UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,302
    Personal attack that makes no debative contribution.
    Reported as hypocritical.

    That is how discussion forums work with vexatious trolls, yes. Another thing you need to educate yourself on.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,672
    I think that it's important to let lurkers/readers/members think for themselves, though, no? If someone believes that aliens are living under the ocean floor, it's not because MR led them to that belief. People usually come to these discussions, with a certain idea of what they believe already (in terms of mysterious unknowns, metaphysics, etc...) So, if MR were to be banned, I dare say this thread might become an echo chamber.

    But...it's a science forum, and to that end...there is a responsibility on the part of mods (and others) to ensure that the site doesn't become a free-for-all, and we completely abandon science, in the interest of entertainment. I totally get that.
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,302
    I agree. I do not want MR banned.

    I want him to educate himself in 21st (or even 20th) century knowledge, so that he doesn't make an anti-science miasma of the thread.

    This is not an anti-UFO thread; it is an anti-irrational thread.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,672
    How did MR’s name appear in my quote? Hmm…it’s aliens!

    That makes sense, Dave.

    Personally, I’d like to see the discussion move away from linking UFO’s with “nuts,” “crack pots,” and the like and sticking with what these things could be, and so on.

    I feel there is a lot we don’t know. But I’m not so sure no one knows.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,879
    It's aliens alright. They are telepathically editing our responses as we speak.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
    wegs likes this.
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,302
    Ah. Well. That's conspiracy stuff. Whole different kettle of worms. There's a Conspiracy Forum for that.
     
  10. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,670
    It might start by moving away from the personality-battle stuff.

    Yes, I kind of suspect that too. As I've written repeatedly earlier in the thread, my own favored hypothesis about some of these sightings is UAVs/"drones", perhaps operated by several different operators.

    There were the sightings seemingly observing US naval maneuvers that appear to have been associated with a particular Hong Kong registered bulk carrier sailing in and out of the Port of Los Angeles. Many very-expensive top-of-the-line quadcopters in those cases, so it wasn't just hobbyists. It was Chinese espionage. My impression is that these aren't included in the set of UAPs and that the military considers them identified.

    My suspicion about the tic-tacs (nothing more than a guess really) is that they are something similar, very advanced United States UCAV prototypes of some kind being tested against warships at sea, most of whose crews weren't alerted beforehand and were seeing them for the first time. (Which was likely part of the intention of the exercise.) Since the aircraft types in question would almost certainly be highly classified and might not even be publicly acknowledged (black projects) the military might not really welcome much investigation into them. If so, they will be happy to let the whole thing fade into the ongoing "skeptical" sarcasm and debunking, which might serve their purposes sometimes. That said, they can be assured that sharp-eyed Osint (open-source-intelligence) types in potential adversary countries like China will have picked up on it and have something more to worry about without our having given up much in the way of hard information.
     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    Yazata and Magical Realist like this.
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,879
    Just a quick review of the "5 observables" associated with UAPs by former AATIP director Luis Elizondo. There seems to be a tendency to forget these points already made in this thread. The thread winds and twists and unravels, causing us to gloss over what has already been established as fact--a result of skeptics' constant attempts to muddy the waters.

     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2022
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    What facts do you think have been established? Please list the ones you think are given in the video you've posted above. Let's start from there, okay?
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,879
    The following factual traits and behaviors have been observed from UAPs:

    "1) Anti-gravity lift

    Unlike anyknown aircraft, these objects have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion. They also lack any flight surfaces, such as wings. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses describe the crafts as tubular, shaped like a Tic Tac candy.

    2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
    The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed. In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound. Black Aces squadron commander David Fravor, the Nimitz-based fighter pilot who was sent to intercept one of the objects, likened its rapid side-to-side movements, later captured on infrared video, to that of a ping-pong ball. Radar operators on the USS Princeton, part of the Nimitz carrier group, tracked the object accelerating from a standing position to traveling 60 miles in a minute—an astounding 3,600 miles an hour. According to manufacturer Boeing, the F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jet typically currently reaches a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or about 1,200 miles an hour.

    3) Hypersonic velocities without signatures
    If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms. Many UFO accounts note the lack of such evidence.

    4) Low observability, or cloaking
    Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult. Witnesses generally only see the glow or haze around them.

    5) Trans-medium travel
    Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses described a UFO hovering over a churning "disturbance" just under the ocean's otherwise calm surface, leading to speculation that another craft had entered the water. USS Princeton radar operator Gary Vorhees later confirmed from a Navy sonar operator in the area that day that a craft was moving faster than 70 knots, roughly two times the speed of nuclear subs.

    No one has yet gotten close to crafts that display these traits, so their origins are still unknown. Are they a super-top-secret U.S. defense project? Do they hail from Russia? China? Or from even further afield? The only thing we do know is that their capabilities exceed any technologies currently in the U.S. arsenal."

    https://www.history.com/news/ufo-sightings-speed-appearance-movement
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2022
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,302
    Reported for being a liar and a plagiarist, posting large stolen blocks of content as if you wrote them - as well as claiming they are fact when you know they are no such thing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2022
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    I'm sure we have been through this already on this thread, but none of those things you list are factual about what was observed. All of those are interpretations of what was observed. At best you could say the fact was that "someone interpreted what they saw as being something with anti-grav lift" etc. You, and whoever wrote that article, really need to distinguish between what is a fact and what is an interpretation of facts.
    Alas, the person who wrote that article, and you for quoting it without questioning it, and thus seemingly agreeing with it, are simply wrong: we do not know any such thing. We don't, at this stage, even know what was actually observed, and thus whether the interpretation of what was observed is correct or not. You are simply begging the question, and assuming the conclusion (advanced tech) from the outset.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    Agree

    What I find strange - while be factual as being reported, for example, as being anti gravity as you correctly post it is / was an interpretation

    The strangeness comes in if we did have factual knowledge of anti gravity existing every scientists and their budgerigar would have their hand / wing out for grant money and a synopsis of how their research money would uncover HOW anti gravity worked

    Billions would pour into research, newspapers would be full of anti gravity articles, the failures, the partial success. Are we getting that he asked rhetorically?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,672
    I think that “list” above came from the link he posted at the bottom?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,302
    Magical Realist has been around long enough to know how the rules work. He knows every rule because he's broken every rule and been corrected on every rule. Including how attributions and plagiarism work.

    Just when we were all talking about moving on, he pulls the most dishonest trick yet.

    This latest post is a deliberate attempt to skew the truth and gaslight readers. He knows perfectly well these are not facts, but thinks all the readers are idiots. Including you.

    I've had it with his lying, smarmy nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2022
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,879
    I guess Dave never learned the function of quotation marks either.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2022
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    You put it in quotes because someone else wrote it, but you posted it because it was your answer to what you think is factual regarding UAPs. Putting your answer in quotes, using someone else's words, does not alleviate the responsibility for it being your answer.
    Thus, as the question was asked of you, your response is quite clear in that you think those five things are factual about UAPs/UFOs. The quotes are only there because someone gave the answer first, or in better terms than you might have done... it is for convenience, but in no way absolves you from owning it as your response.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,550
    Let's face it. You're your own worst enemy, here.

    I haven't called you an idiot. I have speculated on whether you are an idiot or a troll. We've known each other long enough for me to narrow down the options to one of those two. I'm a smart guy. I've observed how you conduct yourself.

    Is this you admitting to being a troll, then?
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2022
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,672
    For your own benefit, MR - instead of stating these ''traits'' as ''factual,'' state them as speculative. All UAP sightings and reports are based on eyewitness accounts and occasional video footage. There isn't much to go on, but with the tic tac video, we can safely(?) speculate that the object demonstrated some characteristics that seemingly defy known physics. But, it's speculation nonetheless. The pilots that have come forth with their accounts, marveled at the maneuvers the tic tac object made, and we can marvel along with them when we watch the video.

    What can be a safe assumption though, is that if we rule out the common mundane explanations (weather balloon, bird, camera trickery, hoax, etc) we're left with something highly unusual. And could that highly unusual thing potentially be defying physics? If it's possible, how is it possible? If it's not possible, why not? Those are better questions, in my opinion. Just food for thought.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2022
    Magical Realist likes this.

Share This Page