UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

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

  1. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,676
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,111
    What do you expect given the sub-forum this is under "UFO's, Ghosts and Monsters"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,670
    Hard to say since the military isn't revealing most of their UAP cases. We know from leaks that were subsequently confirmed that there was more than one 'tic tac' sighting. One involved one or more objects seen on radar, visually and photographed west of San Diego, and others were detected by multiple sensor modes over several days over the Atlantic. Both of those cases involved carrier battle groups on maneuvers. Both involved objects that were described in similar ways. That suggests (but doesn't prove) that the sightings had similar explanations.

    I have no idea how many other similar cases they have. The UAP Preliminary Assessment mentions some 144 cases they initially looked at, so there may be some other good examples in that set.

    I can think of three broad classes of possibilities.

    1. "Mundane" causes. Perceptual errors, equipment malfunctions, familiar objects misidentified. The "skeptics" really seem to favor this sort of possibility. But it seems rather low probability to me, given how the radar, visual and photographic evidence seems to cohere. Radar detects something, when planes are dispatched to the location of the radar contact, their crews see something etc. If it was just a radar malfunction, one wouldn't expect visual and cameras to verify it. If it was a visual perceptual error, one wouldn't expect radar and photography to verify it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

    I also have a lot more confidence in our highly skilled radar operators and fighter pilots, and in the general reliability of the equipment that they use (and trust their lives to in wartime), than I do in the speculative dismissals of armchair debunkers. My saying that might raise the hackles (what are hackles?) of some of the "skeptics", but I'm just describing my own attitude. The "skeptics" are free to believe whatever they want to believe. I have no control over that and I'm fine with difference of opinion.

    But I don't want to totally dismiss the explain-it-away, 'move along, nothing to see here' position either. It remains a possibility that it's right, even if I weight its plausibility lower than our "skeptics" do.

    2. The "secret aircraft" hypothesis. I personally give that one the highest likelihood at the moment. (But that's just a very preliminary opinion at this point, more of a speculation. I'm not wedded to it.)

    We know that the US (and other countries) are working on a whole variety of "UCAVs" (Uncrewed Combat Air Vehicles). Drone fighter planes are probably the future of combat aviation a few decades out. The location of these sightings (off the West and East coasts near aerospace R&D facilities) and their evident interest in naval carrier battle groups at sea with their radars operating and planes in the air are suggestive to me.

    The obvious counter-argument against that is that these 'tic tacs' seem to have displayed performance well in advance of the current aerospace engineering state of the art. I can imagine two possible responses to that:

    2a. There has been some super-secret technological breakthrough. Somehow I suspect that's unlikely, though I have no way of really knowing.

    2b. The performance is being misdescribed. This possibility has some similarity to no. 1, the "mundane" thesis, but it seems more likely to me in that it isn't inventing the object sighted out of whole cloth, entirely out of errors. 2b. would hypothesize that there was in fact an aircraft there that appeared on radar, was seen visually and photographed, even if its performance wasn't quite as good as some of the reports would have it. The UAP Assessment does say that only a few of its cases appeared to display what they called "breakthrough technology".

    And there's always going to be a third possibility

    3. Something unknown, something new and unexpected. It's going to be impossible to estimate the likelihood of this one, since it could be pretty much anything. (That's the nature of the unknown, I guess. What the unknown contains, is... unknown.)

    So to return to your question, my own guess (nothing more than that) is that 2b seems to be the front-runner. I'm inclined to suspect some unknown US experimental aircraft prototypes. That obviously wouldn't apply to all UFOs, but it's my (very tentative) hypothesis about the 'tic tacs'.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2022
    Magical Realist and wegs like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    8,676
    Ya know, we’ve never discussed “monsters.” What defines a monster?
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    A dictionary?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs and DaveC426913 like this.
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,302
    That is a good subject for a new thread.
     
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,856
    Don't really think so

    Suffers from same problem as UFOs

    No evidence ever been produced indicating any exist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,885
    I've posted on the topic of "monsters" here before. They've ranged from everything like Sasquatch and chupacabras to slenderman, rakes, and even the Mongolian Death Worm! I've never let the trivial issue of whether they exist stand in the way of my discussion of them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,111
    Plenty of people have seen them, We have to keep an open mind; even the skeptics.
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    Plenty of people have claimed to have seen them. There is a difference.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,676
    Well, Putin exists so maybe monsters are real, after all.

    According to the dictionary - they’re thought to be ugly, scary “imaginary” creatures…

    I’m going to start a new thread …stay tuned.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,885
    wegs likes this.
  16. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,676
    I’m thinking of kicking off the discussion with the well known myth(?) of the Loch Ness Monster. And not if it’s real or not… bla bla bla…but, more along the lines of how the story came to be and the investigation behind it.
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,111
    Why would they lie?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Sarkus likes this.
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,111
    That's not very opening minded to call it a "myth(?)". Why can't you people be more open minded?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817
    Lying v mistaken: a semantic hole to dive down if anyone cares to dig it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,111
    If monsters don't exist, why have we given a name to them? The military doesn't want us to know that they exist because they are in the process of weaponizing them. They will shortly be released in China, Russia and Iran.

    A true Patriot wouldn't question this but as I recall you aren't from the U.S. and are perhaps, in fact, an enemy of the U.S.?
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,817

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Maybe I (and possibly all skeptics) am from one of those government agencies tasked with sowing disinformation, trying to dismiss what we don't want the public to be aware of? I mean, isn't that the more plausible explanation for the continuing skepticism and denial in the face of such... evidence?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,111
    So you admit it! Monsters are people too and we should all remember that...
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,550
    wegs:

    Sure!

    Science, for instance, is full of quite unexpected discoveries of things that were previously thought to be impossible or at least implausible.

    Who would have thought, for example, that entire continents could move around over time, completely altering the global geography of the world's land? The idea of "continental drift" was scoffed at by many when it was first proposed. But separate lines of evidence accumulated to the point where it no longer became tenable to deny that continent drift happens. Today, all competent Earth scientists accept the theory of plate tectonics and, indeed, regard it as among the fundamental effects that have shaped Earth's geology, climate and biodiversity.

    The idea of "x-ray vision" existed long before x rays were discovered and named as such. However, the notion that people would one day be able to see inside the human body without breaking the skin would have been laughed off by many educated people - right up to the accidental discovery of x-rays. What led scientists to accept the existence of x-rays was, as usual, the accumulating evidence for them. In principle, anybody can build a working x-ray machine, given suitable instructions and materials. So denying the reality of x-rays is no longer tenable.

    These days, most of us accept the reality of plate tectonics and x-rays without batting an eyelid. Both of them seem like "ordinary" things - just part of our shared, accepted reality. But at one time, both were considered "extraordinary". In a sense, they still are, but we have all the evidence we need to accept that, extraordinary as these things might seem in the abstract, they are very real.

    The idea of alien spaceships has been with us for centuries. It is the claim that, right now, alien spaceship are visiting Earth, that is extraordinary. The difference between alien spaceships and x-rays, though, is that it's easy to produce convincing evidence for x-rays (now). But nobody has managed to produce convincing evidence that any alien spaceships are actually real, yet.

    Having lots of evidence doesn't necessarily convince everybody of the reality of a thing, of course. There are still plenty of climate change deniers and Young Earth creationists, even though there are mountains of evidence for anthropogenic climate change and mountains of evidence against Young Earth creationism. But climate change deniers and creationists aren't basing their beliefs on evidence. What they have in common is a refusal to look objectively at the available evidence.

    Similarly, a lack or absence of reliable evidence doesn't necessarily convince everybody to withhold their belief that a thing is real (which is the prudent and logical thing to do). People believe lots of things without having good evidence, often for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny, as we've seen time and again with Magical Realist's ardent UFO and other woo beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2022

Share This Page