UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[James R]

Do any of the above usages make any sense defined by you as "cannot be identified but one day might be."? No.. not even in these cases of referring to mundane objects. Context is everything.

For one thing, it cannot be identified as national literature.
The pressure waves within the source region cannot be identified as being radiating sound waves.
While auctions can indeed improve efficiency and effectiveness, this cannot be identified as a generic trend.
Legacy therapies cannot be identified as "approved" or "recommended" even if both statements were true.
The population at risk is in a dynamic equilibrium, and cannot be identified as those who are not and have never experienced disease.

An honest person cannot be identified simply as one who, for example, always tells the truth, nor even as one who always tells the truth because it is the truth, for one can have the virtue of honesty without being tactless or indiscreet.

Unicellular rhodophytes, of which there are a few living today, may go back well into the Precambrian, but since none of the Precambrian fossils in question contain pigments, they cannot be identified confidently as red algae.

An honest person cannot be identified simply as one who, for example, practices honest dealing, and does not cheat.

Lots more examples of where "cannot be identified" means "have not currently been identified, but one day might be".

To prevent spam, email addresses that cannot be identified as legitimate will be removed from the list.

This is saying they don't care if, one day, the email addresses can be identified as legitimate. They are going to remove them from the list now because they can't currently identify them as legitimate.

The erroneous answers provided utilize either an approach whereby the erroneous answer cannot be identified correctly as a distractor ...

The word "correctly" here is important. This doesn't even say the erroneous answer cannot be identified as a distractor.

I think I've sufficiently made my case here. Moving on.

You've made an excellent case for your own basic reading comprehension being sub par. That's all.

But are you legitimately uneducated, legitimately stupid, or just clowning? Those are the only questions that come up.

 

[James R]

My impression is that they rule out all mundane possibilities until they reach the conclusion that it is a true uap or anomalous phenomenon that cannot be identified as a mundane phenomenon.

No. It's impossible to have ruled out all mundane possibilities and still have the thing remain unidentified.

This is basic logic.

There are only so many mundane possibilities to rule out after all.

Usually a very large number, including some that just haven't occurred to anybody and which therefore haven't been investigated.

Also, the object's extraordinary flight behavior can further rule out mundane possibilities like balloons or conventional aircraft.

Sure, if the "extraordinary flight" can be confirmed.

That it zips around at high speeds and comes to sudden stops and hovers in place for instance like the tic tac was observed to do.

But you're just talking about reports again, and people's interpretations, there. Where's the solid evidence of the high speeds etc.? All you have is a bunch of anecdotes, right?

 

[James R]

Well then actually we have TWO interpretations here--one by the eyewitnesses based on what they actually saw with their own eyes, and your interpretation based on nothing more that your groundless assumption that it wasn't as he described it as being.

I have said nothing about my interpretation.

My suggestions have been based on what the eyewitness reported, based on what the eyewitness reported seeing with his own eyes. The advantage of my suggestions is that, unlike the eyewitness and yourself, I have looked beyond the anecdotal evidence from the eyewitness, which suggests more open possibilities that either you or he appear to have contemplated.

So whose interpretation should we go by?

Mine, since it's obviously superior to yours. But note carefully: only one of the two of us has drawn conclusions about the ID of this UAP. That would be you, and you've jumped hastily to a faulty conclusion as usual. I'm just applying some careful, rational critical thinking, while you waste your time clowning.

Their's based on what was actually seen? Or your's based on nothing at all?

I base my conclusions on the evidence, which includes eyewitness accounts, of course. Why do you say "nothing at all"? You know that's not true. Why deliberately tell lies? That doesn't help you. On the contrary, it merely tends to reinforce the reputation you've built for being a troll.

Besides, where did I ever say I've come to conclusions about what this UAP was or was not? I don't have any conclusions. You're the only one who has reached the conclusion that this is Beyond Human Understanding, and your conclusion is obviously faulty.

We go by the eyewitnesses' account. That is the available given data of the case, and there is no justification for changing or cherrypicking that data just to suit your agenda of debunking the sighting.

If you're going to accuse me of changing the account (I have not) or of ignoring inconvenient data (I have not), then you'd better try to make a case to support your accusation that I have been dishonest in my analysis.

Since I know you won't do that, I'm just going to put on record here that the next time you falsely accuse me, without even attempting to make a case based on evidence from my posts, like this, it will be another official warning for you.

 

[James R]

[James R] 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.

Multiple errors here:
1. I do not suggest the thing was a blimp (although, that remains an open possibility that hasn't been ruled out).
2. I have said nothing about 12 people being mistaken.
3. I have only seen the account of one eyewitness. I have seen nothing from the other 11 who allegedly saw this thing. And I don't think you have, either.

In summary, I have suggested no "alternative account", so far.

But, now that you mention it, a number of features of the eyewitness statement and the surrounding circumstances do make me wonder whether it might have been a helicopter. There's another alternative that warrants careful investigation, for you.

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

Yes. And what are you doing? Trying to prove that it was an alien spaceship? Or just wasting your time clowning?

Is there a problem with trying to "debunk" the claim that this was the woo? If attempts to debunk it fail, won't that just have the effect you want: immeasurably strengthening your claim that it is the woo? You should be thanking me for my efforts to debunk investigate this, because God knows you're doing bugger all to find out anything about it.

Clearly the skeptics' typical bias against uaps existing at all is operating here, as opposed to the unbiased and firsthand perception of the 12 eyewitnesses.

You should stop lying about "12 witnesses". So far, we've heard from one witness. Please produce the statements from the other 11, if you have them. Otherwise, stop making allegations about accounts that either don't exist or you know nothing about.

There is simply no evidence the thing was anything different from what they described it as--a large dark disc with 3 rows of windows and other lights that suddenly vanished when a flashlight was shone on it.

What do you mean by other lights? You're not alleging that the windows were lit, again, are you? I hope not, because previously you agreed that there's no evidence for that. You even apologised for your error. Are you going back to your lie? Are you sure you want to go back to the lie?

The key question here is "Can the witness's interpretation of what he saw be trusted, given all the circumstances?"

It is highly unlikely that the witness actually saw an enormous disc-shaped spaceship with office-building like windows that was scared of a flashlight and able to simply vanish at will. It is far more likely that the witness made an error of judgment about what he saw.

Since, so far, all we have is a single account from one witness, the most we can say is that the witness saw something he couldn't identify and which he interpreted in a particular way. That's extraordinarily weak evidence for alien spaceships and the like.

The salient point here is that, even supposing that the details described by the witness correspond to something the witness actually saw (which is a big assumption in itself), those details seem to be consistent with any number of "mundane" objects or phenomena, none of which have been ruled out yet.

Or, to put it another way, there's simply no evidence that the thing was anything different from a mundane object, despite the interpretation of the one witness who described it.

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.

The skeptic has not offered any "account", so far. The skeptic has merely explored some possibilities, bearing in mind the imperfection of human perception and memory, along with normal human biases and circumstantial factors.

 

[James R]

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.

Now now, Magical Realist, you know that isn't true.

You know, for instance, that I have explicitly, on multiple occasions, quite clearly stated that I accept that there are many reports of UAPs (unidentified anomalous phenomena). I have never - not once - "denied" that UAPs exist.

Moreover, you know that I have never said I believe that alien spaceships (for instance) can't exist, or don't exist.

You know what I have said. I have said I am not convinced that alien spaceships have visited Earth in the past or are currently visiting Earth. I have never said it is impossible that they could have visited, or might be visiting.

I don't hold any beliefs about UAPs based on any dogma (i.e. "claims proclaimed as true without evidence"). Of the two of us, you're the only dogmatic one.

I would like you to apologise for this lie you're telling about me, knowingly, too. Since I know you will not do so without official moderator pressure - which I will not apply regarding this specific matter - I will settle for telling you that the next time you tell this lie about my supposed "dogma" about declaring that certain things "don't and can't exist", I probably will issue an official warning, because enough is enough. We've been over this too many times to count. There was a time your mistake could have been put down to ignorance or stupidity, but that time is long gone. Now we're into knowing, deliberate lie territory, and it's not a good look for you. You should stop it. If you can't/won't, it might be time for you to leave this place.

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.

To repeat, for emphasis: I have no belief that "UAPs aren't real".

I am also fully aware that you are trying conflate "UAPs" with "little green men in alien spaceships", pretending that you don't know the difference and also pretending that I haven't been very careful to flag the difference, over and over, in discussions with you. You should stop that dishonesty, too.

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.

If you were honest, you would recognise attempts to "debunk" what might be bunk as a good thing, not a bad thing. Weeding out bunk should leave us with a greatly reduced pool of legitimate data. You should want that. But you don't.

Why? Because you've already made up your mind. Every debunking is like a personal injury to you, because you believe it all - all the woo, all the time. Or so you would have us believe, though some of it is probably just your clown act.

When the position you're trying to promote is so weak, every flaw that is uncovered just becomes one more nail in the coffin, I guess. That's gotta hurt. But the adult response is not to double down and to start telling deliberate lies. It's to change your mind. It's to see reason. It's to apply a little common sense.

Is your sense of identity so inextricably tied up with the woo that you'll sink to any depth of lying and general dishonesty merely to protect the emotional fort? (Or is all of this just the clown act of a troll?)

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.

It's what I have always done, as you are fully aware.

 

[James R]

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!

Yeah, a "totally credible" account by a known serial and high-profile pusher of UFO bunk. Right.

But you shouldn't be changing the subject. You need to own up to your latest string of lies and errors before we move on.

 

[James R]

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.

The information is all from the actual eyewitness the event happened to.

Don't tell lies, Magical Realist.

All you know is that the information you have came second-hand. It's from a guy reporting to you what some other guy supposedly said.

In a court of law, this would be called "hearsay" and it wouldn't normally be allowed to be admitted as evidence.

I don't think an eyewitness account quits being an eyewitness account just because it is told by someone else.

It does. The someone else's account is an account about being told something. That's all.
An eyewitness account is an account from a person who witnessed something with his own eyes.

Do you appreciate the difference, or are you going to play the village idiot on this, too?

We get stories like that all the time from the news, but never think to doubt their veracity.

You might be so naive as to never doubt media stories. That is just one more example of your shoddy thinking about things, if we need any more confirmation.

 

[James R]

What is your problem? You get wound up over the most petty things. Everyone here can see it. All this drama will just end up getting you more ignored.

It's time you stopped trolling.

I considered issuing another official warning to you based on this post and your antics in the posts above it. You're skating on extremely thin ice again. This is the last time I will tell you this sort of thing because most of the time it produces no visible changes in your behaviour. From now on, there'll be no more friendly warnings from me.

 

[James R]

No it's called reframing my argument and repeating it when you fail to address it.

Don't tell lies. DaveC extensively addressed the points you raised, while you ignored his responses and doubled and tripled down on idiotic assertions again.

 

[Pinball1970]

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

Ok hold onto your seatbelt I have something to add to this which may come as a suprise.

I was shown footage by a good friend who was on his balcony the night before. He started filming when he saw a strange light in the sky.

He tried to get different angles and took about 6 or 7 videos over an hour or so.

First off, he said the light was stable mainly and his phone moved a bit. So the light was not darting around as it sometimes did in the footage. We have discussed this previously.

HOWEVER, some of the footage shows the light doing some very strange stuff.
One light splitting off becoming four or five and different colours. It looked unreal.

So, I know can rule out faked because I saw all the raw, time stamped footage on his phone. He is a normal guy who just wanted to know what it was.

(Another) However, just because I don't know what it was does, there could be a person would not be able to recognise what it was.
We showed the footage to a friend who does have experience with Ariel phenomena and he thought it was lasers.

So, we will see if any concerts in the area, work out exactly where lights were and see if we get any sightings and footage from a different place.

I will report back.

 

[Magical Realist]

It's time you stopped trolling.

I considered issuing another official warning to you based on this post and your antics in the posts above it. You're skating on extremely thin ice again. This is the last time I will tell you this sort of thing because most of the time it produces no visible changes in your behaviour. From now on, there'll be no more friendly warnings from me.

Every morning when I log on here I expect to see the dreaded page "You have been banned for whatever". After being banned by you 4 times in a row for the generic offence of "trolling" I think I'm abit traumatized. It's truly a mystery to me how me simply making my arguments constitutes trolling in any sense. I have ceased trying to figure it out as you never offer any evidence I am posting just to provoke anger in people. People are responsible for their own emotions. If they get upset by my posts that is not on me. Maybe they should move on and find other posts more placating to their temperamental natures. So anyway, I tend to avoid responding to you now because I don't want to be banned again or forced into some sort of humiliating public apology. I will just keep being myself here like everybody else is free to do, and if that pisses you off there's really nothing more I can do about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's truly a mystery to me how me simply making my arguments constitutes trolling in any sense.

No it isn't a mystery. That is another lie.
You have been told what are your lies and where you doubled down instead of recanting.

"lit" windows
"eyewitness" account

You made those up out of whole cloth. That is a documented and incontrovetible fact. When called out that you made them up, instead of acknowledging that fact, you doubled down.
Those doubling downs are documented lies - knowingly telling a falsehood.

And these are only very recent ones.

And here you are lying about it being a mystery. No, you're on record as knowingly telling two - now three - falsehoods.

 

[Magical Realist]

Oh so horrible that I inferred that the windows seen from about a mile on the craft were lit. Almost like, oh I don't know, you claiming they were rectangle-shaped. Where did you hear about that from? It's certainly not in the eyewitness account. So does that make you a liar too? Hmmm...

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh so horrible that I inferred that the windows seen from about a mile on the craft were lit. Almost like, oh I don't know, you claiming they were rectangle-shaped. Where did you hear about that from? It's certainly not in the eyewitness account. So does that make you a liar too? Hmmm...

You didnt infer (again with the weaseling) you asserted it. Explicitly, multiple times, even when challenged where that word came from. There was no "possible" about it. Then you doubled down and tripled down until you were hauled out on the floor like schoolchild to admit it. Those doublings are lies - knowingly repeating falsehoods.

What I did was suggest possible alternative explanations for his terse words. That is not lying.

Exact same thing happened with "eyewitness" . You inserted that term. I challenged you to admit it. Instead of saying "OK, I inserted that term" you doubled down - knowing full well you had in fact inserted the term. That is knowingly telling a falsehood, even after being called out.



It looks like "lying" may be another term you'll have to add to your already long list of things to read up on.


Your complaints are a distraction. Take them out of this thread. I will ask the moderator move them to the complaints department, along with any more distractions.

 

[Magical Realist]

Dave now complaining about complaining. If they removed all your complaints here there'd literally be none of your posts left.

 

[DaveC426913]

If they removed you there'd be no complaining by anyone, including you!
(Walked right into that one...)

 

[Pinball1970]

Boys boys! Play nice.

 

[Pinball1970]

MR one year on the site so far. Its a good site. Don't get banned!

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok hold onto your seatbelt I have something to add to this which may come as a suprise.

I was shown footage by a good friend who was on his balcony the night before. He started filming when he saw a strange light in the sky.

He tried to get different angles and took about 6 or 7 videos over an hour or so.

First off, he said the light was stable mainly and his phone moved a bit. So the light was not darting around as it sometimes did in the footage. We have discussed this previously.

HOWEVER, some of the footage shows the light doing some very strange stuff.
One light splitting off becoming four or five and different colours. It looked unreal.

So, I know can rule out faked because I saw all the raw, time stamped footage on his phone. He is a normal guy who just wanted to know what it was.

Any chance he'll send it to you for analysis?

...experience with Ariel phenomena...

Like this?

 

[Magical Realist]

Good photo captures of a high quality camera by a man in Montello WI in 2021 of a brightly lit uap with red lights along the top of it. He was actually getting pics of the Milky Way at the time. The uap is oval-shaped and moves across the sky horizontally. Notice the whole body of the object is made up of the light with a row of red lights along the top. Humorous interaction with his daughters is charming..

And if you think it could be a helicopter with a searchlight, here's a comparison with that. No resemblance whatsoever..