Nov 22, 2024 09:16 PM
Unless you can make a compelling case for what something is, it doesn't matter what you try to claim it isn't. In the lack of knowledge, parsimony rules... even just as a very basic tenet of science.
Nov 22, 2024 09:16 PM
Nov 22, 2024 09:55 PM
Excluding proposed hypotheses might not bring us any closer to identifying what something is in an unbounded possibility space (where the 'something' might turn out to be something totally unexpected), but it does provide reasons not to leap prematurely to simple and facile (and often entirely hypothetical and unevidenced) 'explanations' (birds, balloons, Venus, swamp gas...)
That's why I think that the best UAP sightings are multi-modal: visual (preferrably multiple independent observers), photographic, radar, infrared etc. While various visual illusions and misperceptions might account for a single visual observation, it's less likely that multiple independent observers will fall prey to the same error. And it's exceedingly unlikely that radar and other instruments would confirm the misperception. While each mode has its own characteristic faults, it's hard to believe that they would all be experiencing simultaneous faults that somehow converge on a single false result. That's my consilience argument.
The same argument justifies scientific confirmation. While it's possible that an initial researcher is making an error, it's less likely that a second researcher will make the same error. It's even less likely if that second researcher is using a significantly different confirmation method which would require a very different error that just happens to produce the same result as the first researcher got.
In other words, I'm inclined to think that a multi-modal UAP event is essentially simultaneous mutual confirmation, where each different mode (visual, radar etc.) provides confirmation for the other modes. This would tend to exclude any proposed explanatory hypothesis that can only account for a single aspect of a UAP event. It would tend to restrict explanatory hypotheses to those able to explain all the various aspects.
Which might be difficult.
Bottom line: Excluding hypotheses that don't really work, and clarifying what a satisfactory hypothesis needs to be able to do, can indeed be informative.
That's why I think that the best UAP sightings are multi-modal: visual (preferrably multiple independent observers), photographic, radar, infrared etc. While various visual illusions and misperceptions might account for a single visual observation, it's less likely that multiple independent observers will fall prey to the same error. And it's exceedingly unlikely that radar and other instruments would confirm the misperception. While each mode has its own characteristic faults, it's hard to believe that they would all be experiencing simultaneous faults that somehow converge on a single false result. That's my consilience argument.
The same argument justifies scientific confirmation. While it's possible that an initial researcher is making an error, it's less likely that a second researcher will make the same error. It's even less likely if that second researcher is using a significantly different confirmation method which would require a very different error that just happens to produce the same result as the first researcher got.
In other words, I'm inclined to think that a multi-modal UAP event is essentially simultaneous mutual confirmation, where each different mode (visual, radar etc.) provides confirmation for the other modes. This would tend to exclude any proposed explanatory hypothesis that can only account for a single aspect of a UAP event. It would tend to restrict explanatory hypotheses to those able to explain all the various aspects.
Which might be difficult.
Bottom line: Excluding hypotheses that don't really work, and clarifying what a satisfactory hypothesis needs to be able to do, can indeed be informative.
Nov 22, 2024 11:23 PM
Quote:Unless you can make a compelling case for what something is, it doesn't matter what you try to claim it isn't.
LOL Of course it does. Ruling out all mundane explanations narrows the possibilities down to something non-mundane and anomalous but still unidentified. And that's exactly what all the videos and the AARO's report point to.
Nov 23, 2024 01:15 AM
(Nov 22, 2024 09:55 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]...it's less likely that multiple independent observers will fall prey to the same error.That does not follow. Humans have the same perception facilities, liable to the same errors. If one person perceives a mirage, optical illusion, etc., it is very likely that others would as well.
Quote:And it's exceedingly unlikely that radar and other instruments would confirm the misperception. While each mode has its own characteristic faults, it's hard to believe that they would all be experiencing simultaneous faults that somehow converge on a single false result.Like SS said, there are mundane possibilities that could show up both visibly and on instrumentation.
(Nov 22, 2024 11:23 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]But you haven't ruled out anything without identifying the object. You've made unfounded assumptions.Quote:Unless you can make a compelling case for what something is, it doesn't matter what you try to claim it isn't.
LOL Of course it does. Ruling out all mundane explanations narrows the possibilities down to something non-mundane and anomalous but still unidentified. And that's exactly what all the videos and the AARO's report point to.
If it maneuvers too fast for inertia, you're assuming it has mass, without any evidence it does.
If it suddenly disappears, you're assuming something other than an optical effect was actually there, without any evidence it was.
All of the supposed rejections of mundane explanations rely solely upon making unfounded assumptions that the evidence simply does not support.
Nov 23, 2024 01:50 AM
Quote:But you haven't ruled out anything without identifying the object. You've made unfounded assumptions.
Yes we have. In the case of the metallic spheres, we know it isn't a balloon because it flies up to Mach 2. And we know it isn't anything manmade because metal spheres flying around at Mach 2 with no FLIR detected heat propulsion and even holding still in midair are beyond our technology. So it's something made by some more advanced nonhuman intelligence.
Quote:If it maneuvers too fast for inertia, you're assuming it has mass, without any evidence it does.
If it's made of matter, which all evidence points to because it appears metallic and reflects light, then it has mass.
Quote:If it suddenly disappears, you're assuming something other than an optical effect was actually there, without any evidence it was.
Because they are seen flying in empty space and are 3D objects and are opaque and emit heat and rf and show up on radar, so they aren't an optical effect. Optical effects that are 3D and fly around freely are beyond our technology.
Nov 23, 2024 04:49 AM
(Nov 23, 2024 01:50 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]How do you know it's a metallic sphere?Quote:But you haven't ruled out anything without identifying the object. You've made unfounded assumptions.
Yes we have. In the case of the metallic spheres, we know it isn't a balloon because it flies up to Mach 2. And we know it isn't anything manmade because metal spheres flying around at Mach 2 with no FLIR detected heat propulsion and even holding still in midair are beyond our technology. So it's something made by some more advanced nonhuman intelligence.
Because it "appears" to be?
That is pure assumption, unsupported by any evidence beyond simple appearance.
Quote:"Appears" is an assumption, not evidence.Quote:If it maneuvers too fast for inertia, you're assuming it has mass, without any evidence it does.
If it's made of matter, which all evidence points to because it appears metallic and reflects light, then it has mass.
Quote:Again, like SS point out, there are existing technologies that can give instrumentation signals and optical effects but are not solid objects, no matter how they may appear..Quote:If it suddenly disappears, you're assuming something other than an optical effect was actually there, without any evidence it was.
Because they are seen flying in empty space and are 3D objects and are opaque and emit heat and rf and show up on radar, so they aren't an optical effect. Optical effects that are 3D and fly around freely are beyond our technology.
Between science and assumption, you clearly prefer the latter.
Nov 23, 2024 05:11 AM
Quote:How do you know it's a metallic sphere?
Because it is spherical and has a reflective metallic surface. And by far most things that appear metallic really are metallic.
Quote:"Appears" is an assumption, not evidence.
LOL We have them on video. I posted about 6 videos of them. That's hard evidence.
Quote:Again, like SS point out, there are existing technologies that can give instrumentation signals and optical effects but are not solid objects, no matter how they may appear..
No we don't. Nothing we could project into the skies all the way up to 30,000 ft without any source of projection. You do know how projected imagery works don't you? And besides, why would we be doing that? That article was talking about a laser projected out of a jet in a military situation someday to spoof enemy fighters. Such does not exist now.
Nov 23, 2024 05:43 AM
(Nov 23, 2024 05:11 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Video is only evidence of appearance.Quote:How do you know it's a metallic sphere?
Because it is spherical and has a reflective metallic surface. And by far most things that appear metallic really are metallic.
Quote:"Appears" is an assumption, not evidence.
LOL We have them on video. I posted about 6 videos of them. That's hard evidence.
Hence only presumptive.
Quote:Who said anything was being projected from 30,000 ft away? Again, just another in your long list of unfounded presumptions.Quote:Again, like SS point out, there are existing technologies that can give instrumentation signals and optical effects but are not solid objects, no matter how they may appear..
No we don't. Nothing we could project into the skies all the way up to 30,000 ft without any source of projection. You do know how projected imagery works don't you? And besides, why would we be doing that? That article was talking about a laser projected out of a jet in a military situation someday to spoof enemy fighters. Such does not exist now.
You do know how patents work don't you? Do you really believe they give out patents on non-existent technology? If so, I have many science fiction technologies I'd like to preemptively patent. But even if that were the case, the patent also says that it "is available for licensing for commercial purposes."
Said patent says that its range can reach hundreds of meters. Easily far enough to be from another aircraft, especially if doing blind tests of new military technology where none of the witnesses are privy to its source.
One of these days you might start using your brain for more than a shell game of your own biases.
Nov 23, 2024 06:24 AM
Quote:Video is only evidence of appearance.
Hence only presumptive.
Video is evidence of existence, not just an appearance. And we know these uaps exist by that evidence. There is no way around it.
Quote:Who said anything was being projected from 30,000 ft away?
LOL I keep assuming you aren't completely ignorant on the subject of uaps. These things have been reported flying as high as 30,000 ft. No laser projection technology can project that far.
Quote:But even if that were the case, the patent also says that it "is available for licensing for commercial purposes."
The military isn't using this technology. And they wouldn't use it against their own civilian and navy pilots who are witnessing these spheres. That's just idiotic.
Nov 23, 2024 08:28 AM
Only an ideologue would demand that video is evidence of anything but the visual, even though that is all video is capable of recording. Talk about not being in touch with reality.
And I guess such bias precludes reading facts, like a range of hundreds of meters and being capable of being deployed from an aircraft.
But you were in the Navy, MR. Were you privy to every aspect of every mission and exercise you participated in? Unless you hold high rank, there's no reason you'd know about cutting edge military technology testing. But your bias is likely just as divorced from reality on that point as well.
And I guess such bias precludes reading facts, like a range of hundreds of meters and being capable of being deployed from an aircraft.
But you were in the Navy, MR. Were you privy to every aspect of every mission and exercise you participated in? Unless you hold high rank, there's no reason you'd know about cutting edge military technology testing. But your bias is likely just as divorced from reality on that point as well.