UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[DaveC426913]

He is offering an alternative account of what the thing was (an advertising blimp) based on the groundless assumption that 12 people all misperceived what they describe as seeing.

1. It is not an assumption; it is a valid possibility, based on the witness' own testimony. No assumption required.
2. This is the account of one witness, not 12. For all we know the other 11 witnesses said "Oh yeah, actually that's a blimp."

Stop being dishonest.

And he is doing that because he is trying to debunk their account.

He is doing that because he is here analyzing.

The fact that you poo-poo analysis is telling.

...the unbiased and firsthand perception of the 12 eyewitnesses.

They are exactly the opposite of unbiased. They are the most biased of all involved.

That's one of the reasons why NASA and the military and every serious analyst analyzes these accounts before pulbishing their findings, to weed out witness bias.

...that suddenly vanished when a flashlight was shone on it.

Even that is problematic and speaks to the unreliability of the account. There are quite a few conflicting accounts of it disappearingby this single witness' own telling.

...one of the workers shined a flashlight at the sizable disc, which led to the UFO vanishing in a manner that he likened to something activating a "cloaking device."
"...the craft tipped at an angle and slowly started moving belly-first to the east. Then it started fading away until it was invisible. It didn't shoot off into the distance. It simply dissolved into the ether. We all watched it vanish."
"It hovered silently and then disappeared into thin air."
"...we all saw it fade into nothing as soon as it knew it was being watched."

Every reason to believe the account of those who saw it and no reason to believe the account of a skeptic who didn't see it and only wants to debunk it.

1. Nobody cares what you believe, partly because:
2. You have been documented on-record as both naive and dishonest and deliberately trolling regarding this very incident, and because:
3. Accusations of analyst's motives are rhetoric and ad homs, and are not valid analysis.
4. By the way, you're not alone - nobody cares what I believe or James believes either. Note that neither I nor James has said what we might "believe", because belief is not relevant in an analysis.
5. All that matters is what can be defended with logic.

 

[DaveC426913]

Answer us this riddle:

If you take the witness' testimony as gospel, and not interpretation, how do you explain this - without acknowledging that the witness is making stuff up:

"we all saw it fade into nothing as soon as it knew it was being watched."

1. Who is this "it" that knew something? The accounts make no mention of any entities they saw or heard. You'd think that would be worth mentioning, no?
2. I saw no mention in the report of any telepathic communication that informed the witness as to what it "knew" in its mind. Did you?

I think you will have to agree the witnesses have irrefutably made stuff up as part of their own interpretation.

 

[DaveC426913]

The witness describes
" ... a large disc shaped craft ..."
but also says
"...there was very little moonlight that evening. That said, he also noted that the dark color of the anomaly "blended in with the sky pretty well."


Here is a simple mockup of two objects seen at an approximate altitude equal their own length. One is a disc, the other is a prolate sphere (i.e. the shape of a dirigible).

Top pic is as they might look, well-lit, during the day (again: simplistic mockups, looking simply at gross shape).
Bottom pic is their silhoulette, as they might look as "dark-coloured" objects that "blend well" against an almost moonless sky:


(The silouettes are virtually identical.)



But ... the witness goes on to say: "... the craft tipped at an angle and slowly started moving..."

If a disc-like craft were to turn (aircraft parlance: yaw), it would still look like the exact same disc. (I can show this if you insist, but I'll assume you all know that a disc is rotationally symmetric about its vertical axis i .e after a yaw).

So, if it were a disc, it couldn't have just yawed. In order for it to appear to "tip at an angle", it would have to tilt on its side (aircraft parlance: roll):



Which is fine, theres nothing that says an object can't floating along with a roll orientation, but it is simply oen more mysterious aspect we'd have to come up with an explanation for.

Hypotheses that pose more questions than they address are bad.
Hypotheses that address more questions than they pose are good.

So there's actually a simpler configuration for a craft to turn and move off in a different direction.

Here are the same two objects, with yaw only, no tilting/rolling required:



Not saying it's a dirigible. Simply pointing out that a dirigible-shape
- is consistent with the witness' description - when we factor in his own account of the poor observing conditions
- requires fewer contrivances (i.e. suppositions) to explain the witness' description of the object's orientation change and subsequent movement.

It also requires many fewer contrivances as to why such a dirigible-sized object with lights and window-like markings might be floating around near a concert venue at night.



But now that I think of it, it also raises a very plausible reason why 12 people - who had 6 minutes of combined camera time among them - didn't think it was worth taking a picture of. And why eleven of those people didn't bother coming forward to tell their story.

It does address sooo many questions in one swell foop.

 

[Magical Realist]

By the way, you're not alone - nobody cares what I believe or James believes either. Note that neither I nor James has said what we might "believe", because belief is not relevant in an analysis.

Actually you and James make this all about your beliefs and defending your beliefs by proudly calling yourselves "skeptics"--a group united together by little more than a set of common dogmatic beliefs that certain things don't and can't exist, in this case the anomalous phenomenon of uaps. That uaps aren't real is a belief both of you emotionally defend like a religious doctrine, as if the mere existence of uaps would be so devastating to you. So in every single uap case presented, you have this agenda to debunk the account and discredit the witnesses as if you somehow know in advance that it is really something mundane and easily explained, But you don't know that. It is only an unwarrranted belief of yours you share with all skeptics. The truly objective and scientific approach to a case would be to remain totally agnostic about what it could be and going strictly by the evidence given and only THEN forming a conclusion, like the AARO did with hundreds of uap videos.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena is a real thing. It is a category of as-yet unsolved reports and the phenomena therein.

Why you would think UAP is fictional or imaginary is something only you can answer. But try wikipedia for starters.

What the phenomena in those reports are not, so far, is confirmed as anything more than mundane events in unusual observing conditions.

 

[Magical Realist]

What they are not, so far, is confirmed as anything more than mundane events in unusual observing conditions.

An object cannot be an unidentified anomalous phenomenon and an identified mundane event at the same time. It is either a uap or a mundane event, but not both. Abundant examples of uaps have been posted in this thread: 40 ft long tic tacs, transparent cubes with spheres in them, metallic spheres, cylindrical shaped objects, glowing blue ovals, metallic discs, balls of incandescent plasma, and huge black underlit triangles.

 

[DaveC426913]

An object cannot be an unidentified anomalous phenomenon and an identified mundane event at the same time.

No. You have drawn a wrong inference.

An event that some agents have so far been unable to identify does not rule out an ultimately mundane cause.

It is either a uap or a mundane event, but not both.

Unknown events may still have mundane causes, we just dont know the cause yet.

Abundant examples of uaps have been posted in this thread: 40 ft long tic tacs, transparent cubes with spheres in them, metallic spheres, cylindrical shaped objects, glowing blue ovals, metallic discs, balls of incandescent plasma, and huge black underlit triangles.

None of which have been confirmed to be anything other than mundane. They are unexplained. And unexplained does not rule out mundane causes that we just haven't figured out.

Consider this scenario carefully:

Police report: "The colour of the car cannot be determined."

Do you assert that this means the car cannot have a mundane colour? Yes/no.
Do you assert that "cannot" is synonymous with "will never"? Yes/no.
Do you assert that no one else but the cops could ever possibility determine the colour of the car? Yes/no.
Do you assert that the cops have handcuffed themselves from stumbling upon the colour of the car at a later time? Yes/no.

 

[Magical Realist]

None of which have been confirmed to be anything other than mundane. They are unexplained.

And neither are they explainable as mundane objects. Therefore they are unidentified anomalous phenomena. UAPs.

 

[DaveC426913]

And neither are they explainable as mundane objects.

By some entities, so far.

Note that they are called Unidentified APs, not Unidentifiable APs. 'Unidentified' refers to the past.

Therefore they unidentified anomalous phenomena. UAPs.

. Yup. As all current solved incidents started out to be. And there is no reason why all current cases involving UAPs can't, in principle, be ultimately be solved as mundane.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yup. As all current solved incidents started out to be. And there is no reason why all current cases involving UAPs can't, in principle, be ultimately be solved as mundane.

No...as all uaps END UP being. An unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon, and not a mundane event. All mundane explanations can be eliminated, leaving a true uap like the ones I referred to.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think what Dave may be inferring is that even with UAP’s, we “should” start with mundane as the starting point, in terms of exhausting all possible mundane explanations first, before turning to “unidentified.” But I do think there are UAP cases that have left scientists/researchers utterly mystified, and those would fall out of mundane identifications.

Well, consider what would happen if we don't.

If we jump to an exotic explanation too quickly (too bad neither MR nor Yazata have the courage of their convictions to say what they believe that explanation is...). If we jump to exotica quickly, why stop at aliens?
Why not ghosts?
Why not angels?
Why not God himself?

They are all just as helpful in explaining anything we want them to.

"But this isn't a ghost/angel/God. It doesn't look like one at all!" they might say.
Really? What do those things look like? I mean, what do they look like that isn't part of the story-telling industry we've all come to believe that ghosts look like or angels look like or God looks like. Each of these things' appreance and behavior is just a pile of lore that is a house of cards waiting to topple. They have no foundation - No physical, extant, materially evidence to push them from idea into fact. They are beliefs.

Just like aliens.

No one has ever been able to produce an alien on a plate and say ""This, here, is what an alien actually looks like, and this is how he behaves."
No one has ever been able to produce a ghost on a plate and say ""This, here, is what a ghost actually looks like, and this is how it behaves."
No one has ever been able to produce an angel on a plate and say ""This, here, is what an angel actually looks like, and this is how it behaves."
No one has ever been able to produce a God on a plate and say ""This, here, is what God actually looks like, and this is how he behaves."

So no one can claim any given UAP can't be a ghost or an angel or God.

You see that jumping to an exotic solution before exhausting a more common solution (i.e. involving elements that we know for a fact actually already exist) snowballs rapidly to absurdities.


You'll notice, by the way, that both Yazata and Magical Realist already do moderate themselves this way instinctively.

Several times I have offered up "God did it." to MR as an explanation for some incident, and MR made it clear at the time that he did not believe in God and would brook no discussion of it.

Like all of us skeptics, MR has a limit beyond which he thinks an explanation is too exotic to consider - certainly not before he has exhausted what he considers more plausible explanations, such as aliens, or underwater merpeople or dimensional travellers.

For Yazata, it's ghosts. He simply thinks it's too exotic a solution to seriously consider.

We are all skeptics; we all have a line where we personally divide the plausible from the implausible, and we all stay on the near side of it until and unless pushed across it.

We all start off with the working hypothesis that "there's no 'there' there, until there's a 'there' there". That also known as the null hypothesis, and it is a cornerstone of, for one example, medicinal research.

See?

 

[DaveC426913]

No...as all uaps END UP being. An unidentified ANOMALOUS phenomenon,

Lots of anomalies turn out to be quite explainable.

There are magnetic anomalies in the Moon, gravitatinoal anomaleis in the Earth. There are anomalies in datasets.
That is what they are called - anomalies.
And yet we know the principles that produce them.

Some aerial anomalies are labeled such and then upon futher investigation, turn out to be commerical jets. Being labeled UAP is not some supra-human, property-bestowing fiat that makes a thing Unknowable to All Humankind Forever.

Anomaly doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

All mundane explanations can be eliminated

No. Have been eliminated, by some entities, with the resources they have applied. At this time.

Not by everyone.
Not forever.

A get away car whose colour cannot be indentified by the police is not a car that has no colour, or that can't be identifed by a thousand other people, or can't be identifed at a later time, or if they chose to throw more resources at it, or if some new information comes to light.

You have been walked through this logic now many times. Not once have you been able to challenge it.
To try this failing memory ploy again will get you reported for trolling. That's on you now.

 

[Magical Realist]

Dave: Lots of anomalies turn out to be quite explainable.
There are magnetic anomalies in the Moon, gravitatinoal anomaleis in the Earth. There are anomalies in datasets.
That is what they are called - anomalies.
And yet we know the principles that produce them.

Researchers of uaps would have to have some idea of what they are to designate them as outliers of an already known phenomenon. For instance, as an "atmospheric anomaly", or a "geomagnetic anomaly". But they are nowhere close to knowing anything like that due to the baffling aspects of the phenomenon. Hence "unidentified anomalies". IOW, a phenomenon completely unknown to science that defies all mundane explanations. And one that even suggests a technology far beyond any human ingenuity. I could post the 5 observables of uaps again but that is getting tedious. All of this has been discussed already.

 

[DaveC426913]

Researchers of uaps would have to have some idea of what they are to designate them as outliers of an already known phenomenon.

Right. So stop pretending you are the gatekeeper of what labels mean.

Worse, you pretend that the label defines the thing. Like "can't be identified" means somehow it is Beyond the Ken of mortals "ever, by anyone".

Your argument depends on sticking to a specious definition of a word that actually has many applications. Your obligation is to show it can't mean anything else. And you can't do that. You close your mind to any valid options that don't fit your specific narrative.

My argument simply acknowledges the incontrovertible fact that the word has multiple definitions and therefore cannot be narrowed down to one. My obligation to show that's the case is easily met.



A get away car whose colour cannot be identified by the police. Is that a car that has no colour, or that can't be identified by a thousand other people, or can't be identified ever?

You won't answer this because you know perfectly well all I have to do is substitute "UAP" for "car" "NASA" for "police" and "colour" for "cause", like this:

A phenomenon whose cause cannot be identified by NASA is not a phenomenon that has no mundane cause, or that can't be identified by a thousand other people, or can't be identified at a later time.


It simply does not follow, no matter how much your wishful thinking wants it to.

 

[DaveC426913]

IOW, a phenomenon completely unknown to science...

Let's be clear here. You missed the word "seemingly".

These are not phenomena that are "completely unknown to science". That is a misnomer, and you know it perfectly well.
These are analyses of witness reports, which must be interpreted.

For example, when a witness says "I saw it here and then a few minutes later I saw it way over there." there is no science there; there is
- a perception by a fallible human
- that has been interpreted one way by that fallible human
- that can easily have mundane explanations that don't involve any "unknown science".

Two separate objects is a pretty obvious alternate cause for what the witness saw.

The same can, in principle, be applied to any of your favourite UAP reports.
Absolutely zero advanced physics, science, or technology has ever been confirmed to be the cause of any UAP incident, ever.

And you know this. So does every reader, because we've been over this many times, and you are trolling everyone's time.

 

[Magical Realist]

A phenomenon whose cause cannot be identified by NASA is not a phenomenon that has no mundane cause, or that can't be identified by a thousand other people, or can't be identified at a later time.

The NASA definition of uap didn't say that. It didn't say "cannot be identified by NASA" or by anyone else. They said uaps cannot be identified as an aircraft or natural phenomenon. There is no qualifier about "at this time" or "by NASA". It is simply stating that it can't be identified as a mundane phenomenon and so it can't BE a mundane phenomenon. Period. To say it CAN be identified as a mundane phenomenon is contradictory to saying it CANNOT be identified as a mundane phenomenon. There is nothing more to debate here. The definition is quite clear.

 

[DaveC426913]

The NASA definition of uap didn't say that.

Their target audience is intelligent people, who understand how language works, not fools and trolls. A report for fools and trolls would use only very small words.

It didn't say "cannot be identified by NASA" or by anyone else. They said uaps cannot be identified as an aircraft or natural phenomenon. There is no qualifier about "at this time"

The only alternative is that NASA can read the future. Is that your assertion? Yes/no.

or "by NASA".

The only alternative is that NASA speaks for the rest of the world. is that your assertion? Yes/no.

It is simply stating that it can't be identified as a mundane phenomenon and so it can't BE a mundane phenomenon.

In their opinion, at this time.

Or, again, do you assert that they mean to speak for all time, and for all other people and organizations? Yes/no.

Period. To say it CAN be identified as a mundane phenomenon is contradictory to saying it CANNOT be identified as a mundane phenomenon. There is nothing more to debate here. The definition is quite clear.

That is not a definition. It's in indefensible interpretation on your part.


"I am simply unconvinced of your argument..."
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/on-being-constantly-banned-for-trolling.166422/post-3729864
Put your money where you mouth is. Answer the questions posed.

"The only thing that's gets me banned is arguing too effectively for views and ideas..."
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/on-being-constantly-banned-for-trolling.166422/post-3729869
No, One of the (many) things that gets you banned is repeating your beliefs over and over without addressing the challenges to them.
Answer the questions posed.


You've been challenged on your idea of what the term can mean many times. You have repeatedly avoided any engagement in the challenge of your indefensible assertion, even when repeatedly walked through the absurd implications (cars that have no colour, NASA reading the future and God-like powers of censorship, to name just a few).



You are repeatedly dodging challenges to your assertions and feigning incomprehension - all forms of trolling. Reported.

 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting eyewitness account of a 300 ft triangular uap observed hovering over his car by a senior US Naval officer. Actual physical evidence of the craft in the effects left on his car's paint indicating some kind of intense ultraviolet radiation. Totally credible accounts like these are enough to make a believer out of any skeptic!

27K views · 396 reactions | #ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting | Alien's Ufo

#ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting.

www.facebook.com

 

[DaveC426913]

Interesting eyewitness account of a 300 ft triangular uap observed hovering over his car by a senior US Naval officer. Actual physical evidence of the craft in the effects left on his car's paint indicating some kind of intense ultraviolet radiation. Totally credible accounts like these are enough to make a believer out of any skeptic!

27K views · 396 reactions | #ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting | Alien's Ufo

#ufo #fyp #alien #area51 #disclosure #aliensighting.

www.facebook.com

Point of order: misattribution.

This is not an eyewitness account as far as could be determined. Does it get around to an actual eyewitness at any point? (Being a Facebook post, there is no fast forward.)

It is just a guy telling a story to some buddies at - is that a pub? - about some other guy's story. Neither this guy nor the guy he's talking about are named.

"... just a dude that was, uh, goin' work ..."
"... these guys, uh, they can't be lying to me because, uh ..."


"Broken telephone" story-telling has less than zero credibility.


Reported as
1. Trash.
2. Dishonest.

 

[Magical Realist]

This is not an eyewitness account as far as could be determined. Does it get around to an actual eyewitness at any point? (Being a Facebook post, there is no fast forward.)

The information is all from the actual eyewitness the event happened to. I don't think an eyewitness account quits being an eyewitness account just because it is told by someone else. We get stories like that all the time from the news, but never think to doubt their veracity.