UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Magical Realist]

I may say "I believe" all the orbs have the same cause, jamming certain frequencies, decoying, intelligence gathering or something else, but that’s me.
But, you MR are putting words into Kirkpatrick's mouth when saying Kirkpatrick "believes" they have the same cause.
I ask for the source.

MR says the US President "believes" the world is pyramid shaped.

I take back that Kirkpatrick believes in a common cause for metallic sphere. He didn't explicitly say that but he certainly implies it. If metallic spheres are all the same thing, then wouldn't they have a common cause?

 

[DaveC426913]

I take back that Kirkpatrick believes in a common cause for metallic sphere. He didn't explicitly say that but he certainly implies it. If metallic spheres are all the same thing, then wouldn't they have a common cause?

No.
He doesn't imply they have a common cause.
He doesn't say or imply they're all the same thing.

If metallic spheres are all the same thing, then wouldn't they have a common cause?

Excerpted From the video you posted:

"It's worth mentioning that many reported UAPs - including those resembling the mysterious metallic orbs - can often be logically explained. Kirkpatrick cited an example where three high velocity orbs detected by a sensor in the US were ultimately identified as commercial aircraft adjusting their flight paths."



Now, you personally surmise that they are all the same thing,
Several of them have been identified as commercial aircraft.
If follows that you conclude that they are all commercial aircraft.

That would be quite a turnaround for you.

 

[Magical Realist]

Several of them have been identified as commercial aircraft.

Most have been identified as flying metallic spheres 1 to 4 meters in diameter. I accept that conclusion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Most have been identified as flying metallic spheres 1 to 4 meters in diameter. I accept that conclusion.

That is not an identification nor a conclusion; that is a description of an observation.
We know this because several of them have been identified as commercial aircraft, and we do not have commercial aircraft that are, in fact, metallic spheres 1 to 4 metres in diameter even though the may appear in descriptions of observation as "metallic spheres".

This is good. Other readers may have made the same mistake. You're helping educate.


So:

You have surmised that all these flying metallic spheres all over the world have the same cause.

Since several of them have a known cause (commercial aircraft), you conclude that all of them all over the world are commercial aircraft.

That's inescapable logic, so either you agree or you'll have to retract and modify at least some portion of your surmisation.

 

[James R]

Most have been identified as flying metallic spheres 1 to 4 meters in diameter. I accept that conclusion.

You have made at least two new separate claims, including:

1. The objects reported as looking like metallic spheres all have the same explanation.
2. Most of those objects have been identified as metallic spheres 1 to 4 meters in diameter.

Regarding claim #1, tell us what led you to the conclusion that they all have the same explanation. Bear in mind that you have already agreed that there is no evidence that Kickpatrick from NASA believes they all have the same explanation. What other evidence are you relying on to draw that conclusion, then?

Claim #2 can only be based on actual evidence, so I'm going to have to ask you again to quote a source that supports claim #2. Who has identified "most of these objects"? And, knowing that they are metallic spheres, what explanation for how they fly has been provided by the person or persons who positively identified them? Also, does the identifying person or persons know who made the metal spheres, or how or why they are operated? Has the identifying person or persons collected any examples of identified metal spheres? Why has NASA or the UAP investigatory panel not reported on these positive identifications?

If you cannot cite any evidence that shows that most of these objects have been identified as metallic spheres, you should withdraw your claim.

By the way, having read DaveC's post #9084, you can no longer claim to be confused about the difference between identifying a thing and reporting what a thing looks like. Try not to make this mistake again in future, if that's what happened here. Learn something from this.

Your claim #2 is compatible with NASA's finding that at least 3 of these things that looked like metal spheres were, in fact, commercial jet aircraft. It could be that these are the exception to the rule, if your claim #2 is true. Obviously, commercial jet planes are not metallic spheres 1 to 4 metres in diameter.

However, the finding that at least 3 of these things were commercial jets is incompatible with your claim #1, taken together with claim #2. If claim #1 is correct - that all of these things have the same explanation - and we know for sure that some of these things are commercial jets, then, by your reasoning, all of these things are commercial jets. But that conclusion is clearly incompatible with the claim #2, which says that most of them have been identified as something other than commercial jets.

Something has to give here. You must give up on at least one of your two claims. Tell us which one - or both - you will no longer believe.

In your next post to this thread, I expect you to address these matters. To summarise, I expect to see the following from you:

• A clear statement as to whether you want to give up on claim #1 or claim #2.
• Your evidence in support of claim #2 (if you want to stand by that claim). Tell us who identified the things and what that person or persons said about the things, following the positive identification they made. How do they fly? Where did they come from? Who or what operates them? Are there any examples in storage that can be examined? What photographs or reports are available detailing the characteristics and properties of these identified objects?
• If you want to stand by claim #1, while giving up on #2, either an admission from you that at least some of the metal spheres have different explanations or a statement of your personal belief that all these objects are, in fact, commercial jets, combined with a retraction of your claim that most of them have been identified as metallic spheres.

Thanks, Magical Realist!

 

[Yazata]

Most have been identified as flying metallic spheres 1 to 4 meters in diameter. I accept that conclusion.

What appeared to be metallic flying spheres. I don't think that they have ruled out the possibility that they weren't metallic or even that they weren't flying. (That they were camera artifacts, visual illusions or something like that.) They still seem to be at the stage of not knowing what they were.

There's so much that they aren't releasing. What kind of instrumental sensors detected them? Were they detected by multiple modalities? Were they visually confirmed by aircrew or from the ground?

But just reading between the lines, if they are taking them as seriously as they seem to be, they must have what they consider good reason to think that they are something real. I assume that they have considered most of the illusion objections and still think that they have a real puzzling phenomenon on their hands.

Moving on to the common explanation issue, I would treat that as a hypothesis rather than as a solid conclusion. They (and we) simply don't know that all the apparent metallic flying spheres have the same explanation.

But that being said, science does typically hypothesize similar explanations for similar phenomena. (It's that Ockham's razor thing.) If I observe some phenomenon (a rainbow, lets say), I'll assume that the textbook explanation for that kind of phenomenon (rainbows) holds true in my case as well. Of course the possibility remains that what I saw wasn't a rainbow... or that there are aberrant rainbows with different explanations... or even that it was a miraculous sign from God. It's probably impossible to exclude all those additional possibilities. But in practice we do, unless we have some additional reason to doubt the rainbow explanation.

So it does seem to be intellectually defensible to assume common explanations for common phenomena. But it is an assumption and not something that we actually know. That applies to scientific regularities (things many people want to believe in) as well as things people want to dismiss.

I guess that my position (at the moment, it's subject to change) is that perhaps sometimes those choices to believe or to dismiss might be premature.

 

[foghorn]

I guess that my position (at the moment, it's subject to change) is that perhaps sometimes those choices to believe or to dismiss might be premature.

Hence uap

 

[C C]

Alex Anne Dietrich received a copy of Mick West's "Escaping the Rabbit Hole":

https://twitter.com/DietrichVFA41/status/1672569009680572416?s=20

("new") Jun 11, 2023 - Alex Dietrich & Sean Cahill give their accounts of seeing UAPs

In reference to the above (Dave Grusch claims back then)...

Mick West (Jun 11): "Let me be very clear. I want Congress to investigate Dave Grusch's (and others') claims that the US has alien craft. I think it's false, but that indicates a systemic failing, an environment in the Mil/IC that allows these fantasies to mutate and spread."

https://twitter.com/MickWest/status/1667946152430559232?s=20
_

 

[DaveC426913]

Gee, things sure get quiet once you start holding enthusiasts accountable for their claims, eh?

You tell one enthusiast 'Hey! Show us where he said that' or another 'Hey! Don't be a hypocrite!' and suddenly you can hear crickets chirping and pins dropping around here.

 

[C C]

Apparently the Grusch thought-virus has now spread to the point that government officials are sitting around the campfire telling ghost stories to each other. One might hope they're just participating in a CIA ploy to bluff the Alternate World Order (Russia, China, Iran, NK) into believing the West has strategic god-tech. But that's not necessarily a better sign of psychological health.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recent UFO whistleblower isn’t the only one
https://www.newsnationnow.com/space/ufo/rubio-recent-ufo-whistleblower-isnt-the-only-one/

EXCERPTS: Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Rubio told NewsNation on Monday that he has heard from firsthand witnesses in “high positions in our government” to some of the claims made by Grusch.

“There are people that have come forward to share information with our committee over the last couple of years. … I want to be very protective of these people. A lot of these people came to us even before protections were in the law for whistleblowers to come forward ... Some of these people still work in the government. And frankly, a lot of them are very fearful, fearful of their jobs, fearful [of] their clearances, fearful of their career, and some, frankly, are fearful of harm coming to them.”

Rubio did not comment on if he thinks the claims are credible [...] “What I think we owe is just a mature, you know, understanding, listening and trying to put all these pieces together and just sort of intake the information without any prejudgment or jumping to any conclusions,” Rubio said.

UFO expert Nick Pope told NewsNation ... “There’s safety in numbers ... People are cautious about this, but once the first few speak out, I think others come forward.” ​

Rubio: Recent UFO whistleblower isn't the only one

 

[Magical Realist]

But just reading between the lines, if they are taking them as seriously as they seem to be, they must have what they consider good reason to think that they are something real. I assume that they have considered most of the illusion objections and still think that they have a real puzzling phenomenon on their hands.

That's my impression too. The fact that they would make a whole slide about the metallic spheres and list their traits seems to assume that these uaps are concluded to be real physical things that have been evidenced by videos/photographs.[see below] And then there's Kirkpatrick's clear statement about them: "These are the things we are seeing the most of. We see them all over the world. And we see them making very interesting apparent maneuvers." Unfortunately they may not release the evidence to the public since it is all largely classified. So we will just have to wait for what trickles out of the next report of the AARO due out this August.

 

[DaveC426913]

The fact that they would make a whole slide about the metallic spheres and list their traits seems to assume that these uaps are concluded to be real physical things

Not sure how you figure that follows.

What it seems to assume is that - whatever they are - they're taking the reports seriously enough to classify and study them.

 

[DaveC426913]

https://www.space.com/nasa-astronaut-scott-kelly-ufos-uap-worth-investigating

"remaining largely silent, Kelly, a former U.S. Navy captain, stood up to share a UAP experience he had while flying an F-14 Tomcat. 'I remember one time I was flying in the warning areas off of the Virginia Beach military operating area there,' Kelly said. 'And my RIO [radar intercept officer] thought — the guy that sits in the back of the Tomcat — was convinced we flew by a UFO. So I didn't see it. We turned around and went to go look at it."


Consider the implications of this incident. It is one of an incredibly small set of sightings where the observers had a second chance. Had they flown by and not been able to turn back, or not been able to reacquire the object, this would very likely have gone down in the annals of UAP reports by trained military pilots, alongside so many others.

What - upon first sighting was sufficiently UAP-like to cause them to break from their mission - turned out to be conclusively mundane.


'It turns out it was Bart Simpson, a balloon."'


It forces the question to be asked: how many other similar incidents are on-file, as ostensibly legit UAP sightings, but wherein there was no such fortuitous opportunity to get a second chance?

Fact: Balloons can be misidentified by trained military pilots/radar operators, "convinced" they have seen a "UFO".

 

[foghorn]

In the NASA meeting there’s that along with things looking odd in space too
A nearby "bolt" in the payload bay, becomes the international space station 80 miles away.

I get it why these pilots would look at that Go Fast video and think it was going really, really fast. I remember one time I was flying in the warning areas off of Virginia Beach, military operating area there. My [inaudible 02:52:32] thought, the guy that sits in the back of the Tomcat, was convinced we flew by a UFO. I didn’t see it. We turned around, we went to go look at it. It turns out it was Bart Simpson. A balloon.

Oftentimes in space, I would see things and I was like, “Oh, that’s really not behaving like it should. It doesn’t have a trajectory of a satellite or a planet on the back of the starfield.” Every single time when I would look at it long enough, I would realize that it was atmospheric lensing. It was the fact that what I was looking at was actually flying behind the atmosphere, and because of variations in the atmosphere, it made the trajectory look like it wasn’t going in a straight line. It was going like this, and it would go like that and it would turn in the other direction. Was always the case.

My brother, Mark Kelly, a former NASA astronaut and also now a US senator, I was with him for dinner last night and he shared a story with me again that he had shared years ago, but I had kind of forgotten about it. I think it’s worth sharing. That is, when he was the commander of SDS 124, I think it was, in 2008, they were getting ready to close the payload bay doors of the space shuttle. Before they do that, you’ve got to make sure nothing interferes with the doors, because if the doors don’t close properly, the space shuttle can’t reenter the atmosphere. It would come apart. It’s part of the structural integrity of the vehicle.
They see something in the payload bay. They thought it was a tool maybe, a bolt. They couldn’t quite figure it out. They were potentially going to have to go and do a space walk to retrieve it. Before they did that, my brother grabbed a camera, they took a picture of it, and when they blew up the picture, they realized that this is not a bolt or a tool in the payload bay, it was actually the International Space Station that was 80 miles away. I mean, that’s just a really good example of how this environment we operate in is so, so conducive to optical illusions. Oftentimes, guys fly into the water. I mean, there are cases where pilots have rendezvoused on a buoy, because they thought that was their wingman. It’s just very, very challenging environment to work in, especially at night.

The transcript:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/nasa-holds-first-public-meeting-on-ufos-transcript

 

[Magical Realist]

https://www.space.com/nasa-astronaut-scott-kelly-ufos-uap-worth-investigating

"remaining largely silent, Kelly, a former U.S. Navy captain, stood up to share a UAP experience he had while flying an F-14 Tomcat. 'I remember one time I was flying in the warning areas off of the Virginia Beach military operating area there,' Kelly said. 'And my RIO [radar intercept officer] thought — the guy that sits in the back of the Tomcat — was convinced we flew by a UFO. So I didn't see it. We turned around and went to go look at it."


Consider the implications of this incident. It is one of an incredibly small set of sightings where the observers had a second chance. Had they flown by and not been able to turn back, or not been able to reacquire the object, this would very likely have gone down in the annals of UAP reports by trained military pilots, alongside so many others.

What - upon first sighting was sufficiently UAP-like to cause them to break from their mission - turned out to be conclusively mundane.


'It turns out it was Bart Simpson, a balloon."'


It forces the question to be asked: how many other similar incidents are on-file, as ostensibly legit UAP sightings, but wherein there was no such fortuitous opportunity to get a second chance?

Fact: Balloons can be misidentified by trained military pilots/radar operators, "convinced" they have seen a "UFO".

I don't see the logical connection between a pilot being mistaken that a balloon was a ufo and that event therefore being a common occurrence. I mean we already know there are probably a number of cases of such mistakes. But the really well-evidenced accounts of uaps have video/photos to back them up and yet defy conventional explanations. The Middle East video of the metallic sphere is a clear example of that. Kirkpatrick says that was a typical example of what they see all over the world. The assumption therefore is that they are seeing them as caught on video/photos and so not relying solely on a pilot's account.

 

[foghorn]

My bold.

And then there's Kirkpatrick's clear statement about them: "These are the things we are seeing the most of. We see them all over the world. And we see them making very interesting apparent maneuvers." Unfortunately they may not release the evidence to the public since it is all largely classified. So we will just have to wait for what trickles out of the next report of the AARO due out this August.

"And we see them making very interesting apparent maneuvers."
But, it seems within the laws of physics.
My bold
Kirkpatrick:“I should also state clearly for the record that in our research AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or
objects that defy the known laws of physics.”

Kirkpatrick, Defence meeting April 2023

I should also state clearly for the record that in our research AARO has found no
credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or
objects that defy the known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific data
were ever obtained that a UAP encountered can only be explained by
extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working with our interagency partners
at NASA to appropriately inform the U.S. Government’s leadership of its findings.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/kirkpatrick-statement?download=1

 

[C C]

Apparently the Grusch thought-virus has now spread to the point that government officials are sitting around the campfire telling ghost stories to each other. One might hope they're just participating in a CIA ploy to bluff the Alternate World Order (Russia, China, Iran, NK) into believing the West has strategic god-tech...

Woops. Now the contagious Grusch thought-virus has incorporated that [sarcasm laden] alternative into its conspiracy repertoire, treating it as double serious rather than a tactical ruse of the Western establishment.

Aliens are helping Western governments develop spacecraft, "expert" claims
https://www.jpost.com/omg/article-748529

INTRO: Are there extraterrestrial beings residing on Earth and assisting Western governments in the construction of spacecraft?

UFO expert Paul Ascough seems to think so. He asserts that a race of "gray aliens" arrived during World War II and has been actively involved in the development of flying saucers ever since.

Ascough, an ex-military officer and current member of a British UFO research team, was featured in the Daily Star stating: "There are several authors and investigators who believe that western governments have colluded with the ‘grey’ Aliens to such an extent that advanced technologies have been passed down to them and an ongoing dialogue and cooperation exists even now."

According to Ascough, this partnership has given rise to significant breakthroughs [...] and even the creation of our own flying saucers. While several writers have covered these topics over the years, and numerous photographs have been taken, including sightings of jet planes escorting UFOs and the frequent occurrence of black helicopters, no government agency has acknowledged these claims.

Furthermore, Ascough highlights the work of author Timothy Good, who has gathered substantial evidence suggesting ongoing collusion between Western governments and extraterrestrial beings on both sides of the Atlantic... (MORE - details)​

_

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

You forgot to respond to post #9085.

I'm going to pretend that you just forgot to do that. The alternative would be that you thought you could just ignore it and it would go away - which would be a mistake on your part.

This isn't going to just go away. You're not going to just change the topic and move on. You need to address the matters raised in that post.

Remember our conversation about honesty?

Last chance.

 

[Magical Realist]

You forgot to respond to post #9085.

I'm exercising my Sci Forums right to not correspond with posters I have personality conflicts with. Quit threatening me with banning and maybe I'll respond. Maybe. It all depends on you and how you treat me.

H6. Personality clashes between members occasionally occur and are unavoidable. It is the responsibility of the members involved to manage their differences in a civil manner. Often, the simplest way to do that is to avoid engaging in discussions with the person concerned.

 

[foghorn]

High Noon…

Yes, and like High Noon the film, this is just another of many repeats of it on this thread.
Nothing new to see here folks,move along.
Do not forsake me oh my darling...