UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Moderator note: Magical Realist has been warned for trolling.

He was shown that two specific claims he made are inconsistent with one another. He was directed to acknowledge the inconsistency and to retract one or both claims. Explicit instructions were given as to what he needed to do. A gentle reminder was given after he failed to respond appropriately in the first instance.

Instead of doing what was asked of him, MR first tried to ignore the matter. Then he tried to change to topic. Then he tried making a weak and irrelevant excuse about a personality clash. Then he tried to change the topic again.

These are the actions of a troll who is knowingly trying to draw attention away from a matter in which he was "stuck", instead of admitting that he was wrong and being intellectually honest with his readers.

Due to accumulated warning points, MR will once again be absent from sciforums for a couple of weeks.

 

Yazata:

Some of these mysterious "spheres" have been positively identified as regular aircraft.

Is it your hypothesis that they are all likely to be regular aircraft, then?

 

The slide you refer to was a summary of the most often reported characteristics of UAP sightings. The "traits" listed on the slide refer to commonly-reported traits of UAPs in general.

This does not mean that every reported UAP has all these traits, or even most of them. It does not imply that all reported UAPs are spheres, or that all of them are 1-4 metres across, etc.

This slide is not about any individual report. It is collation of the most common kinds of things that are reported.

Nobody - not Kirkpatrick or anybody else, except you - is saying that most UAPs are 1-4 metre-diameter metallic spheres, or anything like that. That would imply that these unidentified objects have been identified. But this presentation was about the reported characteristics of a range of unidentified phenomena.

NASA's role in this investigation is conducted under the specific agreement that NASA will be able to publically announce what it finds. It is a public agency. The NASA investigation is explicitly not being given access to classified material, because that would conflict with its agreement to investigate and report in full to the public.

Because NASA has insufficient evidence to conclude there's any advanced technology involved. Obviously.

Why are you continuing to be dishonest?

You know there is no confirmed evidence of anything "defying physics". Nothing has been positively identified as a "metallic flying sphere". Nobody has confirmed "hovering". There's no confirmed evidence of any "flying sphere" reaching speeds of Mach 2. There's no confirmed evidence of any object actually executing "extraordinary maneuvers" (i.e. ones that regular aircraft and known flying objects aren't capable of). Sure, there are reports of all these things, but that's a different matter entirely.

And you have been told all this before, many times.

I wish you'd be truthful.

Typically, you "don't see" anything you don't want to see. Normal behaviour for you.

You will admit, of course, that balloons do come in many different shapes and sizes, not all of which are round, or smooth, or "inflated". Won't you? (Or will you ignore this, like you ignore everything else that doesn't suit your preferred narrative?)

It beggars belief that you're unaware that non-spherical balloons exist and can "stay aloft".

Why are you so dishonest?

Argument from incredulity. Since when have you been an expert on solar balloons? Did a 30 second google search make you an expert?

You just saw all that you cared to see, as usual.

What about the known UAPs reported by the AARO? Are you sticking with those too? You know - the identified ones? The ones that turned out to be regular aircraft or balloons. Are you sticking with those, too?

 

Yazata:

Kirkpatrick said that in his talk at the NASA public forum. Didn't he? I think DaveC posted about it earlier in this thread.

To be clear: of course it is reasonable to have many different hypotheses in mind going into an investigation. Then, one can use the evidence to eliminate the untenable ones and home in on the most likely ones. In the course of an investigation new hypotheses might also suggest themselves.

So, yes, one possible hypotheses is that all UAP reports of things that look like metallic flying spheres will turn out to be metallic flying spheres. It's not a violation of logic or science to run that particular hypothesis.

In practice, it turns out that at least some of the reported "metallic flying spheres" have been identified as regular aircraft and not actual metallic flying spheres. Therefore, one must relinquish the hypothesis that all reports pertaining to apparent metallic flying spheres actually are metallic flying spheres.

Of course, there is nothing wrong in science or logic with backing off just a little and instead running the hypothesis that some of the reported objects might in fact be metallic flying spheres. That particular hypothesis has not yet been ruled out by data or analysis, as far as I am aware. On the other hand, I don't think the available data strongly supports it, either.

You might like to bear in mind what MR's argument was. He claimed that all of these reported metallic flying spheres must have the same explanation. Ergo, if one of them is identified as an ordinary aircraft, it follows that all of them are ordinary aircraft, according to this claim. More reasonable people like you and I, however, might be willing to admit that it is possible that the actual identifications might be different for different UAP reports. MR has so far proven himself unwilling to admit that; instead, he chose to dishonestly ignore the conflict caused by his original over-ambitious claim.

Your reading between the lines is your reading between the lines. Unless and until Sean Kirkpatrick tells us what he suspects, this is just speculation. Anyway, regardless of what Kirkpatrick suspects, he's just one more guy with an opinion. What is needed - and he emphasised this over and over in his presentation - is higher quality evidence. Good evidence allows us to eliminate some hypotheses and home in on the one that is correct.

That is essentially MR's position. Or, more accurately, his assumption is that every spherical UAP has an otherworldly explanation unless there is overwhelming evidence that it does not. And we all know what MR does in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary: he simply ignores that evidence and tries to change the topic.

That is a correct syllogism.

MR made the explicit claim that all reported spherical metallic-looking UAPs must have the same explanation. It's MR, so the explanation he has in mind is the woo. It's not hard to read between the lines to see that.

I agree with both these points.

Not "quite as readily"? What does that mean? Are you saying that you believe they will reduce to the everyday, but not "readily"? Or are you saying you believe that they won't reduce to the everyday, but will instead turn out to be something extraordinary (like alien spaceships, or time travelling lizard people from the bottom of the Atlantic, say)?

If your belief is that at least some of these reports will lead to astonishing new discoveries of "new physics" or alien life, or the woo (of some kind), then I ask you: how did you reach that belief? What was it that convinced you, sufficiently to form that much of a belief?

As you know, that's the same position all of the skeptics in this thread have taken consistently throughout.

You must know this is false about the skeptics. This is your Big Lie. Why do you continue to tell it? Specifically, why tell it to somebody who has already, on multiple occasions, directly told you that he does not believe that he already has all the answers?

You're making a Trump-like "blame on both sides" argument that just doesn't hold water. "Both sides" aren't equally to blame for making unsupportable claims and assumptions when it comes to UAPs. One side - the woo crowd - is overwhelmingly on the side of shoddy thinking, poor rationalisation and wishful fantasy. The other side just says "show us good evidence, then we'll believe".

I think that I have been very specific in referring to my "opponents" in this thread. I have quoted them directly. I have referred to specific people by name. I have given them (including you) ample opportunity to correct any errors I might have made, regarding their (your) positions. I see no strawmen on my side. On the other side, we have your rather obvious Big Lie as a prime example of an actual strawman, which you continue to repeat and which you refuse to even acknowledge is a lie knowingly told, let alone retract. It reflects poorly on you.

I will be the first to admit that I have, at various points, referred to the "UFO believer community" and the like, in the abstract. I have generalised at times, without naming any names. I am willing to concede that "not all UFO believers", if and when specific examples of UFO believers come to light in which the particular believer or believers in question do not adhere to the sorts of generalised patterns of behaviour I have commented on.

I must allow you, of course, the same latitude, to generalise about "UFO skeptics". If you say "Most UFO skeptics are unwilling to seriously consider hypotheses that go beyond the 'mundane"", then I will say that I believe you are wrong, but I won't stop you expressing your opinion. However, you have gone further than that. Having been presented with direct statements, ofttimes addressed directly to you, from particular skeptics here on sciforums, telling you that they (we) are not unwilling to consider your "alternative hypotheses", you reject those direct statements and insist on strawmanning those particular skeptics, lumping them in with your more general assumption regarding skeptics (which, I might add, you have so far also made no real attempt to support with examples or evidence).

I have already told you many times that I have come to no premature conclusions about any particular "unsolved" UAP case.

What I can say is that, based on a 70 year history of UFO reports, starting in the 1950s in the US, all of the solved UAP cases have turned out to be something "mundane". The existence of not a single alien spacecraft has been confirmed in 70 years of these reports. Leaving conspiracy theories aside, this suggests to me that the aliens are probably not visiting - or, at least that we have no good reason to believe they are visiting.

I believe that it is very likely that a lot of UFO reports will remain permanently "unsolved", not because the woo is real, but because the available "raw" data is so sketchy, unreliable, or otherwise lacking.

 

(continued...)

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you're out on a pier and you look at the water and see a splash and ripples at the surface. Maybe you have your phone out and get video footage of the splash and ripples. You wonder what might have caused that splash and ripples. You tell your friends and you all formulate some hypotheses. You think: maybe it was the Loch Ness Monster! Some skeptics suggest that the splash and ripples could have been a 'mundane' trout that you didn't see directly. People go away and analyse your video and your testimny of this incident. They conclude that your video footage is genuine and that you're a reliable witness, although some of them doubt your hypothesis that it was the Loch Ness Monster. Close analysis of the video shows a brief flash of what might be a reflection off some kind of animal at the time of the splash. "Aha!" you say "That's consistent with reflection from the plesiosaur-like hide of the Monster!" Some skeptics say "That's consistent with reflection off the tail fin of a trout." They also find that fishermen have been known to catch trout at the location where you saw the thing.

Your response to these skeptics would, I assume, go something like this:

You skeptics always assume that splashes in the water will turn out to have "mundane" causes. You're all far to ready to jump to conclusions. You're all assuming that these splashes couldn't possibly be the Loch Ness Monster, without giving serious attention to my hypothesis that maybe it was the Loch Ness Monster. Also, what about all the other sightings of splashes in the water that haven't been identified? You're just going to assume that all of those aren't the Loch Ness Monster, either, aren't you? You're all unwilling to consider the possibility that, after we've identified 1000 films of splashes in the water as regular fish, there will still be 5 "unsolved" cases that suggest something extraordinary was there. I also believe (not know) that there's a remaining class of sighting reports that won't reduce to the everyday quite as readily as you "skeptics" seem to want to believe. My position (stated repeatedly) is that we need to keep an open mind about them and avoid jumping to preordained conclusions.
​

At the end of the day, the evidence for your "unidentified aquatic phenomenon" is very limited. All we have is your eyewitness testimony, your (not complete clear and somewhat jerky) handheld video, some background information on the location where the sighting happened, and some stuff we have found out about lake-life in the area. It is quite possible that your "case" can never be definitively "solved". That is, at the end of the day, there will be insufficient evidence to positively identify whether the splash you saw was a fish or something lese, and they will be insufficient evidence to absolutely rule out the possibility that it was the Loch Ness Monster.

If this is the case, what are we to do? Suppose there are 10 independent cases of "unidentified splash sightings", all supported by the same sort of evidence you offered up for your case. Do those cases, taken together, make it more likely that the Loch Ness Monster is real?

At what point do you think we should rank the "Monster" hypothesis near the top of our list of "hypotheses most likely to be correct", given the quality and quantity of evidence? When would a good time for us all to start believing in the reality of the Monster in the Lake?

Note that, so far, there's not much in this example about metaphysical beliefs. I have just been talking about the evidence. I have not assumed that Monsters in the Lake are a priori impossible, just as I have not assumed that visiting aliens from Vega are a priori impossible.

If we can't solve your mystery splash, does it follow that the chances of the Monster and the chances of the trout are probably 50-50? Is the Monster just as likely as the trout, given the evidence? I think not. For instance, we already know there are trout in the lake, and more generally in the world. But there are no known examples of contemporary living plesiosaurs that we know of.

To compare: assume that, after a lot of NASA and military study, 1% of UFO reports remain "unidentified". For those remaining reports, do you think it's reasonable to conclude that there's around a 50-50 chance that they are the woo, then? Bear in mind that there are currently no known examples of actual alien spaceships.

Notice, that I still haven't said anything much about metaphysical beliefs. So let's talk about my metaphysical beliefs, briefly. Do I believe human beings have more to discover about our universe? Yes, I do. Is it conceivable, in my philosophy, that we might at some future time discover things that are currently unknown to science? Yes, it is. Do I think alien life is possible? Yes, I do. Do I think alien life could possibly construct spacecraft capable of interstellar travel? Yes, I do. Does any of this affect how I would go about analysing a UFO report? No.

I don't like people who are unable to bring themselves to have a discussion in good faith. Having a discussion in good faith means that you accept that your discussion partner is telling you what they really believe. It means taking the time to respond honestly and in full to objections to your own position, and that implies that you give serious thought to arguments put against your own beliefs. It means not ignoring points you'd rather not hear or would rather not have to try to counter.

MR has demonstrated over and over in this thread that he is a dishonest interlocutor. I find that annoying and insulting. You have demonstrated over and over that you're willing to tell a repeated lie about the stance that I and some other skeptics take towards UFO cases, and that you're willing to do that in the full knowledge that it is a lie. I find that annoying and insulting.

If there's something you don't think I have covered sufficiently here, please ask me direct questions. I will try to answer them honestly to the best of my ability.

Since I assume you want this to be a mutual thing, as a discussion in good faith demands, I hope you will take time to finally address the matter of your Big Lie about the assumptions you think skeptics make. I hope you will tell us all why you have consistently misrepresented the skeptics here in your posts, despite persistent attempts by us to correct to your false impressions.

I want to promote the idea that intelligent and educated people can have a discussion in good faith. I want to promote rational discourse and critical thinking. I want to encourage honesty in others where it is lacking or, at the very least, expose deliberate dishonesty for what it is. I want to promote science.

None of this is really about "protecting", other than in the sense that society is better off when its members are educated, honest and rational. There are constant threats to education, honesty and rationality all around us. In fact, at times it can seem that these things are under siege from self-interested individuals and groups. There are very real threats out there in the world, to all these things. But I digress.

When it comes to UFOs specifically, I'm not heavily invested in "protecting" anything. This topic, for me, is not that interesting for its content. It interests me more from the point of view of examining why people believe weird things and how far they are willing to go to defend untenable beliefs.

If you're thinking that, when it comes to UFOs, "science" is circling the wagons to defend against notions that are not found in its philosophy, or something like that, I say: science is just fine, thanks. Science doesn't need to be protected from woo peddlars pushing UFO conspiracy theories and the like. It already has all the necessary self-defence mechanisms it needs, built in and operating efficiently to exclude that which is unevidenced, untenable and/or overenthusiastic.

 

Yazata,

While you're jumping in to defend Magical Realist, while he's on a break from the forum, you seem a little confused about what he claimed and about what chance I gave him to respond to the demonstration of the inconsistencies in his claims. This is strange, because you'd only have to read back over the last few pages of posts. Nevertheless, I will help by summarising things for you.

Post #9062 (MR):

Exact quote from Kirkpatrick: Referring to the metallic orb in the video. " This is a typical example of what we see the most of. We see these all over the world. We see them making very interesting apparent maneuvers." Can't get any more commonly sourced than that.​

Post #9063 (DaveC):

Are you suggesting that they have a common explanation?​

Post #9064 (MR):

Yep...
​

You can see that MR has claimed that all the "metallic orbs" have "a common explanation" (i.e. the same explanation).

​

Post #9069 (DaveC):

Note that Kirkpatrick never says anything about a common origin; that is all Magical Realist's assertion. ....

Well, several of the orbs Kirkpatrick refers to have been positively identified as common aircraft.

Therefore, by Magical Realist's own assertion of common cause, all these orbs seen all over the world are, in fact, common aircraft.​

Post #9070 (James R, addressed to MR):

Tell me why you believe there's a common explanation, then.
​

Post #9073 (MR):

Because AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick says these metallic spheres are typical examples of the same kind of uaps they see all over the world. Apparently after examining hundreds of these cases, he believes they are all the same kind of thing with the same cause.
​

Notice here that MR makes a new unsupported claim about what Sean Kirkpatrick believes. Initially, he doubled down on it, following some questioning:

Post #9077 (MR):

Do you seriously think he believes that all these metallic spheres they see "all over the world" have different causes? What would be the logic in that?
​

This is really just a rhethorical way of MR restating his own belief that all the reported "metallic spheres" have the same cause. Initially, MR was unwilling to retract his unsupported claim about what Kirkpatrick believes, but he eventually backed off that one after some gentle persuasion.
Post #9081 (MR):

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?
​

DaveC then referred to part of Kirkpatrick's presentation via a third-party source (a video posted by MR).

Post #9082 (DaveC):

Excerpted From the video [MR] 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."
​

At this point, we have MR's claim and a data point:

1. MR believes that all the metallic orbs/spheres have the same cause.
2. Kirkpatrick gave an example of three such "orbs", which were ultimately identified as commercial aircraft.

Logically, it follows that if both of these things is true, then MR is forced to conclude that all reported "metallic orb" UAPs must be commercial aircraft. This point was put to MR by DaveC, and subsequently by me, in a slightly different way. I expressed MR's claims as follows:

Post #9085 (James R):

You [MR] 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.

.... [T]he 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.

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.

​

Notice, Yazata, that I explicitly told MR what I expected from him. However, in his next post (#9091), MR completely ignored the entirety of my post #9085 and continued to talk about other matters for several subsequent posts. I could have warned him for trolling at that point, but instead I gave him a second chance to address the matter:

Post #9098 (JR):

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.​

Post #9099 (MR):

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.
​

MR then tried to change the topic to something completely different (e.g. see MR's post #9105). In post #9111 I issued him with a warning for trolling.

Notice, Yazata, that the matter of MR's inconsistent stance was initially raised with him by DaveC, who gave him an opportunity to respond. MR did not respond. Strike 1. I then raised the issue with MR, who tried to ignore the matter. Strike 2. I then reminded MR that he needed to respond honestly to the matter. He complained and tried to change the subject. Strike 3.

I hope this clarifies things for you. I will respond to other parts of your recent reply to me in my next post.

​