UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[wegs]

Whether or not aliens exist isn't a popularity contest. It's not about who tells the most exciting story, or who is the most charismatic persuader, or who you would prefer to believe, or who you trust more. It should be about the evidence.

Eyewitness reports however, from seemingly credible sources, can serve as ''evidence.'' We don't have the actual craft or whatever the tic tac object was to directly examine, so we're left with trusting subject matter experts who were actually on the scene at the time, who witnessed this unusual occurrence.

Pilots may have many years of experience witnessing "various flying objects", but 99.99% of all of the flying objects they've witnesses have been mundane flying objects - readily identifiable aircraft, birds, tossed footballs, etc. Seeing what looks like a giant flying tic tac is not something that pilots see under "normal" circumstances. Their experience with aircraft will not, therefore, automatically apply when trying to judge the speed, size, composition etc. of a sighted "tic tac". Chances are, they haven't sighted flying tic tacs any more than any non-pilot person would have.

I think the Pentagon would disagree with you. That's why they took their claims seriously, and put the effort into a genuine investigation.

I don't see how being "actually there" adds much to the credibility of a UAP/UFO report. Eyewitness reports always come from people who were (or claim to have been) actually there. But there's no reason to suppose, therefore, that their reports are accurate, or that the conclusions they draw about what they saw will be any more reliable than those of skeptics who watch the video they took of what they saw, say.

No one is supposing that what they saw was otherworldly, just that it was unusual and something worth examining instead of dismissing it too quickly. This doesn't mean that there isn't a mundane explanation, it just means that it's unexplainable right now. We all should want UAP's to be investigated, if the claims seem genuine. What you may deem genuine however, might differ from mine.

UFO skeptics, it turns out, often have many years of experience of their own. Their experience is not in witnessing various flying objects by being "actually there", but in analysing reports of unusual flying objects.

I find it strange when people play up the "experience" and "expertise" of those who report UFOs yet discount the experience and expertise of skeptics who analyse those reports, especially when the experience and expertise of the eyewitnesses is often irrelevant to deciding what the UFO might be, whereas the experience and expertise of the skeptic is often directly applicable.

While it can be applicable, Mick West can't account for the experiences that the pilots have had in their lives, in witnessing many flying objects that perhaps they could explain straight away. But, they couldn't explain the tic tac object. That's the ''blind spot'' Mick West faces, unfortunately, and why the testimonies of the pilots aren't irrelevant.

Something is unidentified until it is identified.

I agree, and unsure why you think I disagree?

The problem here is that UFO believers make exaggerated claims in which they "identify" UFOs as alien spaceships and the like, in the absence of persuasive evidence to that effect.

Some do, yes, but I think this thread is moving past that.

West applied expertise in the analysis that the eyewitnesses clearly lack. The pilots obviously weren't fully aware of the relevant characteristics of the infrared cameras on their aircraft, nor did they attempt to analyse the information from those cameras to deduce the actual flight characteristics of the "tic tac". West did investigate the cameras and did analyse the data from them.

I accept West's analysis as genuine for what it's worth, but I also accept the pilots' testimony as relevant, because what they're claiming is simply that what they saw, seemed highly unusual.

Why do you still prefer to take the pilots' uneducated opinions over West's careful analysis?

I answered this above.

"Unknowable" is a strange word to use. Why would you assume that the identify of the "tic tac" is "unknowable"? Isn't that just giving up before you even start looking for an explanation?

Yea, that's true...maybe that is poor word choice on my part. Unidentified or unexplained are better terms to stick with over ''unknowable.''

Mick West hasn't assumed that it will be impossible to ever work out what's in the video. On the contrary, he has done his best to try to narrow down the range of things that could have produced the data we have.

But, he still doesn't know for sure, which is why the case is left opened, and unexplained.

The problem seems to be that you're not just believing what the skilled pilots report that they saw. You're also believing their interpretation of what they saw.

They're simply reporting their experiences and how it relates to other experiences they've had in the past.

Why? What makes you think that their interpretations (impressions, guesses) are likely to be superior to the kind of actual analysis done by people like Mick West?

Not superior, and as mentioned above, I believe that West put a lot of time and genuine effort into his analysis, but his goal is to get viewers of the video to identify it. To choose from a buffet of options as to what we should consider it to be, because saying that something is ''unexplained'' when it comes to UAP's, still holds a taboo stigma. He's a well-known UAP ''debunker'' ...that's what he does.

Boiled down, the pilots say they don't know what it was that they saw.

And after careful investigation, the Pentagon concluded the same.

If they are assuming, in addition, that there can't be a mundane explanation for what they saw, then they appear to have been proven wrong already, since investigators like Mick West have shown that a mundane explanation is possible, even plausible.

''Unexplained'' doesn't mean that there isn't a mundane explanation, that one isn't possible and/or plausible. It means that we shouldn't leap to identifying it with mundane explanations, if we truly don't know, but we shouldn't leap to explanations that bring space aliens into the fold, either.

In summary, we shouldn't be afraid (for want of a better word) to label the tic tac object as ''unidentified.'' Because that's what it is.

 

[Magical Realist]

Why do you still prefer to take the pilots' uneducated opinions over West's careful analysis?

She's already cited why many times. Because the pilots saw what happened and have no agenda to push about it. Mick West otoh has a strong agenda to push--namely to debunk every and all accounts of uaps/ufos. Why do you believe the pilots to be too uneducated to know what they saw given their trained experience in observing flying objects? Why would West's opinions be any better than theirs? His own prejudice prevents him from being truly objective.

 

[James R]

"Top Pentagon officials told a House panel on Tuesday that there are now close to 400 reports from military personnel of possible encounters with UFOs -- a significant increase from the 144 tracked in a major report released last year by the U.S. intelligence community."--- https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pen...-theyre-investigating-video/story?id=84753756

Thanks!

The "ordinary, not very interesting" UFO reports make up the 99.99% of UFOs that turn out quickly to have been mistaken sightings of weather balloons, the planet Venus, drones, regular human aircraft, non-unusual weather phenomena, etc. The "difficult" UFO cases are the remaining 0.01%, where circumstances were sufficiently "unusual" to make identification of the UFO problematic.

Source?

Sorry if that confused you. I don't have a source for the 99.99% figure, of course. You can read "99.99%" as "the vast majority" if you prefer.

Nobody can actually keep tabs on every UFO report that is filed, so we can't put definite numbers on the ones that are later identified and the ones that aren't. Typically, we don't get to hear about all the cases where people mistake the planet Venus for an alien spaceship, because they don't make for very interesting news copy.

If you want to dispute my claim and assert, say, that the majority of UFO sightings are in the "difficult" category, by all means go ahead and make your case. Then we can discuss. Otherwise, I've just apologised that I confused you and we can move on. Okay?

I don't know of any extraterrestrial claims that the pilots made about uaps.

Which pilots? All pilots who have reported UFOs and discussed (often in public media) what they believe them to have been?

You have otoh consistently doubted their claims of uap's unusual maneuvers and flight behavior based on no evidence whatsoever.

Not quite right. I have consistently doubted such claims because there has never been very good evidence establishing that they are true. It's usually just guesses and eyeballed estimates when it comes to speeds, sizes and so on of reported UFOs.

If you have some good evidence, by all means present it. But we're now 6000 posts into this thread and so far you've come up with nothing very convincing. If you had something, my guess is that you might have found some motivation to post it before now. I could be wrong. Maybe you'll produce something useful in your next post. I won't hold my breath.

As if you know what they saw better than what they say they saw.

They don't know what they saw! You said it yourself! You said you don't know of any extraterrestrial claims that pilots made about UAPS, remember?

As for me, I have only claimed what I can back up with evidence, nothing more. Unlike you.

 

[James R]

wegs,

Well, for starters, he writes books on “debunking,” so likely he earns some income from that.

I doubt that he makes his living from that, though. Most authors don't make a living from the books they write; the ones who do are the exception rather than the rule.

I don’t care honestly that he authors books and spends his time as a skeptical investigator when it comes to UAP’s, but it would be naive to think he’s not somewhat biased because of it.

It seems to me that you're making assumptions about his biases (and about the biases skeptics may or may not have in general).

I suggest that the best thing to do would be to to read what skeptics write, listen to what they say, and then complain about any actual bias that you detect. That's better than just assuming that skeptics will be biased, based on a prejudice against skeptics.

Can you provide any example of something that West has published (said or written) that suggests clear bias on his part? Or are you just assuming that he must be biased because none of his UFO investigations has shown that a UFO is actually an alien spaceship or a time traveller or a ghost? Have you considered that the reason for that might not be because he is biased, but rather because nobody has managed to produce any good evidence of aliens etc. from a competent, honest investigation?

If you made a living selling cigarettes, you would probably tune out the reasonable arguments as to why cigarettes are harmful.

That's an argument about vested interests. Applying it to published skeptics - including, presumably, people like me who "publish" on internet discussion forums - it amounts to an accusation that we skeptics stand somehow to benefit from promoting a biased and unfair position on UFOs. Therefore, we are willing to lie or tell only part of the truth in order to protect our own interests, in a similar way that cigarette companies are willing to lie about the dangers of smoking to protect their incomes.

Your specific assertion is that Mick West - and, by extension, other skeptics such as myself - have "tuned out" some reasonable arguments showing that aliens are real (or time travellers, or ghosts or whatever).

Which particular reasonable arguments, then, do you say haven't been given a fair hearing by the skeptics? Are you thinking of anything in particular?

Realise that this isn't about me being defensive as a skeptic. As a skeptic, I'm wary about biases, including my own. So, if I'm tuning something out, unfairly, I will be grateful for having that pointed out clearly, so I can avoid that bias in future. I don't think I can say the same about certain UFO believers, some of whom are here on this forum. Those guys get all upset when their biases are exposed, but they never take responsibility for them and they never do anything to address the problem. The much more common response is to ignore, to ridicule or to try to distract, I find.

The pilots who witnessed the tic tac video and the Pentagon’s investigation of their claims, seem genuine to me. No agenda. They may be making money off media interviews after the fact but that doesn’t seem to be what drove them to wanting their claims to be examined.

My impression is that in the immediate aftermath of the relevant incidents, the pilots were "genuine" and had no particular agenda. Now, having presumably made quite a bit of money from shopping their stories around, some of them might well have developed an "agenda". But I don't know. Maybe they do all the interviews purely out of a sense of altruism and a desire to get the truth, despite appearances of potential conflicts of interest.

I never stated that I’m assuming it’s not mundane. I’m taking the position that “unidentified” may mean mundane or otherwise, until we learn more. It may be mundane but we haven’t discovered what that mundane explanation might be, yet.

Okay. Good. We're on the same page, if that's the case.

As an aside, some of the questions you’re responding to, have been addressed in posts further along in the thread (by me). I know we all reply at our own convenience, but it might be helpful to read past where we left off to see if your questions have been answered. I feel like we’re time traveling back to the past lol, but that’s the nature of forums.

I always read up to date in the thread before I respond. Even though you may have addressed some questions in responding to other people, and even though other people might have raised some of the the same points I am raising, I still often prefer to respond in my own way to posts, rather than leaving things out. I think that makes for less chance of confusion about what I think about things, what I agree with (or whom) and what I don't agree with. You're not by any means obliged to respond to (or even read) everything I write.

 

[James R]

wegs:

Eyewitness reports however, from seemingly credible sources, can serve as ''evidence.''

Of course. The issue is not whether eyewitness reports count as evidence. They do. The issue is with how reliably such reports point to a conclusion that what was reported was (a) accurately perceived; (b) accurately reported; (c) accurately interpreted.

We don't have the actual craft or whatever the tic tac object was to directly examine, so we're left with trusting subject matter experts who were actually on the scene at the time, who witnessed this unusual occurrence.

I would rather than things not be left to questions of whom to trust. This is why corroborating evidence - from multiple reliable sources if possible - is so important, especially when we're dealing with claims of the unprecedented or extraordinary.

We don't have to decide to just accept an eyewitness's opinion that she saw an alien spaceship, or decide to just accept a skeptic's opinion that the witness saw the planet Venus and mistook it for an alien spaceship. We should examine any independent evidence that points in the direction of one or the other conclusion. But if, in the end, there's simply not enough strong evidence to decide either way, then it is perfectly acceptable to sit on the fence and not "decide who to believe" until better evidence (or a more convincing analysis of the existing evidence) is available.

I think the Pentagon would disagree with you.

I don't think they would.

That's why they took their claims seriously, and put the effort into a genuine investigation.

Again, the implication of what you've written here seems to be that you think that skeptics such as myself (or Mick West, or whoever) have not taken claims of UAPs seriously, or put effort into a genuine investigation.

If taking the claims seriously means that one has to simply accept them at face value, I'd say there's a clear bias there. This, by the way, is exactly Magical Realist's constant refrain. He says we should all just accept any interpretation that an eyewitness wants to attach to his or her UFO sighting, because, apparently, maintaining a healthy skepticism is somehow disrespectful to the eyewitness (not to mention to True Believers in aliens etc.). But rational eyewitnesses ought to be able to agree that they aren't infallible observers. Nobody is a walking video recorder. Human perception and memory are imperfect. Human interpretation itself is subject to unconscious biases.

If there's something in particular that you feel skeptics have not taken seriously enough, or investigated in a genuine way, and you think they (we) should, please let me know what it is. Then we can talk about the actual issue, rather than some general perception that important evidence hasn't been given a fair hearing.

We all should want UAP's to be investigated, if the claims seem genuine. What you may deem genuine however, might differ from mine.

Again, your claim seems to be that skeptics are somehow trying to prevent UAP investigations, or investigating in a dishonest or superficial way, rather than in a thorough and unbiased way. If you're thinking of something specific where skeptics are at fault, I think it would be better to talk about the specifics rather than make vague accusations of bias, sloppiness or lack of due respect.

It might also be helpful to consider what kinds of investigations the UFO believers have made. How genuine have their investigations been? How thorough? How many possibilities have they investigated that do not fit their "alien spaceships" narrative? What, for example, has Magical Realist investigated? (I can't think of anything in MR's case.)

While it can be applicable, Mick West can't account for the experiences that the pilots have had in their lives, in witnessing many flying objects that perhaps they could explain straight away. But, they couldn't explain the tic tac object. That's the ''blind spot'' Mick West faces, unfortunately, and why the testimonies of the pilots aren't irrelevant.

If you have watched any of Mick West's videos, though, you will see that they don't discuss previous life experiences of pilots and the like. West's analysis of a tic tac video is all about what's in the video. It does not concern the life stories of the pilots who took the video.

You call this a "blind spot". But how is the previous experience of the pilots relevant? It is certainly not relevant to analysing the images that appear in a video. It is only relevant if you are trying to decide a question like "whose opinion should I trust - the pilots, who believe they saw something extraordinary, or West, who believes that the object in the video might be a bird [say]?" But, as I have said many times, this shouldn't have to be a question of who you trust more. Let the evidence speak for itself. Separate out what is conjecture from what can actually be independently confirmed. If a pilot says the UFO accelerated from rest to supersonic speed in a heartbeat, is that just the pilot's opinion, or is there some other evidence to support the pilot's interpretation? Did a radar independently measure the speed of the object? Can we use camera footage taken from the aircraft to confirm or refute the pilot's claim? etc. This is the sort of question that West in interested in tackling. He is not concerned with trying to guess at whether the pilots seem trustworthy. Besides, even if the pilots are paragons of unimpeachable virtue, it doesn't mean they are perfect observers who can't make mistakes.

I agree, and unsure why you think I disagree?

I didn't say that. This is a response to you writing "the term 'unidentified' seems to be a bit taboo". That puzzles me. To whom is the term 'unidentified' a taboo, in your opinion?

Is there any skeptic posting in this thread, for example, who has not freely admitted that some UAPs remain unidentified? We all seem to agree that the "tic tacs" have not yet been identified, for instance. So where's the 'taboo'? Whose taboo is it?

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Some do, yes, but I think this thread is moving past that.

You might be moving past it, but people like Magical Realist are still immovably stuck. MR is the guy, remember, who has decided that there's an unknown superhuman species living at the bottom of an ocean somewhere. If that's not a wildly exaggerated claim based on the flimsiest of evidence, I don't know what is.

I accept West's analysis as genuine for what it's worth, but I also accept the pilots' testimony as relevant, because what they're claiming is simply that what they saw, seemed highly unusual.

To my knowledge, nobody here has claimed that the pilots' testimony is irrelevant.

But, [West] still doesn't know for sure, which is why the case is left opened, and unexplained.

Yes, of course. Nobody knows for sure, yet. But you appreciate, I hope, that we're a very long way from anybody knowing it was aliens.

[The pilots are] simply reporting their experiences and how it relates to other experiences they've had in the past.

I'm not sure that's what they are doing any more. It might have been how they started out.

Having said that, in the tic tac case there are really only a few people who keep popping up on TV and in the sensational press. Presumably, there would have been a lot of other military personnel on hand who could say something useful about the "tic tac" incidents if they wanted to, but those people, for the most part, aren't coming forward. I'm sure you can think of a lot of possible reasons why they might not want to do that. Might I suggest that one reason that tends not to get much attention from the Believer Brigade is that those people might not think the "tic tac" incident was particularly remarkable or conclusive about anything extraordinarily unusual going on.

Not superior, and as mentioned above, I believe that West put a lot of time and genuine effort into his analysis, but his goal is to get viewers of the video to identify it. To choose from a buffet of options as to what we should consider it to be, because saying that something is ''unexplained'' when it comes to UAP's, still holds a taboo stigma. He's a well-known UAP ''debunker'' ...that's what he does.

Well, compare and contrast:

On the one hand, we have the Believer Brigade, whose "goal" is to get viewers of the video to assume that what is seen in the video can't possibly be anything "mundane". The Believers haven't done any actual analysis of the video, for the most part. Their argument, such as it is, relies largely on accepting the interpretations of various people who were proximately involved when the video was made.

On the other hand, we have skeptics, whose "goal" is to extract as much useful objective information out of the video as they can so that we can all think critically about the range of things that might plausibly account for what is seen in the video. That process also necessarily involves eliminating some impossible explanations - something that can work either for or against "mundane" explanations and also, I might add, something that few Believers ever make any effort to do. If the skeptics end up saying "Well, it could be a previously-unknown alien species controlling a previously-unknown spacecraft, but it could also be a bird", and the Believers are unable to either rule out the bird option or prove the spacecraft explanation, then how is what the skeptics are doing a bad thing, exactly?

In neither case is the thing "explained". That would require a watertight ID on the thing. But I'm still not seeing this 'taboo' you're talking about. Where is it?

The only thing "debunked" here, by the way, is the false notion that the tic tac can only be something "non-mundane". If you don't think that notion is debunked sufficiently by now, I think you need to explain why [and, by "you", here, I obviously mean to include people who like Magical Realist, who never have anything substantial to contribute to these discussions].

And after careful investigation, the Pentagon concluded the same.

Apparently. It does make me wonder how many Mick Wests work at the Pentagon. Maybe they ought to hire one or two.

In summary, we shouldn't be afraid (for want of a better word) to label the tic tac object as ''unidentified.'' Because that's what it is.

For now, sure.

 

[Magical Realist]

You

might be moving past it, but people like Magical Realist are still immovably stuck. MR is the guy, remember, who has decided that there's an unknown superhuman species living at the bottom of an ocean somewhere.

That's the argument from incredulity. Something is so unbelievable it can't be true. But if someone told me that the entire universe once exploded from a particle the size of pea, I might not believe them either. As it stands now, with the emergence of life and consciousness, practically anything is possible given enough time. We just have to bear in mind the limits of our own ignorance.

 

[Michael 345]

That's the argument from incredulity. Something is so unbelievable it can't be true. But if someone told me that the entire universe once exploded from a particle the size of pea, I might not believe them either. As it stands now, practically anything is possible given enough time. We just have to bear in mind the limits of our own ignorance.

But need not to be incredulous about the entire universe once exploded from a particle the size of pea because scientists would be able to explain, with evidence, how it happened

Give evidence about the under water city and I'll believe in it

Think all there is available at the moment is a tic tac supposedly diving underwater

 

[Magical Realist]

But need not to be incredulous about the entire universe once exploded from a particle the size of pea because scientists would be able to explain, with evidence, how it happened

Give evidence about the under water city and I'll believe in it

Think all there is available at the moment is a tic tac supposedly diving underwater

USOs (unidentified submerged objects) have been sighted for many years. I can't imagine ufos going into the water unless there is some base there. It would explain why they have been so elusive to humans for so long.

 

[DaveC426913]

USOs (unidentified submerged objects) have been sighted for many years.

That is a whopping leap.

You personally have lumped into the USO category things like "a fuzzy, highly-ambiguous image artifact seen against a background of water is seen then not seen".
Which is way, way sort of "submerging".

I can't imagine ufos going into the water unless there is some base there.

Come on. Even you don't believe that.

 

[James R]

That's the argument from incredulity. Something is so unbelievable it can't be true.

I didn't say it can't be true!

What I wrote was this: "If that's not a wildly exaggerated claim based on the flimsiest of evidence, I don't know what is."

In other words, I do not accept your claim because there is no pursuasive evidence that supports it. That has nothing to do with incredulity.

Do you understand the distinction?

But if someone told me that the entire universe once exploded from a particle the size of pea, I might not believe them either.

Fine, but they could show you abundant evidence that supports that claim. Provided that you could understand the evidence and how it proves the claim, you would have no rational reason to reject the claim after being made aware of the evidence.

As it stands now, with the emergence of life and consciousness, practically anything is possible given enough time.

There's no evidence for that, either. It's just an exaggerated wish-fulfilment fantasy, at this point.

We just have to bear in mind the limits of our own ignorance.

Heh. How ironic that is, coming from you.

 

[wegs]

wegs,

I doubt that he makes his living from that, though. Most authors don't make a living from the books they write; the ones who do are the exception rather than the rule.

Well, he runs and operates a debunking website, and has authored books related to ''debunking,'' so that seems to me like he's earning some income from debunking UAP claims.

It seems to me that you're making assumptions about his biases (and about the biases skeptics may or may not have in general).

I'm not making assumptions about skeptics in general (I'm skeptical as well when it comes to people inserting space aliens into UAP claims) rather just focusing on Mick West, in this context. I've mentioned in another post somewhere in this thread, that my ''knowledge'' of Mick West is surface level, of course; I don't know much about the guy beyond what I've stumbled upon about him on the internet, bits and pieces here and there. But, it would stand to reason that someone who owns and operates a website dealing with debunking, would seek to debunk that UAP's really can be identified. In other words, Mick West doesn't seem like he's willing to say ''hey, I don't really have an explanation.'' That's my issue with Mick West.

Can you provide any example of something that West has published (said or written) that suggests clear bias on his part? Or are you just assuming that he must be biased because none of his UFO investigations has shown that a UFO is actually an alien spaceship or a time traveller or a ghost? Have you considered that the reason for that might not be because he is biased, but rather because nobody has managed to produce any good evidence of aliens etc. from a competent, honest investigation?

Not talking about space aliens. As mentioned, I'm skeptical about bringing the idea up that space aliens are responsible for any of these UAP sightings. But, Mick West seems obsessively determined to find a mundane explanation, when sometimes, there really isn't any explanation, at the moment. I wonder if Mick West believes if he doesn't vigilantly debunk UAP's and find mundane answers, that could be construed as agreeing with space alien enthusiasts. Not saying that's true, but just curious if he thinks along those lines.

Unexplained doesn't mean that there's an extraterrestrial explanation, it just means...unexplained. (That's for Mick West, if he happens to be reading this thread.)

Realise that this isn't about me being defensive as a skeptic. As a skeptic, I'm wary about biases, including my own. So, if I'm tuning something out, unfairly, I will be grateful for having that pointed out clearly, so I can avoid that bias in future.

I wouldn't say it's a bias per se, but I've noticed that you are looping the discussion back to ''space aliens,'' when I too have a healthy skepticism towards those claims. UAP is simply that, unidentified...until proven otherwise. But, I appreciate you agreeing that we should be wary about biases. We all have them.

I don't think I can say the same about certain UFO believers, some of whom are here on this forum. Those guys get all upset when their biases are exposed, but they never take responsibility for them and they never do anything to address the problem. The much more common response is to ignore, to ridicule or to try to distract, I find.

Well, hopefully, we can all do a better job of at least acknowledging one another's ''arguments,'' although I don't feel that we're arguing as much as just trying to better understand. The thread's tone has improved ...maybe it's the new thread title that did it! haha

My impression is that in the immediate aftermath of the relevant incidents, the pilots were "genuine" and had no particular agenda. Now, having presumably made quite a bit of money from shopping their stories around, some of them might well have developed an "agenda". But I don't know. Maybe they do all the interviews purely out of a sense of altruism and a desire to get the truth, despite appearances of potential conflicts of interest.

That's a really good point, and I can't say it didn't cross my mind. Once money comes into play, I question people's motives. As time goes on, if their stories change, they start embellishing details or adding to the story, I'd definitely start wondering why.

Okay. Good. We're on the same page, if that's the case.

Yep.

I always read up to date in the thread before I respond. Even though you may have addressed some questions in responding to other people, and even though other people might have raised some of the the same points I am raising, I still often prefer to respond in my own way to posts, rather than leaving things out. I think that makes for less chance of confusion about what I think about things, what I agree with (or whom) and what I don't agree with. You're not by any means obliged to respond to (or even read) everything I write.

Okay, fair enough. I just wanted to point it out, since it might save you time, if an answer to some of your replies/questions is posted after that exchange.

 

[wegs]

Ran across this article...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-t-explain-143-144-mysterious-flying-n1272390

That's an eye-opening stat. Of course, this doesn't mean we leap to (or even hint at) ''space aliens'' as the explanation because there are currently no mundane answers. But, that's a high number of cases that currently have no explanations.

 

[James R]

Ran across this article...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...-t-explain-143-144-mysterious-flying-n1272390

That's an eye-opening stat. Of course, this doesn't mean we leap to (or even hint at) ''space aliens'' as the explanation because there are currently no mundane answers. But, that's a high number of cases that currently have no explanations.

That's a great article, with the quoted report saying very sensible things. Essentially, the authors of that report are saying exactly the same things that I (and other "skeptics" in this thread) have been saying all along.

Why can't the US government explain 143 out of 144 cases of UAPS reported by military planes? The answer is right there in the headline: "...blames limited data".

In other words, there just isn't enough evidence available to enable the investigators to draw definite conclusions about what the various "sightings" were actually of.

Here are some other grab-lines from the article. Bold highlights are mine. Quotes are indented; my comments are not.

That report, released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ... said it didn't have adequate data to put all but one of them into a category.
​

Keeping an open mind, until better data/analysis comes along. Tick.

....
"In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis," the report said.
​

Keeping multiple competing hypotheses in play until they can be ruled out. Advocating rigorous analysis. Tick.

....
A senior U.S. government official said ahead of the report's release Friday that, "We have no clear indications that there is any nonterrestrial explanation for them — but we will go wherever the data takes us."
​

Keeping an open mind to follow the evidence where it leads. But no good evidence for "nonterrestrial" causes (yet). Tick.

The official added: “We do not have any data that indicates that any of these unidentified air phenomena are part of a foreign collection program nor do we have any data that is indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary."
​

More possibilities for "mundane" explanations, but nothing even suggestive of advanced technology being developed by "a potential adversary" so far.

...officials told NBC News the government had not ruled out the possibility that the flying objects seen by U.S. military planes were highly advanced aircraft developed by other nations. These officials also said that the objects did not appear to be evidence of secret U.S. technology, but didn't definitively rule that out, either.
​

More possible explanations that remain live. Keeping an open mind. But this is the US government saying these things aren't secret US technology. Unless they are so secret that the government is keeping secrets from itself (ooh err, can you say conspiracy theory, kids?)

“There is a wide, wide range of phenomena that we observe that are ultimately put into the UAP category. There is not one single explanation for UAP, it’s rather a series of things," the senior U.S. official said Friday.
​

There is not a single explanation, but rather a series of things. Tick. Lots of UFO Believers seem to forget this obvious fact. Some UFOs turn out to be weather balloons. Some turn out to be mistaken sightings of the planet Venus. So far, none have been confirmed to be sightings of extraterrestrials, advanced foreign technology, secret US technology, ghosts, time travellers, superhuman aliens from the deep ocean, flying Bigfoot monsters, or any other "woo".

 

[Michael 345]

Keeping multiple competing hypotheses in play until they can be ruled out. Advocating rigorous analysis

How many different sightings of tic tacs have there been?

https://nypost.com/2021/06/19/tic-tac-ufo-seen-by-navy-pilot-now-spotted-over-england/amp/

Would all the sightings be sufficiently alike to class them as being same. Not same as single tic tac, same as in there are lots of them

I would put lots of them as almost ruling out other countries or own technology and also alien

Can,, in each case, the equipment be matched? weather conditions same? pilots estimate ie how far away tic tac, tic tac size? speed and other features?

Have tic tacs only been seen over water? None over land? That could be important

 

[Magical Realist]

There is not a single explanation

, but rather a series of things. Tick. Lots of UFO Believers seem to forget this obvious fact. Some UFOs turn out to be weather balloons. Some turn out to be mistaken sightings of the planet Venus.

Wrong. Pilot Lt. Ryan Graves states that they would see these objects everyday over a few years, They would have to be the same things because they display the same properties and look the same. There's not a weather balloon one day, a bird the next, the planet Venus the next, and a camera artifact the next. There's the same UAPs showing up doing the same things they always do.

"Spotting an UFO sounds like the most extraordinary thing you could witness—but, according to former U.S. Navy Lt. Ryan Graves, pilots see them every single day off the Atlantic coast. Graves was one of many current and ex-military officials to speak about their UFO experiences on Sunday’s 60 Minutes. He said UFOs should be considered not as an outlandish conspiracy theory but as a very real national-security risk. Graves said he first saw a UFO in restricted airspace near Virginia Beach in 2014, and the object showed up on his radar and infrared targeting cameras. He said the sightings have happened “every day for at least a couple years”...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ryan-...ots-have-seen-ufos-every-single-day-for-years

 

[Michael 345]

He said the sightings have happened “every day for at least a couple years”...

So “every day for at least a couple years" adds up to over 600 sightings

Should have enough footage to analyse if data is same for each

 

[Magical Realist]

So “every day for at least a couple years" adds up to over 600 sightings

Should have enough footage to analyse if data is same for each

I don't think the US Navy has any lack of video of UAPs. But much of it remains classified for one reason or another. They don't want they're capabilities to be given away to the enemy.

 

[Michael 345]

They don't want they're capabilities to be given away to the enemy

Who is the "they"?the "their"? capabilities

they their if is us I take it we don't want to let the enemy know how weak we are against (UFO) technology

and / or

they their if is us I take it we want to let the enemy know how strong our UFO technology is

Has there been any leaks from other countries about their UFO sightings?

 

[James R]

So “every day for at least a couple years" adds up to over 600 sightings

Should have enough footage to analyse if data is same for each

That's a very good point. MR claims that these things are seen all the time. So why are there only two or three videos of them doing the rounds of the internet? There should be huge amounts of "raw data" to investigate, if MR's claims are true.

But, instead, what we get are ad hoc excuses and special pleadings and convenient assumptions, like this:

I don't think the US Navy has any lack of video of UAPs. But much of it remains classified for one reason or another. They don't want they're capabilities to be given away to the enemy.

Note usual wishful thinking. MR doesn't know that the US Navy has lots of UAP videos; he just wishes that they did. Because none have come to light, MR needs to invent an excuse. Oh, they're all classified and can't be shown to anybody unless you're in the secret military UFO club. Why are they classified? Well, nobody knows, but it's for one reason or another!

It's not clear who doesn't want their capabilities to be given to the enemy, or who the enemy even is. Paranoid UFO nuts always need enemies, and will invent them if there's no evidence of them.