UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Mundane explanations are not ruled out.

Oh I see. So "cannot be identified as a mundane object" means "can be identified as a mundane object," Yeah...that makes perfect sense.

Do you even know what anomalous means?
 
Gaiachild,

NASA currently defines UAPs as "unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena."--- https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

Do you agree with this definition? Do you believe such things exist?

Report uap/ufo sightings here:

From the link:

New! UFO Sightings Map

A new interactive global map has been added to our site, which can be accessed from the Map link in the main menu. The map makes it easy to explore sightings within any geographic area. You can click on the individual markers to view the details of the cases at that location. Markers colored in bright green indicate locations that have sightings that have occurred within the last year.

As NUFORC is a US based organization, the map clearly shows that most of our sighting reports come from the United States, with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands next in line. It is also apparent that UFOs are seen literally everywhere, and that the distribution of sighting reports closely matches the distribution of the population.

This is version 1.0 of the map, and we plan on adding additional features in future releases. Let us know in the comments below if there are any features you would particularly like to see.


What a great reference, but I'm curious why the majority of sightings are coming from the U.S. - I wonder if there are more sightings overseas, but they're just not being reported. Hmm... why, though?
 

From the link:

New! UFO Sightings Map

A new interactive global map has been added to our site, which can be accessed from the Map link in the main menu. The map makes it easy to explore sightings within any geographic area. You can click on the individual markers to view the details of the cases at that location. Markers colored in bright green indicate locations that have sightings that have occurred within the last year.

As NUFORC is a US based organization, the map clearly shows that most of our sighting reports come from the United States, with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands next in line. It is also apparent that UFOs are seen literally everywhere, and that the distribution of sighting reports closely matches the distribution of the population.

This is version 1.0 of the map, and we plan on adding additional features in future releases. Let us know in the comments below if there are any features you would particularly like to see.


What a great reference, but I'm curious why the majority of sightings are coming from the U.S. - I wonder if there are more sightings overseas, but they're just not being reported. Hmm... why, though?
Fewer nutcase conspiracy theorists?:biggrin:
 
Oh I see. So "cannot be identified as a mundane object" means "can be identified as a mundane object," Yeah...that makes perfect sense.

Good. It should. They are not mutually exclusive.

See, "cannot" does not mean "objectively impossible, forever"; it means "we failed to, under current circumstances".

See here:

"We cannot identify the colour of the car; it has left the scene, and now we may never know."

See how that works?
You're not about to argue that the car's colour can never be determined are you?
Or that it does not have a colour, or that it never will have a colour.
And you don't interpret my declaration to mean the errant car "cannot possibly - objectively - be red" are you?

No.

NASA is not so stupid as to say "it is impossible for this UAP to have a mundane explanation" or "this UAP will never be explained".

NASA means "We've done our best, we have been unable to identify what this is." As long as they are unable to identify what it is (which, granted, could conceivably be forever) it also means they are unable to declare what i isn't. i.e. They cannot rule out a mundane explanation.



I think you know this. I don't think you are as bad at logic as you sometimes pretend. You are just having your usual fun with us.
 
Last edited:
What a great reference, but I'm curious why the majority of sightings are coming from the U.S. - I wonder if there are more sightings overseas, but they're just not being reported. Hmm... why, though?

Probably because NUFORC is an American organization and Americans are more likely to have heard of it.

I believe that NUFORC is based in Washington state and a disproportionately high number of their reports come from that state, probably for the same reasons.
 
NASA means "We've done our best, we have been unable to identify what this is."

LOL NASA didn't define it at all like that. Here's how they defined it:

"that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena."

No "we tried and failed and maybe someday it will turn out to be mundane" implication there. Simple and clear cut, CANNOT be identified as a mundane object. Period. That totally rules out mundane objects see? There's only so many mundane objects a given object could be afterall. Once those are eliminated, the object is defined as truly anomalous. A true UAP. Once again, do you know what anomalous means?
 
There's that nervous tic.
NASA didn't define it at all like that. Here's how they defined it:"that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena."

No "we tried and failed and maybe someday it will turn out to be mundane" implication there. Simple and clear cut, CANNOT be identified as a mundane object. Period.

I pointed out, in small words for you, how "cannot" does not always mean what you pretend it means. Your interpretation insults NASA's intelligence. Again, a claim that the colour of an absent car cannot ever (period!) be determined to have a colour would be a stupid thing to say. It's also a stupid thing to think.

But you know this, and you are simply having fun. It's all right, the point is made for interested readers.

NASA is not in the business of stating categorically, objectively what things cannot exist as.

That totally rules out mundane objects see?
As pointed out, no it doesn't. NASA does not speak for the universe or for reality or for other science organizations. It speaks only for its scientists and their limitations. If they say they cannot identify something, that simply means they are unable to.

But you know this. As do the rest of our readers.
 
Please do not troll. Continual trolling will inevitably lead to longer and longer temporary bans, possibly followed by a permanent ban.
pointed out, in small words for you, how "cannot" does not always mean what you pretend it means.

Cannot means exactly what everyone knows it means--cannot be identified as a mundane object. The definition is very clear. And it rules out uaps being mundane objects. BTW, have you studied up on the definition of anomalous yet. Still waiting for your response on that.
 
Cannot means exactly what everyone knows it means--
Yup. "The car's colour cannot be determined by the witness" doesn't mean the car's colour will not be determined by anyone, ever. And it certainly doesn't mean the car cannot actually be red.

Everyone gets this. This dead horse is thoroughly beaten.

it rules out uaps being mundane objects.
No.

have you studied up on the definition of anomalous yet. Still waiting for your response on that.
Of course I know what it means. But first things first - let's get your current LOL trolling settled before you start demanding anyone respect your wishes, mkay?
 
Last edited:
I keep a very open mind and treat every occurrence as an individual case. The term anomalous was added due to phenomena being able to travel through the water and also appear from inside the earth.
My main interest at the moment is Piezoelectric phenomena.
 
Gaiachild,

NASA currently defines UAPs as "unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) – that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena."--- https://science.nasa.gov/uap/

Do you agree with this definition? Do you believe such things exist?

Report uap/ufo sightings here:


Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between.
"we cannot identify it as a known natural phenomenon"
and
"is not a known natural phenomenon"
?

Until they know what it is; they can't be certain what it isn't.

Mundane explanations are not ruled out. Like us skeptics, NASA doesn't speak in black and white terms. And they don't speak with authority. By definition, there are no authorities in UAPs.
 
I'am a sceptic who wants to believe that UAP in some cases maybe of a extraterrestrial origin.
So far the evidence is not there.
I never let my believe in a possible
Extra terrestrial origin over rule my rational and scientific approach to the subject.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan
 
I'am a sceptic who wants to believe that UAP in some cases maybe of a extraterrestrial origin.
Yes, we skeptics all do. (Resident enthusiasts will cry loud and often that we feel the opposite way, but they are wrong.)

Perhaps the only difference between enthusiasts and skeptics is that enthusiasts tend to let their desires positively influence their conclusions, whereas skeptics are very suspicious of bias driven by what humans wish to be so, and therefore are particularly cautious around it.


Stick around long enough and you will see enthusiasts bang on a lot about the alleged pre-existing prejudices of skeptics - all while being utterly blind/silent about their own pre-existing prejudices. It's quite a show, really.

So far the evidence is not there.
I never let my believe in a possible
Extra terrestrial origin over rule my rational and scientific approach to the subject.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan

Indeed.

A good scientist, once he has formed a hypothesis, will immediately try his best to disprove it. Only if he cannot disprove it will he accept that it may hold water.

This is also known as the Null Hypothesis - a valuable analysis tool: operate as if there is no "there" there until you can show that there is a "there" there.
 
Interesting. There has been some progress of which I was unaware about the most well-known Middle East metallic sphere video footage.




"In early 2023 an object was filmed by two MQ-9 drones in South Asia that was initially believed to be "truly anomalous", but later described its trail as a 'shadow image'." **

(** The term 'shadow image' links to a page about "Visual artifacts" - which are "anomalies apparent during visual representation as in digital graphics and other forms of imagery, especially photography and microscopy".)

The second video footage enabled to identify the heat signature of the engines of what is believed to be a commuter aircraft.[32]



So, to be clear:

- We have been shown one video, from one of two drones, of a UAP event that has gone quite viral and everyone is talking about.

- The anomaly was recorded by a second drone (strangely, the video of which does not seem to be circulating very widely, if at all) and this corroborating footage showed the heat signature of the engines of what is now believed to be a quite mundane commuter craft.

Enthusiasts take note: what started off seeming to be a very compelling - even to us skeptics and the AARO - clear, focused, well-detailed video UAP anomaly, has turned out to be an utterly mundane artifact of an airplane.


- Photos lie.


- Videos lie like a rug.

- Even very clear, detailed, focused, moving images cannot always be trusted.

- What we think we see in photos and videos is not always what is really there. Doubly so for apparently extraordinary things.

- Even the clearest, most detailed moving image of a UAP - with what appears to be a well-defined shape, specular highlights and shadows, plenty of context, background detail for reference and everything - cannot be trusted to actually be what it seems

1718214099448.png


- Even the experts - the cream of the crop - can be fooled.

- AARO initially classified this as "truly anomalous" (there's your favourite word, Magical Realist ), and it has since been re-classified as an airplane. (look at that! An anomaly that turned out to be mundane.)
 
Last edited:
LOL So who proved it was a "shadow image"? And when was this proven? There is no record of this claim anywhere on Google other than in that Wikipedia article. (Wikipedia is known to be dominated by skeptic contributions). The orb in the video is clearly there and a 3 dimensional sphere with lighting and shadow. How is that a shadow artifact?

The common skeptic debunk of the Mosul orb is that it is a balloon, So even most skeptics acknowledge that it is something that is actually there. Do you have any examples of these so-called "shadow image" artifacts so we can compare it to the orb?
 
Last edited:
Nervous tic again.
So who proved it was a "shadow image"? And when was this proven?
Weasel words. No said 'proved' except you. You know that skeptics are cautious about such black-and-white terms.

The AARO is now satisfied that they now think it is a commercial aircraft. No longer a "truly anomalous" object.

Waiting to hear your thoughts on your favourite term 'anomaly'...

There is no record of this claim anywhere on Google other than in that Wikipedia article.
The guy who takes every word of AARO literally when it suits him, being sure to add "PERIOD!" to make his point, has suddenly decided to be skeptical of their decisions.

You recently linked to a site that was a honeypot with malware. If you want to set a bar for quality citations, you've got a loooooong way to climb before you can demand anything of anyone else.

You don't know there's no other record. You haven't bothered following the citations. If you have an objection, do some homework.

How is that a shadow artifact?
Because the AARO has the independently corroborating video that debunks it. Ask them if they know what they're talking about.


The takeaway here is that it behooves you to adjust your personal expectations of how much a photo or video can be trusted to show that is really there.
 
Last edited:
Ahh..so the Mosul orb ISN'T a shadow image as the Wiki article claimed. Here's the actual citation for that information:

"The first video showed a small orb that flew through the camera screen of an MQ-9 drone in the Middle East in 2022. The drone’s camera followed the object as it moved through the sky, coming in and out of the screen.

Kirkpatrick explained that this case was unresolved because there was no other evidence beyond the video. “It is going to be virtually impossible to fully identify that, just based off of that video,” he said, adding that the hope was as more data was gathered on these episodes, patterns could emerge to help explain the unresolved cases.

In the second video from South Asia earlier this year, an object flew by two MQ-9 drones, including one that captured video appearing to have a propulsion trail behind it, which Kirkpatrick said was initially believed to be “truly anomalous.”

But he said after they pulled apart the video frame by frame, his office determined that it was a “shadow image.”

“This is in the infrared, this is the heat signature off the engines in a commuter aircraft that happened to be flying in the vicinity of where those two MQ9s were at,” he said."
----https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/politics/us-government-ufo-reports/index.html

We already knew about the commuter plane debunk for the second video, So there's nothing new here. Moral of the story: Don't take everything Wikipedia claims as gospel.
 
Back
Top