe in any old unevidenced thing.

Which thing? A dog? A yellow school bus? A drone? A salad bowl? Which of these things do you need more evidence for?

a horse with a horn

Exactly. A horse with a horn stapled to it. Such a thing is quite plausible.

A dog climbing into a yellow school bus remains a dog ... in a yellow school bus; it does not (as your unicorn logic might suppose) become a ... yellow-dog-bus.

... must ...

Note that the word "must" does not appear in my conclusions or in Socrates'. "Must" would make them an illogical conclusion and, notably, it only appears in yours.

Can you explain why you have chosen to insert it in your syllogism, rendering it both illogical and inapplicable to the discussion at-hand?


Keep em coming. But if I could suggest you maybe step up the sophistication a little? Some of our readers are going to think this is the remedial class.

 

[James R]

I googled "salad bowl drone" and got nothing. Apparently not only do these not exist, but they aren't even imagined to exist. Except by you.

Maybe they aren't called "salad bowl drone".

Besides, why do you imagine that something that doesn't exist on google can't exist?

You're not serious, are you? Are you trolling again?

 

[DaveC426913]

You're not serious, are you? Are you trolling again?

No no. He is acting as a character foil. To-wit:

This is all really good stuff. Interested present and future readers will benefit from the answers to your questions. In a detective story, you will often find the main character and his sidekick talking about solving a case. The sidekick's purpose in the story is to ask the simple, obvious questions so that the main character has a reason to explain to the sidekick - but more importantly, to the readers.

Monk: "Doc! This man's dead! But how'd he drown here - on dry land - miles from the river!?"
Doc: "Well, we are in a water bottling factory. And that's a million gallon vat of water over there."
Monk: "Dang it Doc, of course! That's why they pay you the big bucks!"

So Magical Realist is playing the part of a guy who is standing in a water bottling factory, next to a million gallon vat of water, and being unable to grasp the idea of a drowned victim.

This is beneficial to readership. It gives us a perfect reason to educate our readership on skeptical analysis and critical thinking.

 

[Magical Realist]

Maybe they aren't called "salad bowl drone".

Besides, why do you imagine that something that doesn't exist on google can't exist?

You're not serious, are you? Are you trolling again?

Do you believe in salad bowl drones? Be honest now..

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you believe in salad bowl drones? Be honest now..

That's a question you asked there. I have asked quite a few myself. Are you going to answer them?

 

[James R]

Do you believe in salad bowl drones? Be honest now..

Not yet. I haven't seen any actual examples of such a thing.

I do, however, believe in stealth drones (you can google that).

I also believe that it would not be especially difficult to make a salad bowl drone, like what DaveC described.

Do you believe it would be difficult to make one? Be honest now.

 

[Magical Realist]

Do you believe it would be difficult to make one? Be honest now.

I guess it would. What I question is the whole purpose of making one when the bowl would only make the drone more visible. It would also limit the camera's range of vision to be covered with a metal hemisphere. Not to mention weighing the drone down and hampering its flight capability. My conclusion: nobody would even bother to make one of these. And that's why there is no mention of them on google..

 

[C C]

I guess it would. What I question is the whole purpose of making one when the bowl would only make the drone more visible. It would also limit the camera's range of vision to be covered with a metal hemisphere. Not to mention weighing the drone down and hampering its flight capability. My conclusion: nobody would even bother to make one of these. And that's why there is no mention of them on google..

There are drones with spherical frameworks. From a distance they might (MIGHT) illusorily appear to have solid shells surrounding them with no openings -- especially if they were designed with an additional, outer rotating framework (older, primitive example here). Commercial or retail ones two meters in diameter probably aren't available. But there are lots of hobby-oriented, research, and regional military projects around the world constructing eccentric drones that never get covered in magazines and video channels. Though sometimes accidentally and unknowingly with respect to the latter.

_

 

[James R]

I guess it would.

Do you mean you think it would be difficult to put a hemispherical shell on top of a drone, or it wouldn't be difficult?

What I question is the whole purpose of making one when the bowl would only make the drone more visible.

Visually visible, perhaps. However, the aim might be to reduce its radar visibility (ground radars look mostly sideways when looking for low-flying drones). Alternatively, the aim might be to confuse video taken from above the drone (planes most fly higher than surveillance drones).

It would also limit the camera's range of vision to be covered with a metal hemisphere.

It would limit the upwards vision of the camera. But I'm sure you're aware that drones are usually made to look downwards, at the ground below.

Not to mention weighing the drone down and hampering its flight capability.

Anything added to a drone will weigh it down. The question is whether adding weight gives some other advantage that makes the additional weight cost worthwhile. I have suggested some possible advantages, above.

My conclusion: nobody would even bother to make one of these.

But you admit that it is possible to make them, and that it is possible that somebody would bother to make one, despite the fact that you, personally, can currently think of no possible advantage in doing so. Right? Be honest, now.

And that's why there is no mention of them on google..

I see.

Well, what do you think about these ones:

 

[James R]

And what about this?

Spherical Indoor Coanda Effect Drone (SpICED): A Spherical Blimp sUAS for Safe Indoor Use (mdpi.com)

 

[Magical Realist]

Drones in round cages?...no..

A spherical indoor blimp?...No..

We were talking about a drone covered by a "salad bowl" or metal dome so that it could pass, from one angle, for a speeding metallic sphere as seen in Kirkpatrick's Middle East video. It is Dave's valiant attempt to explain away the metallic spheres that Kirkpatrick says they see all over the world. These however would certainly not fit the bill. Next slide..