UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I didn't "accept" anything. An eyewitness can certainly describe a visually wingless, propulsionless object. So what? The video just proved that such a description is not noteworthy in-and-of-itself - it can describe mundane commercial aircraft under the right conditions.

    Have you forgotten you've made these baseless assertions before?

    Well, what say I is: You are wrong when you assert 'it's not an airplane'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It doesn't matter if they are credible or not - they're describing something perfectly mundane.

    If the world's crummiest birdwatcher said "I saw a Robin!" we wouldn't need to analyze whether his account is credible.

    The video has proven that wingless, propulsionless tic-tacs are well within the mundane.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Here's a quick summary of the most relevant points I noticed from that document:
    • Radar detection from the USS Princeton
    Apparently, there were some detections over the week prior to the Fravor incident. There's no established connection between those radar detections and Fravor's "tic tac".

    However, apparently the radar operators tasked Fravor and another F/A-18 to investigate a radar trace, which led to the "tic tac" incident.
    • E-2C Hawkeye
    This is a high-altitude radar surveillance aircraft. The radar operator did not see the reported "tic tac" on his radar until the USS Princeton detected the contact and gave the E-2C a direction to steer its radar.

    The detection by the E-2C was not recorded, so we have only the anedotal evidence of the operator to go on. He said that the target was very low above sea level and he initially thought is might be an ocean wave. The trace was very faint. The detected target was also at a very different altitude to that reported by the USS Princeton - a 15000 to 20000 foot difference.

    This suggests that the two detections might well be of different objects.
    • F/A-18s: Fravor and the other guy in his flight
    Fravor launched from the USS Nimitz. He reported being directed by "his air controller" to investigate an unidentified contact (presumably the one from the USS Princeton's radar). The object was reported to be at "slow speed and low altitude".

    While enroute to the contact, Fravor reported contact with what he believed were two F/A-18s at an altitude of 15-25 thousand feet.

    Fravor reported seeing a "water disturbance" when he was at an altitude of 15,000 feet. He reported that the sea was otherwise calm. At this time he was about 5 to 10 nautical miles away from the location of the reported radar contact. He reported that his "Radar Attack Display" was "clean (no targets)". He decided to fly over the water disturbance.

    Fravor reported the disturbance to be "50 to 100 meters in diameter and close to round". [This could be consistent with a shoal of fish near the water surface, perhaps.] As he flew away from the disturbance he reported seeing it clearing and couldn't identify exactly where it had been. He did not report seeing any object or vessel associated with the disturbance initially.

    Fravor's description of the disturbance was that it "did not appear as a trail or wake, and looked like frothy waves and foam almost as if the water was boiling". [consistent with a shoal of fish]

    Fravor's place did not have FLIR camera. He had a helmet-mounted "lock" system for targeting, but stated that "did not think to use" the helmet's recording capability that day.

    Fravor reported seeing the "tic tac" directly above the area of disturbed water. He reported that it was "holding like a Harrier" [i.e. approximately stationary above the water]. He reported its shape as "like an elongated egg or 'tic tac' and had a discernable midline horizontal axis. However, the object was uniformly white across the entire body. It was approximately 46 feet in length".

    [I note that the 46 feet is an estimate that Fravor was trying to make by eye from an altitude of above 10,000 feet - the altitude of his plane at the time.]

    The other guy in Fravor's plane described the object as "solid white, smooth, with no edges. It was uniformly colored with no nacelles, pylons or wings .... It looked like it had a white candy-coated shell, almost like a white board".

    Interestingly, this guy reported that the object was "travelling level at approximately 500-1000 feet at approximately 500 knots", in stark contrast to Fravor's report that it was approximately stationary. Both these guys, recall, were in the same aircraft. Both men reported that the object maintained a consistent altitude. Fravor reported "minor" displacements of the object north-south and east-west.

    [Both explanations of its appearance could be consistent with a white sea bird of some kind.]

    Fravor decided to descend to get a closer look, taking his plane from 10,000 feet at approximately 350 knots. As he approached, Fravor reported that the object appeared "to recognise us" and to "point" in the direction of Fravor's aircraft; at this time the disturbance in the water ceased. [Maybe the fish were gone and the bird was flying away?]

    Fravor pulled his plane up, "ascended quickly" at supersonic speed. Simultaneously, he requested information on any radar contacts from the USS Nimitz. The reply was that the "picture was clean (no contact)". But then the radar operator stated that "you're not going to believe this, its at your CAP", meaning that the "object" have flown a large distance away and climbed to 24,000 feet.

    [I note that this reported radar contact has no necessary connection with the "tic tac" that Fravor reported seeing.]

    Following this communication, Fravor said he could no longer locate either the "object" nor "the disturbance".
    • F/A-18s: Two other guys who launched their F/A-18s after Fravor.
    They were instructed by Fravor to take a look at what Fravor thought he saw.

    They detected an object on radar, which may not have been in the same location as the object that Fravor reported.

    They tried to lock onto the object with their FLIR camera, but the pilot reported that it "just appeared as if the radar couldn't hack it", so they never got a FLIR lock. That meant they could not gauge the object's speed or track with any confidence. The pilot reported guessing that the object was at an altitude of 15-20 thousand feet (which, I note, would be consistent with the object detected by the E-2C, but inconsistent with the object reported by Fravor).

    The object was reported to "appear stationary", but it gradually moved out of the FLIR field of view due to motion of the F/A-18.

    This was the only contact with an "object" by this crew. The pilot "was clear that he couldn't confirm it was the same object as described by [Fravor's flight]". He only saw an object on the FLIR, never with his own eyes.

    • USS Louisville
    This is a submarine in the area at the time.

    It made no unidentified sonar contacts in the vicinity of Fravor's sighting. It reported "no anomalous undersea activity during this period".
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Given the summary above, which is taken from the report that Yazata linked, let's consider the strength of the evidence for an "extraordinary craft" from the Fravor incident.

    • The USS Princeton did not detect an object at Fravor's location when Fravor was reporting the "tic tac". Apparently, it did task Fravor's flight to investigate an earlier detection at that approximate location.
    • There is no record of any radar detection by the E-2C Hawkeye. The radar operator reported a faint trace that he thought might be a wave, and another target at an altitude of 15000-20000 feet, not coincident with Fravor's sighting.
    • The USS Nimitz and other radars detected nothing when requested by Fravor to look for traces at his location as he pulled his plane up and away from the "tic tac".
    • The USS Louisville submarine detected no unidentified sonar contacts throughout the incident.
    The "other" F/A-18
    • Reported a object on radar, but not necessarily in the same location as Fravor's sighting and at an altitude estimated by the operator as 15000-20000 feet.
    • No record of the detected objects speed or track, but the the operator reported that it appeared stationary.
    • No visual contact reported with any "object".
    Fravor's F/A-18
    • Fravor detected something at an altitude of 15000-25000 feet, before his sighting of the "tic tac".
    • Fravor saw a disturbance in the water from an altitude of 15000 feet. He did not detect anything on radar.
    • Fravor flew over the disturbance and saw his reported "tic tac". So did the other guy in his plane.
    • There was no FLIR on Fravor's plane, and no camera footage of any kind backing up the eyewitness reports.
    • Fravor reported that the "tic tac" was stationary, but the other guy in his plane said was travelling at 500 knots.
    • Fravor pulled his plane away from the "tic tac" as soon as he thought it "recognised" his plane and "pointed" towards it. Pulling up, he and the other guy lost sight of the object, after which neither of them saw it again.
    In my opinion, this doesn't amount to much. Even Fravor's account of the incident (at the time) doesn't support any miraculous manoeuvering capabilities of any "craft". It doesn't even establish that the "tic tac" was an aircraft of any type. And Fravor's account is the "best" evidence here.

    There are some loose ends, of course. There were multiple radar contacts at different times with something at an altitude of 15,000 to 25000 feet, it seems. But none of them can be linked directly to Fravor's "tic tac".

    There's no evidence of any "craft" travelling below the water surface at any time, as evidenced by the submarine's failure to detect anything.

    This incident has received a lot of publicity, essentially because Fravor has been out there publicising it, and also because the Pentagon decided to "declassify" it.

    My guess is that the Pentagon has a fairly good idea about what the radar contacts might have been, even if they can't be sure what Fravor and his co-pilot saw.

    Given all this, some of the "Key Assessments" in the report that Yazata linked are puzzling:
    • The report assesses that the "AAV" (anomalous aerial vehicle) was no known aircraft. This seems to make some dubious assumptions right up front: that there was a "vehicle" and that it was "anomalous". Of course, a bird would qualify as "no known aircraft or air vehicle". There is also the unsupported assumption that all radar contacts represented the same object.
    • The assessment that the "AAV exhibited advanced low observable characteristics at multiple radar bands" is true given the facts, but it would be expected in the case of a low-flying bird. The fault here may again be that separate radar contacts were all assumed to refer to the same object.
    • The assessment that the "AAV exhibited advanced aerodynamic performance" is not supported, based on the information we have - especially if the separate radar and FLIR contacts were not of the same object.
    • Certainly Fravor and the other guy reported "no visible control surfaces" and so on, but they were viewing the object from a long way away and from a much higher altitude.
    • The assessment that the "AAV exhibited advanced propulsion capability by demonstrating the ability to remain stationary with little to no variation in altitude" seems like over-reach. Birds do that just fine by flapping their wings. Note that, relative to a jet fighter travelling at 350 knots, a bird is always approximately stationary.
    • The assessment that a single "AAV" transitioned "to horizontal and/or vertical velocities far greater than any known aerial vehicle" seems to be entirely unsupported by the evidence.
    • The assessment that the "AAV possibly demonstrated the ability to 'cloak'" sounds like the report writers want this to sound mysterious. Yes, it's possible that something "cloaked", but there's no compelling need to draw that conclusion from the available evidence.
    • The assessment that the "AAV demonstrated a highly advanced capability to operate undersea" appears, again, to be completely unsupported by any evidence.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    There were no strange flight characteristics observed. What are you talking about?
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Magical Realist, would sell out the human race so long as he can jerk off to aliens.
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Yes there are. I've already posted about them several times. Just because you don't personally believe they happened doesn't mean they didn't, Once again, multiple eyewitnesses, camera video, and radar return vs an armchair skeptic's irrational assumptions and denialism. Who has more credibility here? Who should we believe? The unbiased people that were there? Or the biased career skeptic who wasn't there?
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    That the word "believe" is in your analytical vocabulary speaks volumes.

    Examine the evidence. Of lack thereof.
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    I'm thinking that a ''lay'' person (from a science perspective) can't really prove the existence of aliens/alien spacecraft. It's not possible for MR to prove that alien life exists because he doesn't have the tools that skeptics would consider to be trustworthy. This isn't a problem for MR or skeptics for that matter, but if skeptics don't consider any eye witness testimony (of other ''lay'' people) to be trustworthy, then MR and others who strongly hold up eyewitness claims as plausible evidence, will be forever fighting an uphill battle.
    C C and Magical Realist like this.
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    It's a matter of belief because so much of the evidence is eyewitness testimony. So the skeptic instinctively goes for the jugular right away, demeaning the eyewitnesses as mistaken and delusional because once that is accomplished, they can conclude what they already assume--that it never happened. Hence we are reduced to a big coincidental "comedy of errors" along with radar glitches and ensuing book deals. Nothing to see here folks! Move along! The assumption is that the eyewitnesses are never EVER right, which suits the skeptic's agenda of unwavering and contrived debunkery
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
    C C likes this.
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Exactly. Well said.

    The thing is, skeptics don't "believe" either way. They simply say it's not conclusive - it could very well be mundane.
    I don't think the guy(s) are lying; I simply don't draw the same conclusions you do.

    As always: if you want us to accept an extraordinary claim, then show us something extraordinary. (Video footage of these tic-tacs would be so easy to provide.)

    This whole "boo hoo - you demeaned my prize witness" thing is emotional puffery.

    Eyewitnesses do make mistakes. That is incontrovertible.

    So you've lost out-of-the-gate on this one. Again, this whole "boo hoo - you demeaned my prize witness" thing is emotional puffery.

    No one has concluded that things "never happened".
    If you have to put words in your opponents' mouths, you know you've got no argument.

    And that, my good man, is an ad hom.
    When you can't make a case on the argument, you try to undermine the (fuzzy, unnamed) arguer - as if the insidious promulgation of a motive belies a logical argument.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
    C C likes this.
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member


    Easily accounted for if the ufo was first seen as stationary at 50ft and then ascending to 500-1000 ft. Same craft, different events. Here's an interview with one of the other pilots (Chad Underwood) who witnessed the UAP's extraordinary maneuvers:


    "Yup. Birds normally fly close to the surface of the ground. So, for example, you’re not going to see birds flying at 5,000 feet. You’re going to see them more down at like 2,000 feet and below, like down to the surface. That’s just kind of how birds normally operate. And they’re typically not alone. So you can you can physically see them, in a flock or whatever. You don’t see birds at 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 feet. That’s just not how birds operate. So birds are out of the question.

    And just so that I anticipate your next question: There are weather balloons that people launch, but this was not a weather balloon — because a balloon, it just ascends and floats from low to high altitude; it doesn’t behave erratically. I mean, it’s just a damn balloon. So that was out of the question.

    It wasn’t — to the best of my knowledge — a cruise missile or any other kind of test aircraft that we possibly may have not known about, just because of the way it was behaving. Like I said, it was just very erratic. It would go from like 50 feet off the ground, which when you’re out in the open ocean, you know, off the coast of San Diego, it looked like it was just hovering over the water. But there was no method of propulsion that was keeping it airborne: no wings, no heat, keeping it airborne or aloft."
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    That is an interpretation.
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Yes. That's the nature - and the strength - of scientific rigor.

    Explanations (or models) of events have to jump through hoops to filter out false positives before they can be accepted as good explanations.
    (If this weren't the case, we would likely still believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden).

    Only if it passed through all these hoops does it get accepted.

    That's why science is so much more powerful than believerism for getting at the truth.

    In the case of UAPs, we skeptics do not claim to have the truth. We simply resist the poorly-evidenced belief of others that they have the truth.

    MR is welcome to be satisfied with the evidence at-hand and conclude for himself that UFOs are piloted craft, but when he expects others to lower their standards of acceptance to his level, that's where he runs into resistance.

    In this latest, he was originally convinced (2 years, 2000 posts and counting) that a featureless, wingless, propulsionless craft sighting could not possibly be of human construction - until it was shown to be quite mundanely so.

    We were right to be skeptical. He was wrong to believe so eagerly.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2022
  18. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    This is very insightful, and I think we're getting somewhere. Even if we all come out in the end as ''agreeing to disagree,'' your post shows a possible why there has often been... disagreement. I'm sure it's been posted in a thousand other ways in this thread, but this post really captures what has been going on, and why ''believers'' and skeptics often talk past one another.
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  19. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    No control surfaces, no wings and no windows.
    Remember the ''Cigar'' from some time back on here.
    Starts 38 secs in:

    Link to Mick West showing it to be a plane.

  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    “It is better to believe than to disbelieve; in doing so you bring everything to the realm of possibility.”

    ― Albert Einstein
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2022
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I really do hope you understand that quote in the context it was stated? Unfortunately he was not suggesting, even remotely, that one should believe something to be true in the absence of convincing evidence.
    Einstein was talking about not closing oneself off to the possibility of achieving things... if you think you're incapable, if you don't believe you can, then you won't; so better to believe [you can] than to disbelieve.
    It's also about the notion of belief in the possibility of something, something all skeptics have, even if they consider that possibility to be low.

    Or do you really think that Einstein was supporting the idea that it is better to be gullible than not?
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2022
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    I think Einstein was promoting the idea of being open-minded rather than closing ourselves off in doubt and skepticism. There's just something so final and dogmatic about disbelief, the way it dismisses witnessed aspects of an event or phenomenon in favor of its own preferred mundane narrative. We owe it to ourselves to dwell in the possibility of the spectacular, at least until refuting facts turn up.
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2022
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member


Share This Page