UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Seattle]

What? No. Just because UAPs and monsters are at the limit of investigation doesn't mean they can't be discussed; it simply means we can't draw hard conclusions the way Magical Realist is so fond of doing.

There's a LOT of discussion to be had in the grey area between
skeptics "it could be a plane / it could be a guy in a gorilla suit"
and
enthusiasts "it can't be a plane**/ it can't be a guy in a gorilla suit; it is a piloted craft / it is a monster".

**As James R points out, for someone who complains a lot about skeptical claims about what things "can't be", Magical Realist sure says "it's not X" a lot.

For the record, what is your position on monsters?

 

[DaveC426913]

For the record, what is your position on monsters?

A bit of a broad brush you got there, but the same thing in principle: show me sufficient evidence.

 

[wegs]

Lol!! Omg, this thread…

 

[wegs]

What? No. Just because UAPs and monsters are at the limit of investigation doesn't mean they can't be discussed; it simply means we can't draw hard conclusions the way Magical Realist is so fond of doing.

There's a LOT of discussion to be had in the grey area between
skeptics "it could be a plane / it could be a guy in a gorilla suit"
and
enthusiasts "it can't be a plane**/ it can't be a guy in a gorilla suit; it is a piloted craft / it is a monster".

**As James R points out, for someone who complains a lot about skeptical claims about what things "can't be", Magical Realist sure says "it's not X" a lot.

I don’t think he (MR) draws “hard conclusions.” He speculates, and offers a general idea of what some of these UAP’s could be, without clinging to any one thing. At the start of the original thread, YES, he took a more dogmatic stance, but he strikes me as moderate in his views, at this point.

What has made me more of a skeptic now is with the recent shooting down on a Chinese “spy balloon,” it would seem logical that other UFO’s would have been shot down by the US government if they in fact, posed a threat. So, maybe so many of these really are just…weather balloons.

I’m mildly sad about that because so many of these sightings seem a bit more mysterious than that.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don’t think he (MR) draws “hard conclusions.”
.

"It's not a plane."
"It's a piloted craft."
"It's technology advanced beyond ours."

 

[Magical Realist]

"It's not a plane."
"It's a piloted craft."
"It's technology advanced beyond ours."

All provisional conclusions based on the observed flight characteristics and structure of the uaps..

Example: video taken by a commercial pilot in 2020 of a dark cube-shaped uap flying across the sky at 30,000 feet:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jtZGKYO7iyI

 

[James R]

There is nothing inherently harmful or destructive in believing in the extraordinary or the miraculous.

I disagree, if the extraordinary and miraculous things you believe in aren't real. There are lots of real-world examples that show real-world harms that have come about because people believed in extraordinary and miraculous things that aren't real. There are even extreme cases in which people have killed themselves because they so strongly believed in something that seemed miraculous and extraordinary but just wasn't true.

If that is the kind of universe you live in, then you have hope--audacious, irrational, and indestructible.

An empty hope, if what you hope for isn't real. Meanwhile, you could be doing something far more useful with your life.

If you on the other hand believe the universe is an ultimately meaningless affair of colliding atoms, then you accept that and become a stronger person for it. In both cases good comes out of believing, and that in the end may be why we believe in anything.

It is simply not true that any belief is just as good as the next belief. Believing in false things usually turns out to be a bad idea. If you believe that you can step out of the 10th story window and fly away, chances are good that you're in for a nasty surprise once you discover the truth.

Belief is always preferred over the uncertainty and stress of not knowing.

Clearly, you haven't given this much thought.

 

[James R]

Evidence-based discussions about “monsters?” This subforum would have zero threads if we were to treat it like the hard science section. lol

You seem to be saying that monsters aren't real.

If that's true, then discussion of monsters should really be in the Fantasy and Sci Fi forum, rather than in a forum that pretends that monsters might be real.

Do you agree?

 

[James R]

wegs:

I meant - is it harmful to the integrity of the site, to allow MR’s opinions to be aired out under the subforum “UFO’s, Ghosts and Monsters?”

By sheer fact that he’s posting in this sub-forum, an outsider could safely assume that is where such “wild ideas” belong, n’est pas?

Yes. You're right.

That said, everything you have replied is true, but why have a section like this if for no other reason than to invite fringe topics that don’t fit anywhere else, with the understanding that the enigmas they turn out to be, may not have rational explanations?

Two reasons, which I think I covered previously.
1. Our members (at least, a majority of them who voted at the time) wanted to have this section on sciforums.
2. Having subforums which encourage the scientific scrutiny of "Fringe" claims is a public service that promotes the understanding of science and critical thinking. This is in line with sciforums mission statement (to the extent that it has one).

As a side thought, I don’t see MR as an irrational guy who disassociates himself from science.

He doesn't blatantly disassociate himself from science. But he regularly turns a blind eye to scientific methods and rational thinking. So often, in fact, that a reasonable observer is forced to the conclusion that he is a troll, a fool, or both.

I’d say that up until recently, now with NASA stepping in to examine these UFO claims with a scientific lens, these discussions weren’t taken all that seriously and that’s changing. That’s a good thing.

What's so special about NASA, or the US military, or whoever? I don't understand.

What do you think will happen if NASA or the US military puts out a conclusion about UFOs in the next year or two? What if they say "Well, there are some puzzling cases, but overall no signs of alien visitation, as far as we can tell, having investigated stuff"?

Do you think the UFO Believer community is going to say "Okay, then. NASA said ET isn't here, so I guess we all need to find a new hobby now! Nothing to see here, after all!"?

Do you think the Magical Realist will do a 180 degree about-face and say "Well, I used to believe in a whole lot of nonsense about UFOs, but now the Military has told me they didn't find any aliens I don't believe any of that stuff any more!"?

Here's what I think will happen when NASA and the military issue the expected "nothing very interesting to see here" conclusions: MR and his Believer buddies will come up with a whole lot of excuses to explain why nobody should believe what NASA and the Military have to say on the subject. Most likely, they will fall back on the usual Government Conspiracy theories: that NASA and the Military would say "nothing to see", because they have stuff they want to hide from the public.

We're not in a new regime here. This has all happened before. People who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

I’m a skeptic fwiw, but also don’t take issue with MR’s ideas about paranormal activity or UAP’s.

What does that mean - that you don't "take issue with" MR's ideas? If you don't agree with him (completely), then you must surely have some points on which you "take issue". Right?

Bigfoot on the other hand…

The only really important difference between Bigfoot and UFOs is that the amount of alleged evidence for Bigfoot is much smaller than the amount of alleged evidence for aliens. So, Bigfoot is a more tractable problem to deal with, from that point of view. There's less nonsense to "debunk", a little less crap to wade through. Also, the Bigfoot hypothesis is, in many ways, more readily falsifiable than the idea of sneaky or largely-invisible or super-powered aliens.

But quantity of dubious evidence alone doesn't make a case stronger, necessarily. If there are 10 alleged Bigfoot sightings and 100 alleged UFO sightings, then it might be easier to debunk the 10 than the 100, but there's no reason to assume that the 100 UFO cases won't all turn out to be just as full of bunk as the 10 Bigfoot sightings.

I don’t think he (MR) draws “hard conclusions.” He speculates, and offers a general idea of what some of these UAP’s could be, without clinging to any one thing. At the start of the original thread, YES, he took a more dogmatic stance, but he strikes me as moderate in his views, at this point.

There are many examples of MR making extensive claims that he has been completely unable to support. "UFOs are craft", he has said. He can't show that. You're reading an 8000+ post thread in which MR has consistently failed to show that even a single UFO is a "craft" (other than the ones that have been identified as "mundane" human-built "craft" - aeroplanes, drones, helicopters etc.).

MR doesn't say "That light in the sky might be an alien spaceship." Yes, it might be that. But it might be the planet Venus instead, or a Boeing 737. No, MR insists that the light in the sky can't be Venus, or the Boeing. How does he know that? He never tells us. Dig down just a tiny bit and ask him what he did to rule out that the light was the planet Venus. 9 times out of 10 he'll just ignore your question. The other time he'll post a response but it won't address the question, because he never does anything himself to actually investigate cases or to rule out mundane possibilities. His most common response to the "what did you do?" question is to say that what he did was to just accept an eyewitness's personal interpretation of events without any questioning or investigation.

MR will also insist that the light in the sky exhibited extraordinary manouevres that would be impossible for any human-built craft; therefore, by a process of elimination he suggests that we must always be dealing with a "craft" that, while "intelligently controlled", cannot be human-made [insert weak excuse about time travelling humans here, if he's in the mood]. How does he know the observed motions were impossible? Well, that's another question he can't really answer. He just knows, apparently. Without ever needing to actually confirm anything independently or check any objective facts. No need to even check whether the apparent motions that were reported were even real, or correctly perceived/measured.

 

[Yazata]

For the record, what is your position on monsters?

That wasn't addressed to me, but it's an interesting question.

I think that cryptozoology is a legitimate area of biological science. Wikipedia's article disagrees, and dismisses the whole thing as "pseudoscience" (which is supposedly a terrible thing that must always be stamped out). I much prefer freedom of thought.

But regardless of what some anonymous Wikipedia editor thinks, it's estimated that a significant percentage of animal species are as yet unknown and undescribed by science. It's true that here on land, most of these undescribed animal species are small. Insects most commonly, and obscure invertebrates like tiny soil nematode worms. So on the level of small animals, cryptozoology is a happening thing and entirely uncontroversial among those who know. Expeditions are sent out from places like the American Museum of Natural History every year to search for new species.

That being said, it just seems less and less likely to me that terrestrial (in the sense of land-living) animal species remain unknown, the larger and larger they are said to be. The larger they are, the more likely that they will be observed. And that goes for large hominins like "bigfoot". But I would argue that it's not impossible.

So my view on "bigfoot" is that it's conceivable that we still share the world with a different species of hominin. We clearly did up until maybe 30,000 years ago (the Neanderthals and the Denisovans and perhaps the Flores "hobbits"). They might hypothetically have survived down to today by being very good at avoiding humans.

I don't actively believe that they have (it just seems too unlikely), but I do believe in the hypothetical possibility. That means that I'm willing to accept people who do propose these things, without all the insults, ridicule and disdain. I'd just tell them that they haven't convinced me yet.

But the fact remains that 2/3'ds of the Earth is covered by oceans. The oceans are still Terra Incognita to a some large degree. Humans have been sailing across the top of the ocean for many centuries, they have cast nets into the top levels, and very recently (last 50 years) have sent deep submersibles to the deepest parts. But that's just a small sample of a huge volume of water. Much of what lives in the oceans probably remains unknown to science. It's where multicellular animals seemingly originated after all, and the most interesting examples might remain down there.

So while I don't necessarily believe in the existence of large unknown aquatic animals (I just don't know), I do think that the likelihood of some relatively large unknown animals being down there is actually rather high.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think that cryptozoology is a legitimate area of biological science. Wikipedia's article disagrees, and dismisses the whole thing as "pseudoscience" (which is supposedly a terrible thing that must always be stamped out).

Perhaps the objection is to the use of the word science in there. Nothing wrong with non-science investigation as long as it doesn't hide in the guise of science.

 

[James R]

Yazata:

I think that cryptozoology is a legitimate area of biological science.

It isn't. Maybe you should have read that wikipedia article, at least to learn the definition of the term "cryptozoology".

Specifically, that term refers to the search for and study of animals whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the Loch Ness monster and the yeti.

The collection and identification of new animals is zoology, not cryptozoology. Zoology is the science you're looking for. (You could also try things like paleontology, I suppose, or - more generally - plain old biology.)

Wikipedia's article disagrees, and dismisses the whole thing as "pseudoscience" (which is supposedly a terrible thing that must always be stamped out).

Pseudoscience is nonsense that seeks to dress itself up in the trappings of legitimate science, while being no such thing. Another term to look up, perhaps.

Pseudoscience, like "alternative medicine", consists of stuff that either hasn't been proven to be true or that has been proven to be false.

It is true that many people struggle with the demarcation problem - i.e. they struggle to spot the difference between science and pseudoscience.

I much prefer freedom of thought.

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out!

That being said, it just seems less and less likely to me that terrestrial (in the sense of land-living) animal species remain unknown, the larger and larger they are said to be. The larger they are, the more likely that they will be observed. And that goes for large hominins like "bigfoot". But I would argue that it's not impossible.

Nobody argues that it is impossible. Why do you feel the need to keep pushing your Big Lie?

 

[wegs]

Is science a sacred cow, though? Science tells us to keep searching and stay curious. At least that’s what I thought…

 

[C C]

[...] That means that I'm willing to accept people who do propose these things, without all the insults, ridicule and disdain. I'd just tell them that they haven't convinced me yet. [...]

I've reached the point where I'm willing to publicly confess that I finally do believe that there are large, tall, shaggy, indigenous bipedal creatures walking around on North American soil who do not belong to the modern family of humans.

link: It walks on two legs is back to strolling the neighborhood

 

[DaveC426913]

To Yazata and wegs et al:

No one wants you to stop being curious and no one is strangling anyone's freedom of thought. Oh My God, you bunch of drama queens.

There are certainly many, many ways to learn about things in the world. Without question. Not all avenues can encompass all ways of learning (the fox that chases many rabbits will catch none). This particular avenue concentrates on science, the scientific method and evidence-based argument. It says so in the name.

There are uncountable places where anyone can go to explore in any mode they they choose. No one's chasing you away, just asking that you respect the basis upon this forum was founded and to which you agreed when you signed up. Those are rules that overarch the more lenient rules of the subfora.

A world where everyone has to cater to every whim would produce only tears and chaos.

I swear I'm going to go sign up on your Knitting Forum and start asking why we can't all examine the merits of making nipple rings using Gas/Metal Arc Welders. When you complain that 'This is a knitting forum', I will accuse you of oppressing my freedom of thought.

For Pete's Sake.

 

[James R]

Is science a sacred cow, though? Science tells us to keep searching and stay curious. At least that’s what I thought…

I'm not sure from whom you're getting the message that science is considered a sacred cow.

I think it was Churchill who said that Democracy is not the best system of government; it's just better than all the other systems that have been tried.

Similarly, the scientific method might not be perfect, or the best way to get to reliable knowledge about the world, but it is better than any other way that has been tried.

 

[DaveC426913]

To Yazata and wegs et al:
For Pete's Sake.

On reflection, this may not have come across as tongue-in-cheek as intended.

I don't really want to put a stranglehold on what stuff is explored. The Mod responses to the thread in the Open Gov thread I started have gone some way toward ameliorating my views on the matter.

If it hasn't been obvious, my objections try to centre - not around the subject matter - but around the faulty logic used to promulgate it. The poor logic is almost always of the "hasty conclusion" type. Hasty Conclusion fallacy: "a claim based on evidence that it just too small". Things like:
- it moved erratically across the sky therefore it must be guided
- the blip was here and then it was over there, therefore it must have moved hypersonically
- no wings are visible therefore it couldn't have been plane
You get the idea.

It could have been guided, it could have moved hypersonically, it might not have been a plane, but we can't use those could'ves as the foundational blocks of a solid explanation.

 

[wegs]

To Yazata and wegs et al:

No one wants you to stop being curious and no one is strangling anyone's freedom of thought. Oh My God, you bunch of drama queens.

There are certainly many, many ways to learn about things in the world. Without question. Not all avenues can encompass all ways of learning (the fox that chases many rabbits will catch none). This particular avenue concentrates on science, the scientific method and evidence-based argument. It says so in the name.

There are uncountable places where anyone can go to explore in any mode they they choose. No one's chasing you away, just asking that you respect the basis upon this forum was founded and to which you agreed when you signed up. Those are rules that overarch the more lenient rules of the subfora.

A world where everyone has to cater to every whim would produce only tears and chaos.

I swear I'm going to go sign up on your Knitting Forum and start asking why we can't all examine the merits of making nipple rings using Gas/Metal Arc Welders. When you complain that 'This is a knitting forum', I will accuse you of oppressing my freedom of thought.

For Pete's Sake.

If there’s a sub-forum on the Knitting site for “nipple rings,” it would suggest that such a topic is welcome and that “knitting” wouldn’t really apply.

Fringe topics on this site shouldn’t be treated like the hard science sections except to say, you are correct in thinking that how we apply logic and the scientific method for exploring unusual phenomena, shouldn’t be tossed out the window. Maybe that’s where you’re coming from?

 

[wegs]

You seem to be saying that monsters aren't real.

If that's true, then discussion of monsters should really be in the Fantasy and Sci Fi forum, rather than in a forum that pretends that monsters might be real.

Do you agree?

Well, if we go by the definition of “monster,” it’s considered to be an imaginary creature, which is how I see the term. Of course, we (collective societal “we”) use it to describe serial killers etc… “He has to be some kind of monster to have slaughtered his family.”

But, lumping “monsters” in with UFO’s on this site under its own special sub-forum, tells me that scientists don’t take UFO’s seriously, in as much as they’re classifying them in a similar genre as “monsters.” I want to believe however, that this “classification” wasn’t a deliberate attempt to stifle healthy discussion about UFO’s, but it reveals an engrained bias towards UFO discussion, in a broader sense.

That said, and since you’re asking, I think “monsters” should be removed from this sub-forum title and placed in the sci-fi sub-section or perhaps another sub created for “mythology, folklore and legends.” And “ghosts” should have their own category, as well.

Personally, the site could use a category facelift and I’d add “Unexplained space phenomena” as a sub heading, and that’s where UAP’s discussions could take place. “UFO’s” lumped in the same genre as “paranormal activity” and “imaginary creatures/monsters”, seems misplaced. You wouldn’t see these subjects lumped together in the same section of a bookstore, for example. So, why here?

Just my opinion, anyway. What do you think?

 

[Yazata]

Does anyone disagree that many animal species are cryptids, species as yet unknown and undescribed by science? Does anyone disagree with my observation that most of these unknown land animals are probably small: insects, small worms and similar things?

Does anyone disagree that the survival of a separate unknown/unacknowledged hominin species is far less likely, but not impossible?

Does anyone disagree that the zoology of the oceans is more poorly known than land-animal zoology?

Does anyone disagree that the likelihood of large cyptids in the oceans is probably higher than their likelihood on land?

Is there anything that I wrote in post #8570 that anyone believes is "unscientific" or an error in reasoning? If so, what do you believe is unscientific or an error in reasoning, and why do you think that's so?

http://sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-429#post-3711940