UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

That's basically saying because we don't know what a phenomenon is, then it doesn't exist.

It means nothing of the sort.

If you keep trolling, you can't then complain that no one takes you seriously, or wants to engage with you. That's on you.

The phenomenon of metallic spherical uaps is clearly one thing.

False. That is your wishful thinking.

(It's closed-minded, BTW, saying it must be one thing, instead of being open to wider possibilities. I thought you abhorred close-minded thinking?)

At least some of them are surely false positives. If we've learned nothing else from the last 75 years of UAP observations, we're learned that a vast fraction of them turn out to be mundane. That applies to the unsolved ones too.

The AARO can say "We don't think account X is this or that, and it still remains a mystery" but that does not disqualify mundane sources, such as silvered balloons. "Insufficient data" - even in their most interesting cases - means insufficient data to draw a conclusion.

 

[Magical Realist]

False. That is your wishful thinking.

You're just repeating the same claim over and over. That the metallic spheres from 1 to 4 meters in diameter and flying at speeds of up to Mach 2 were really just some other mundane objects, Absolutely not. These reports and videos were culled from hundreds, most of which were eliminated as mundane objects. What remained was one profile of one type of uap with specific traits and behaviors. That's why they said "THEY make very interesting maneuvers" and we see "THESE all over the world." He's not talking about mundane objects here at all. Balloons and drones and birds have already been eliminated as possibilities and simply do not fit the profile. They are metallic spheres (one phenomenon) of which they have hundreds of photos and videos. You can't deny this. It is as clear as day.

The AARO can say "We don't think account X is this or that, and it still remains a mystery" but that does not disqualify mundane sources, such as silvered balloons. "Insufficient data" - even in their most interesting cases - means insufficient data to draw a conclusion.

Ofcourse it disqualifies them. That's what the UAP profile clearly shows. That's the whole point of creating profiles to begin with. To eliminate the false positives and arrive at one observation-based generalization about the UAP phenomenon. Which is "metallic spheres 1 to 4 meters in diameter and flying up to Mach 2." That immediately rules out mundane objects like "silvered balloons." Repeating this tired old claim is futile. There is simply no reference in the report to any mundane objects whatsoever and indeed shouldn't be.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yet all we are ever left with is grainy photos, blurry images, taken by perhaps one person in a crowd while the others remain oblivious. If a UFO/UAP was flying over a metropolitan area, where's the footage from all the various angles that it would almost certainly result in? Almost everyone on the planet has a video-camera in their pocket, yet all we have is sporadic footage that's out of focus or blurred or too grainy to discern anything.

That is certainly a typical complaint by dogmatic skeptics. That the photos and videos are oh so vague and blurry. As if a photo or video that is clear would ever convince them either. It doesn't. When a clear video or photo of a UAP IS presented to them, then they complain it is photoshopped and fake. They even go so far as to insist that no photo or video of UAP can ever prove anything because of this constant possibility of being faked, It is your basic bait and switch or moving the goalposts. And it becomes their standard excuse for not looking at the evidence at all.

Take a look at the video I posted in post #26. Why has nobody commented on that one? Because no dogmatic skeptic will ever accept clear videos of UAPs even when they are presented. This only further bolsters the thesis of my OP that dogmatic skeptics are just playing at examining the evidence objectively and instead are only interested in debunking it just to protect their mundane worldview. Their agenda is obvious and yet constantly denied. "Oh we'd LOVE it if UAPs existed", they claim. But all they ever do is try to dismiss and debunk every single account and photo and video. Actions definitely speak louder than words here, "Nothing's gonna change my world," as the Beatles sang,

If a UFO/UAP was flying over a metropolitan area, where's the footage from all the various angles that it would almost certainly result in? Almost everyone on the planet has a video-camera in their pocket, yet all we have is sporadic footage that's out of focus or blurred or too grainy to discern anything.

I take it you're referring to the Phoenix Lights sighting. That was back in the 1997, before cellphones were widespread. Even so footage and photos of the large V-shaped UAP WERE taken, And despite the best efforts of skeptics to obfuscate and confuse us as to what it really was they saw (flares or private planes flying in formation?) hundreds of eyewitness accounts prove otherwise that is was simply nothing of the sort:

 

[Sarkus]

That is certainly a typical complaint by dogmatic skeptics.

I'm not talking about what a dogmatic skeptic would say, but merely criticising your specific claim that they show no compunction about being observed. That lack of compunction works against you for reasons stated. Now, you can either address that, address the fact that most of the world have a video-camera in their pocket such that these objects, who you claim have no compunction about being observed, should be evidenced not by a blurry photo, or single video, but by many corroborating pieces of footage, from different angles etc. This isn't a matter of being a dogmatic skeptic, but just a regular skeptic. And it's an issue you're avoiding actually addressing.

Take a look at the video I posted in post #26. Why has nobody commented on that one? Because no dogmatic skeptic will ever accept clear videos of UAPs even when they are presented.

I would think it more likely that it's because this isn't the thread to talk about specific cases? As for that one, sure, it's unexplained (or at least I'm not aware of a reasonable explanation as yet). But, wait, don't tell me: therefore it's aliens, right? Or interdimensional beings? Time-travellers?

This only further bolsters the thesis of my OP that dogmatic skeptics are just playing at examining the evidence objectively and instead are only interested in debunking it just to protect their mundane worldview.

Sure, that's what dogmatic skeptics might do. But you need to be sure that you're actually arguing against people who are dogmatic skeptics rather than just skeptics whose opinion and reasoning you don't agree with.

Their agenda is obvious and yet constantly denied. "Oh we'd LOVE it UAPs existed", they claim. But all they ever do is try to dismiss and debunk every account and photo and video. Actions definitely speak louder than words here, "Nothing's gonna change my world," as the Beatles sang,

You're confusing a high burden of proof that they demand (for such extraordinary claims) with the a priori assumption of impossibility. The former is skepticism, the latter is the dogmatic part.

I take it you're referring to the Phoenix Lights sighting.

No, I was referring to the lack of any such evidence for any such UAP: multiple video sources of the same phenomenon from multiple angles etc. Remember, this is all about you claiming that these UAPs have no compunction about being observed. So we should be observing them, right?. And given the widespread use of cameras on our phones, we should surely have at least one example of a UAP that has multiple video shots from multiple angles, right? And one that is not simply mundane in explanation, right?
Or did these extraterrestrials with no compunction about not being seen suddenly stop visiting us when phone-cameras became widespread?

That was back in the 1997, before cellphones were widespread. Even so footage and photos of the large V-shaped UAP WERE taken, And despite the best efforts of skeptics to obfuscate and confuse us as to what it really was they saw (flares or private planes flying in formation?) hundreds of eyewitness accounts prove otherwise that is was simply nothing of the sort

They have been reasonably argued to be mundane: skydivers, flares, planes etc. That they can't be proven to be such, given that we can't go back in time and check, doesn't alter that they have been argued to be those things with a reasonable degree of confidence. Are they still "unknown" - well, we have a good idea, but can't be 100% sure. That you don't like the answer, or that you're not convinced even to a reasonable degree, alas speaks more to your dogmatic insistence that they are something more.
Which, given the thread title, is ironic.

 

[TheVat]

As if a photo or video that is clear would ever convince them either. It doesn't. When a clear video or photo of a UAP IS presented to them, then they complain it is photoshopped and fake.

I am curious as to where these clear (and authenticated by photographic experts) photos/videos are? Can you post some that meet basic standards of evidence for a particular hypothesis, e.g. structural details and movement that are consistent with an extraterrestrial technology?

As for framing critique as "moving goalposts" or "complaining" - this seems like language chosen to denigrate people legitimately questioning the provenance and probative value of presented evidence. Sagan's Law applies here - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Given that few people are trained in observation of atmospheric phenomena, the probability of misinterpreting is quite high. We humans are easy to fool by illusions optical, perspectival and neurological.

Why do you think that one linchpin of scientific methods is repeatability? Two guys in a lab in Utah witnessed cold fusion. And yet...no cold fusion.

 

[Magical Realist]

Head of the AARO office of the Pentagon Sean Kirkpatrick co-authors paper with astronomer Avi Loeb proposing that uaps might be alien probes released from motherships. That certainly fits with the metallic sphere uaps. While I find some of Avi Loeb's claims questionable, if anyone has a right to informed speculation about uaps it would definitely be Sean Kirkpatrick. Ofcourse skeptics use this to undermine his credibility. But it is clearly speculation based on what he knows about uaps.

"The official in charge of a secretive Pentagon effort to investigate unexplained aerial incursions has co-authored an academic paper that presents an out-of-this-world theory: Recent objects could actually be alien probes from a mothership sent to study Earth.

In a draft paper dated March 7, Sean Kirkpatrick, head of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, and Harvard professor Avi Loeb teamed up to write that the objects, which appear to defy all physics, could be “probes” from an extraterrestrial “parent craft.”

It’s unusual for government officials, especially those involved in the nascent effort to collect intelligence on recent sightings, to discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life, although top agency officials don’t rule it out when asked.

After Loeb posted it online, the paper gained notoriety from a post on Military Times and has also circulated among science-focused news outlets.

More than half of the five-page paper is devoted to discussing the possibility that the unexplained objects DoD is studying could be the “probes” in the mothership scenario, including most of the page-long introduction. One section is titled: “The Extraterrestrial Possibility” and another “Propulsion Methods.”

Kirkpatrick’s involvement in the academic paper demonstrates that the Pentagon is open to scientific debate of the origins of UFOs, an important signal to send to the academic world, experts said. But they add that his decision to attach his name to a theory considered in most academic circles to be highly unsubstantiated also raises questions about AARO’s credibility."---
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/14/pentagon-ufo-alien-object-00092108

 

[Magical Realist]

I am curious as to where these clear (and authenticated by photographic experts) photos/videos are? Can you post some that meet basic standards of evidence for a particular hypothesis, e.g. structural details and movement that are consistent with an extraterrestrial technology?

As for framing critique as "moving goalposts" or "complaining" - this seems like language chosen to denigrate people legitimately questioning the provenance and probative value of presented evidence. Sagan's Law applies here - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Given that few people are trained in observation of atmospheric phenomena, the probability of misinterpreting is quite high . We humans are easy to fool by illusions optical, perspectival and neurological.

Why do you think that one linchpin of scientific methods is repeatability? Two guys in a lab in Utah witnessed cold fusion. And yet...no cold fusion.

You can find photos and videos in the thread entitled "UFOs (UAPs) Explanations" in this Fringe forum. If you're unwilling to go thru the thousands of posts there, here is a small archive of vintage ufo photos. These being old photos has the advantage of not being photoshopped. Some are clearer than others.

https://www.granger.com/results.asp?txtkeys1=ufo

We humans are easy to fool by illusions optical, perspectival and neurological

Do you think the AARO office of the Pentagon was easily fooled by the hundreds of photos and videos showing metallic spheres from all over the world? Do you think those Navy pilots and Ryan Graves were easily fooled by the strange cubical uaps they observed zipping around almost every day for months out at sea?

Why do you think that one linchpin of scientific methods is repeatability? Two guys in a lab in Utah witnessed cold fusion. And yet...no cold fusion.

Typically that's a copout for scientists not taking uaps seriously, because how are you going to replicate photo and video evidence of a uap? This is a phenomenon that can't be dragged into some lab and dissected. The photos and videos can by analyzed for authenticity though. Have you looked at the uap video I posted in post #26? It is clear and has been confirmed to be genuine by an eyewitness and video experts.

Here's some more:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pi.../UFO-sightings-140-years-of-UFO-pictures.html

 

[TheVat]

Typically that's a copout for scientists not taking uaps seriously, because how are you going to replicate photo and video evidence of a uap? This is a phenomenon that can't be dragged into some lab and dissected. The photos and videos can by analyzed for authenticity though. Have you looked at the uap video I posted in post #26? It is clear and has been confirmed to be genuine by an eyewitness and video experts.

LOL, confirmed to be genuine what? The only confirmation was that it is, for now, unidentified. As someone whose partner is an expert in photographic analysis, I can tell you that looks like an image bounce - probably an illuminated part of a ship at sea. Low lying objects can appear higher in the sky when a bounce is reflected up to a higher inversion layer. As for replicating photo evidence, yes, there is a way to do this - have more hobbyists watching the skies with quality recording equipment. Multiple angles, triangulation, camera settings, both emulsion and digital, etc. And always ready to deploy teams to areas experiencing a rash of sightings. Just because elusive phenomena require a lot of work and manpower to capture doesn't mean that we just shrug and adopt lower standards. Unfortunately for Team Alien, there's more money allocated for finding elusive bosons than elusive UAPs.

That's like the drunk in the joke where he lost his car keys - he's only looking under the street lamp because that's where the light is better.

 

[Magical Realist]

LOL, confirmed to be genuine what?

A UFO craft with occupants in the window! Both videos posted in #26 were very explicit about that.

I can tell you that looks like an image bounce - probably an illuminated part of a ship at sea. Low lying objects can appear higher in the sky when a bounce is reflected up to a higher inversion layer.

This is the typical problem when skeptics try to debunk a uap as something mundane. Why does the UAP look nothing like that mundane object? Don't almost all things look exactly like what they are? If this is some kind of fata morgana projection of a ship at sea, why does it look nothing like that? Also bear in mind that this was captured at 3 am, at night and well after the air has had time to cool down.

I've looked at that video again and again. There are apparently frames shown where the craft is turned away from the camera. It looks exactly like some sort of craft moving in the sky. And I accept it as strong evidence for uaps.

As for replicating photo evidence, yes, there is a way to do this - have more hobbyists watching the skies with quality recording equipment. Multiple angles, triangulation, camera settings, both emulsion and digital, etc. And always ready to deploy teams to areas experiencing a rash of sightings.

Most uap sightings are one offs and totally unexpected. Rashes or "flaps" of sightings do happen in certain locations, but they are rare and would require incredible patience on the part of researchers waiting for one the show up. While ufological research is not funded by the govt, it is often funded privately by open-minded billionaires who support that kind of work. So what do you think about all those uap photos I posted links too? Too blurry or just airborne frying pans? lol

That's like the drunk in the joke where he lost his car keys - he's only looking under the street lamp because that's where the light is better.

Ironically that story is typically used to illustrate "the streetlight effect" common to scientific research:

"Noam Chomsky, for instance, uses the tale as a picture of how science operates: "Science is a bit like the joke about the drunk who is looking under a lamppost for a key that he has lost on the other side of the street, because that's where the light is. It has no other choice."--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect

"A police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost.

“No,” is the reply, “I lost the keys somewhere across the street.” “Why look here?” asks the surprised and irritated officer. “The light is much better here,” the intoxicated man responds with aplomb.

Some scientific research is shaped by the need to perform replicable measurements. But these measurements do not always accurately reflect the phenomenon that is being investigated. The term “streetlight effect” is sometimes used to name this form of observational bias."--- https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/04/11/better-light/

 

[DaveC426913]

Why does the UAP look nothing like that mundane object?

Because there are nigh infinite ways mundane things can appear. Sometimes airplanes in the sky appear to have no wings. It happens.

Dont almost all things look exactly what they are?

Almost all, yes. Which is why 99% of the time someone spots a balloon they say "thats a balloon" and it never makes the news. And of the 1 remaining %, it makes the news, and analysts get involved and say "interesting that it doesn't immediately look like a balloon, but of course we have not seen all possible configurations of a balloon under all possible viewing conditions. However, when we examine all the parameters such as size, altitude, speed, etc we find it is not inconsistent with a balloon, so it could very well be a balloon".

And that's where we are now.

it is some kind of fata morgana projection of a ship at sea, why does it look nothing like that?

Because we have not seen all possible configurations of such optical illusions. You seem to assume they will always look and happen the same way.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's some more:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pi.../UFO-sightings-140-years-of-UFO-pictures.html

Fer cryin' out loud, really?






Have you made no progress from your wide-eyed public school days of UFO fandom? Are you gonna go back to square one in this thread and revisit every blob ever to have appeared on film?

How can you expect us to take this seriously? How can you expect us to take you seriously when you post this stuff?

 

[Magical Realist]

Because there are nigh infinite ways mundane things can appear.

LOL No there isn't. Mundane things appear as mundane things from every angle. There is no hypothetical perspective from which a ship at sea can suddenly look exactly like a dome-shaped ufo high up in the sky with occupants in the window. Particularly when there are clear video frames of that ufo seen from different angles. Even a fata morgana of a ship will still look like a ship or a part of a ship floating just above the horizon. So no...that's just pure ad hoc BS..

 

[Magical Realist]

That lack of compunction works against you for reasons stated. Now, you can either address that, address the fact that most of the world have a video-camera in their pocket such that these objects, who you claim have no compunction about being observed, should be evidenced not by a blurry photo, or single video, but by many corroborating pieces of footage, from different angles etc. This isn't a matter of being a dogmatic skeptic, but just a regular skeptic. And it's an issue you're avoiding actually addressing.

So when the AARO of the Pentagon says there are 1 to 4 meter metallic spheres that are flying up to Mach 2 all over the world, are you claiming that is somehow not based on corroborating video? Ofcourse it is. Why are you whining about there being no corroborating footage when here is a compelling case of hundreds of videos confirming the existence of uaps?

I also find and post Facebook videos of uaps nearly ever day. How many videos is enough to counter your conclusion that uaps are just not showing up? Here's a chart of recent uap reporting trends over the past few decades. Since 2010 they have been dramatically increasing. And we are on another spike this year. Certainly doesn't fit your claim that nobody is seeing them anymore.

https://www.statista.com/chart/8452/ufo-sightings-are-at-record-heights/

I would think it more likely that it's because this isn't the thread to talk about specific cases?

LOL Typical excuses galore for never looking at the evidence presented. "Oh no! It's in the wrong thread so I can't look at it!" We are talking about how skeptics treat evidence for uaps here. There is no more appropriate place for examples of such evidence and demonstrations of how they are treated by skeptics.

 

[Magical Realist]

How can you expect us to take this seriously? How can you expect us to take you seriously when you post this stuff?

I DON'T expect YOU to take them seriously at all because you are a bonified dogmatic skeptic. It follows from that that you will NEVER take any photo or video evidence I post seriously because you just somehow know for a fact that uaps don't exist and that they never will. It is the one black swan fallacy again. Hence the usual mockery and feigned outrage that I should post ANY clear pics of ufos.

In any case, the links I posted were in fact meant for Vat, who is new here and requested some clear pics of uaps. They are also for any other posters in the future to peruse and to see that there are plainly many clear and unphotoshopped photos of uaps going back decades and that this is a phenomenon that has been well documented and witnessed for over 150 years now.

 

[DaveC426913]

LOL No there isn't. Mundane things appear as mundane things from every angle. There is no hypothetical perspective from which a ship at sea can suddenly look exactly like a dome-shaped ufo high up in the sky with occupants in the window. Particularly when there are clear video frames of that ufo seen from different angles. Even a fata morgana of a ship will still look like a ship or a part of a ship floating just above the horizon. So no...that's just pure ad hoc BS..

This is all untrue. You have historically demonstrated a lack of understanding of the world, always preferring your personal flavour of "common sense".

 

[DaveC426913]

I DON'T expect YOU to take them seriously at all because you are a bonified dogmatic skeptic.

Now that is an ad hom.

Now you know.

 

[James R]

Here's a Facebook video I just came across of a very authentic-looking uap. ....

Sparing it the usual mockery and knee-jerk claims that it looks fake, what do you think about it?

Let's make a deal, shall we?

When you stop saying that it looks authentic, we'll stop saying it looks fake.

Fair?

I mean, if you best you've got is that you don't think it looks fake, how is that any better than the opinion of any other randomly-selected person plucked off the street? One guy says it looks real to him. Another girl says it looks like a blatant fake. At the end of the day, what are you going to do? Decide by popularity poll?

[Please note: this is a substantive objection to your position that the "authenticity" of a UFO video ought to be decided by your initial impressions and wishful thinking. A troll won't respond to substantive objections to his position, typically.]

 

[James R]

You keep forgetting about what the Pentagon's own AARO office turned up after analyzing hundreds of uap videos and photos. Conclusion? A single phenomenon with repeating characteristics such as no wings or rudders or thermal exhaust and speeds up to Mach 2

You should not tell lies. The AARO has never claimed that all UAPs represent instances of "a single phenomenon", as you know.

You should retract the lie you knowingly told.

[Please note: this is a substantive objection to your position that the AARO says that UAPs are all a single phenomonem. A troll won't respond to substantive objections to his position, typically.]

"Of the 650 cases being reviewed by AARO, 52 percent involved objects that were round or spherical, Kirkpatrick testified. The remainder were “all kinds of different, other shapes.”

The most typical profile was of a round object of 1 to 4 meters (3.3 to 13.1 feet) wide, that appeared white, silver, translucent, or metallic. Their speed varied from zero to Mach 2. Most were observed flying at altitudes of 15,000 to 25,000 feet, though this might only be because terrestrial aircraft, which report many of the UFO sightings, fly in that altitude band, Kirkpatrick said.

In other words, typically reported objects were often reported as having some or all of the characteristics listed.

None of the unidentified aerial phenomena were confirmed to have any of those characteristics, except for obvious ones, in cases where there was video evidence or similar. Thus, some objects (if they were objects) could be confirmed to look round or spherical. Some reported colours could be confirmed. On the other hand, speeds were always always guesses and were rarely confirmed. The same goes for reported altitudes. None of the unidentified objects could be identified as "metallic"; it can be confirmed in some cases that the descriptions of the objects as looking "metallic" are reasonable.

But the troll already knows all this.

[Please note: this is a substantive correction to your claim that objects were confirmed to actually have the characteristics you claim they have. A troll won't respond to substantive objections to his position, typically.]

 

[James R]

So explain how you can have a "most typical profile" of something that is NOT a single phenomenon?

[Insert careful explanations in which several people patiently explain to the troll the difference between a set of things and a description of the features of a typical member of that set.

Of course, the troll pretends that he can't understand something that any four year old can grasp almost immediately. Because trolling.

 

[James R]

I notice you just sort of didn't respond to this.

Not an accident. The troll always responds selectively, if at all.

Trolls typically ignore substantive objections to their claims.

Remember, the troll is here to provoke an inflammatory response. The troll is not here for an honest discussion.