UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

UAP’s are real, but they could be mundane and not anything to write home about.
 
wegs said:
UAP’s are real, but they could be mundane and not anything to write home about.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. The incidents are real, but whatever they are incidents of seems to have eluded this guy for three decades.

Of course I could be wrong - his artifacts could be on display in the Smithsonian right now, in which case I'd be on the first plane down there to see them for myself, and be back here with hat-in-hand.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Fair enough. The incidents are real, but whatever they are incidents of seems to have eluded this guy for three decades.

Of course I could be wrong - his artifacts could be on display in the Smithsonian right now, in which case I'd be on the first plane down there to see them for myself, and be back here with hat-in-hand.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it strike you as improbable that a professional astronomer who has studied uaps for 30 years is just making it all up. There's obviously something objectively real out there. There's empirical data points to be deciphered. There's a phenomenon that resists explanation and reduction to mundane causes.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Then he's making mistakes--- and repeating them---for 30 years?
Click to expand...
What has he found, physically, that he has been able to pass off to independent analysts for study?

If he doesn't have a physical thing that someone else can analyze, then all he has are his interpretations. Which is fine, but his interpretations are not truth.

Likewise, people have spent their lives studying the Bible and are convinced of the value of their work, but objectively, that is still no more than interpretation.
 
Magical Realist said:
He's a man of science doing science. There's no reason the assume he would be in error for 30 years.
Click to expand...
Red herring.
What I asked was:

What has he found, physically, that he has been able to pass off to independent analysts for study?
If he doesn't have a physical thing that someone else can analyze, then all he has are his interpretations.
Which is fine, but that goes for Bible studies too.

I take it by the red herring that you have no rebuttal to that.
 
What has he found, physically, that he has been able to pass off to independent analysts for study?
If he doesn't have a physical thing that someone else can analyze, then all he has are his interpretations
Click to expand...

He appears to have data not only supporting the existence of uaps but of their global trajectories. I'm sure he can share that information with other openminded scientists. As an astronomer he is probably used to submitting his results for peer review and replication. Why would one think otherwise? He's doing science afterall.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
“What we have done is reduce the most typically reported UAP characteristics to these fields, mostly around 1 to 4 meters wide,” said Sean M. Kirkpatrick, director of AARO, who appeared in front of a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, describing how UAPs mostly appear. “Silver. Translucent. Metallic. 10,000 to 30,000 feet [in the air] with apparent velocities from the stationary to mach to no thermal exhausts usually detected.”--- https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kx...drone-spotted-metallic-orb-ufo-in-middle-east
Click to expand...
This is a summary of "the most typically reported UAP characteristics".

It is not a summary of "the most typically confirmed UAP characteristics".
Magical Realist said:
No...No confabulation of multiple incidents. It's a general description of the metallic sphere uap as seen in many accounts and photos and videos. And it's solid confirmation of what many eyewitnesses have claimed to see. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Accounts or reports of a thing are not solid confirmation of the thing. Simple as that.
 
Magical Realist said:

He appears to have data not only supporting the existence of uaps but of their global trajectories. I'm sure he can share that information with other openminded scientists. As an astronomer he is probably used to submitting his results for peer review and replication. Why would one think otherwise? He's doing science afterall.
Click to expand...
Sure. I'm simply saying in thirty years he hasn't come closer to confirmation of his hypothesis. The longer a hypothesis goes without experimental confirmation, the less likely it is to be valid. His research - which has produced no testable specimens - is pointing toward a non-physical explanation of UAPs (such as witness errors , misinterpretations, etc.).
 
One of the briefing slides from Sean Kirkpatrick's senate testimony,

Spheres seem to definitely be the winners. (Disks way back in the standings, sorry saucers.)

The locations of the sightings, the US east and west coasts, the middle east and Korea, are probably artifacts of special US military activity in those regions. (I wonder if eastern Europe sightings will increase given the Ukraine war.)

Speeds from stationary to mach 2.

Altitudes typically relatively low.

ufo.jpg
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
UAP’s are real, but they could be mundane and not anything to write home about.
Click to expand...

I sort-of agree.

But a great deal depends on how we interpret the word "mundane". I don't think that 'mundane' should be read as meaning everything this side of "supernatural" or something like that.

I for one would consider military or industry aircraft prototypes that exhibit cutting-edge (or beyond) performance to be "extra-mundane". They certainly wouldn't be everyday, humdrum or familiar and boring.
 
Yeah, it says "stationary to Mach 2".
I'd wondered if it was a transcription error in the other post where it said "stationary to Mach".
 
Yazata said:
I agree.

But a great deal depends on how we interpret the word "mundane". I don't think that 'mundane' should be read as meaning everything this side of "supernatural" or something like that.

I for one would consider military or industry aircraft prototypes that exhibit cutting-edge (or beyond) performance to be "extra-mundane". They certainly wouldn't be everyday, humdrum or familiar and boring.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a borderline category.
Me, I tend to classify foreign secret military closer to exotic, since mundane covers things like errors, misIDs, balloons, etc.
But that's just semantics.
 
Yazata said:
I sort-of agree.

But a great deal depends on how we interpret the word "mundane". I don't think that 'mundane' should be read as meaning everything this side of "supernatural" or something like that.

I for one would consider military or industry aircraft prototypes that exhibit cutting-edge (or beyond) performance to be "extra-mundane". They certainly wouldn't be everyday, humdrum or familiar and boring.
Click to expand...
I agree - but how some skeptics here use the term is that it’s just another weather balloon or bird. It could very well be advanced technology from other earthlings which I wouldn’t consider to be “mundane.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top