Where did I make any claim to "seeking" a "singular explanation"? Why are YOU "eliminating the vast majority"? There was a recent study that went and looked at ALL of the ORIGINAL data samples available from hunter-gatherer societies. From this fresh analysis they determined that the "male hunter, female gatherer" assumption has seriously flawed. We now have the OPPORTUNITY to reexamine ALL of the UFO data and IF we do so WITHOUT preconceptions that the "vast majority have been explained" there is a possibility that those "explanations" are based upon flawed assumptions. I am open to any and all possible explanations INCLUDING that there can be a range of sources that explain various aspects of the current data set. Unfortunately such research would have to avoid the stigmatization that has accumulated around this particular set of data. We need a different approach that will use the scientific method and have the results peer reviewed and rigorously tested and debated as happens in all other branches of reputable science.
Debunking even one of the Navy tapes shows the problems of human perception even when the human is highly trained. Here is one individual's comments: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-the-navy-ufo-videos.11234/ I'd suggest the debunking of Go-Fast, as it depends entirely on the instruments of the aircraft to show that the object is SLOW, not fast. I won't be the answer man on Navy tapes. Those interested in UFOs need to man up and own the issues with what they consider evidence. Occam's razor applies to comparing two or more hypotheses which have well identified assumptions.
You've only mentioned a single very specific possibility that you appear determined is considered. You've not even hinted at any other possibility, mundane or speculative. Because the vast majority are very quickly and clearly identified. I saw a "UFO" at a dark campsite once, but that turned out to be a foil-covered mobile in a tree reflecting a near-by security light (it really looked like the classic ship landing in the misty woods though). When people talk about UFOs, they're typically talking about the tiny proportion that don't get clear explanations. All the others are a valid part of that evidence though, if anything, more so. We've always had that opportunity and plenty of people have done exactly that, but even those determined to find evidence of aliens have failed to do so. You've still not actually suggested any novel process. That often does happen, it's just that the scientific results don't get as much coverage because they give boring mundane explanations or an honest "We don't know". The stigma doesn't come from the data, it comes from the people who see reports of an indistinct light in the sky and immediately leap to aliens.
Then nor can you expect to be their debunker. This thread's OP, was not a challenge against the idea that UFOs are real; nor does it even question that common sense, would leave their non-human origin, as the most obvious origin. You are the one challenging the OP's assumption. I know from experience, you always want to put the burden of proof upon others, but if you want to challenge the OP's assumptions, or any of the points of those who are working from the OP's perspective or stipulations, then the onus is on you, cowboy. There is a wealth of supporting evidence; my view is in no way dependent, on any given video. And, as I have said, I do not read the OP's main focus to be: "prove that the UAP phenomenon exists, is not a hoax." Some of us are beyond that point-- in the absence of some contrary evidence, as a balance against this wealth, of positive indicators.
I get to point out what's been debunked any time choose. So, I posted some debunkings. Yes, I've hogtied, branded, castrated (with pocket knives), nipped horns and given injections in an old fashioned roundup of calves in Eastern Oregon for a couple years. Calves were born on the range and had never seen a human. The ranch was operation of the family of a friend, all Mormons - I heard zero swear words, saw no coffee, saw help offered when criticism was due, and had great respect for the horsemanship - even of their middle and grade school kids. We had three teams of two, with one fire for the irons for each (no electricity with dozens of miles) and horsemen roping (no chutes, we set up within the fence containing the calves. We processed 600 head in 2 long days. Suggesting I could live that as a career is an insult to cowboys everywhere. I know. And, I'm more of a view that existing evidence isn't of a quality that science would ever accept. Harsh, I know. There is possibly enough to justify tax dollars to get better evidence, especially since a lot o people want to pay for that. The military claims they want to release more tapes, etc., but not the body!!! There are just way too many conflicts between the military and the release of quality sensing evidence, as the military LIVES on keeping quality sensing capability secret, as well as their testing of various innovations.
Of course you do, if it makes you feel better, to say so. But I get to point out the idea, for which people don't need a source, to assess its truth: that your merely saying that something has been debunked, is about as meaningless, as if I were to say of your claim, about what you "get to point out," that this has, also, been debunked.
Meaning what, exactly? If you believe that I have ever said that science should "accept," anything about UFOs, other than that they are worthy of study, then you are, once more, very mistaken. I only believe that it is a topic, worthy of my consideration, and speculation-- sort of like multiple universes are, for some physicists; the difference being that I don't express my guesses, as if they were facts. Can you better explain, then, this very basic statement you are trying to make, such that it is clear, on its face, exactly what you intend to imply, by it?
It goes to showing the weakness of the navy tapes, which people like to site as if it should be accepted as expert witness testimony.
Good - as I've stated, I'm not opposed to spending tax dollars on attempting to applying science to this conjecture. The bar for spending federal dollars isn't all that high. My bet is that this will be difficult, as the military has a deeply conflicting objective. As pointed out, multiple worlds as per the Everettians is a direct result of the central and highly tested Schrodinger equation. There is nothing similar to UFOs about that.
Once again you have failed to provide anything to substantiate your allegations. Do you know how to use the quote function or even just cut and paste?
LOL-- that's right, they're not similar: what appear to be spacecraft in our skies, is far more tangible-- and potentially of interest, if not even importance, to us. You cannot be telling me that you consider that theorizing about instantly appearing new universes, to be legitimate science while the study of UAPs, is not(?)
How can I quote to show something you haven't done in any of your posts? Surely you already know what you have said in the thread though. Can you quote anything you've previously posted even hinting at an explanation for any UFO that doesn't involve extra-terrestrial aliens? It is certainly possible to form hypotheses involving extra-terrestrials, but to be of any practical use, that needs to go in to much more detail and depth than "What if it's aliens with technology beyond our understanding!?".
QM has proven incredibly useful in exploring how our universe works. The efforts to more thoroughly understand quantum field theory is just not like postulating aliens.
Given the context of our conversations, I will take this, as would anyone, as your indicating that you view the "Everettian" and "Copenhagen" variations on multiverse theory-- which you have numerous times cited, both here and in the concurrently running Science thread, "The Story Of Our Universe May Be Starting To Unravel"-- to be serious science, and that you do not consider the study of UFOs to be such. Quantum Mechanics (QM), which you cite in your answer, is not a synonym for multiverse theory, which is what I have now asked you about, more times than I can count. But your answers equate the two. This is your erroneous thinking, on display. We know that elements of QM are correct, that they work. We do not have any such evidence of multiverse theory: it is completely theoretical. If, however, you still accept that as legitimate science-- which all the evidence suggests that you do, even if you find it so difficult to give a straight answer to a direct question, no matter how often it is asked of you-- then you have no basis for dismissing the study of a phenomenon that patently does at least exist, at any rate. So I will here show your utterly contradictory-- and therefore dismissable-- opinions, on these matters. To my asking you previously, about multiverse theory-- DEFinning said: ↑ ... Related question, how would you, personally, classify this idea, AS I HAD RELATED that it had been expressed-- that the mere making of a choice, by anyone, causes a new universe to spring into being. Is that credible science? -- you had answered that, as you are not a physicist, you did not deem yourself able to answer this: Which would then make it utterly contradictory of you, to feel that you did have a "right" to answer the same request for an appraisal of UAPs, would it not? Yet, even without request, you freely opine on the validity of the subject. What are your greater qualifications in this area, which allow you to offer your view, without reservation, while you demure from answering about multiverse theory, merely being a credible scientific avenue of inquiry? The answer, of course, is: none. You opine about UAPs, without having any advanced understanding of physics or aeronautics-- which is fine, in & of itself-- but then use that lack of specialty knowledge, merely to avoid showing your hypocrisy, & inconsistency in your standards, by contradicting your practice of offering your unprofessional opinion, through your pretense that you do not feel you have the "right" to comment on multiverse theory. That is illogical, and contradictory: if you can give your opinion on the legitimacy of one, then you can do so for both; if you claim to lack the right, in one case, it is sheer inconsistency, on your part, to then reclaim that right, and make assessment, in the other case. Do you understand the concept? Both are science questions, for which you lack the knowledge and expertise, to give an "expert" opinion. No one expects that to be a requirement, here. But if you decide to enforce that upon yourself (so as not to exceed your perceived "right") then it is only consistent for you to apply that principle to all science matters, rather than on an arbitrary basis, as you are here using. So that is my proof, that your arguments are without consistency. That, by definition, makes them non-empirical, that is, unscientific. Of course you never suggested anything as ridiculous as Will alleges-- he made the exact same, unfounded and ridiculous, false claims about my argument for consistency in language, in the other science thread, mentioned above. Readmore simply reacts in this irrationally defensive manner, to ideas which challenge his grand understanding, his way of conceiving of Creation. As my argument above (and another, which will follow) show, his arguments are contradictory and manifest blatant inconsistency of thought, which is readily apparent, and which-- by the scientific method-- disqualifies all his opinions, of being thought of as soundly reasoned points of view.
As my post did not ask you any questions-- your "asked & answered" reply does, in itself, demonstrate that you "didn't read every word." (Ya think?). I had proven, by showing your quotes, that your answers have been inconsistent, & contradictory. By definition, ironically, your opinion on these matters can be called "unscientific," not to mention, illogical. Just to fill you in on the contents of the post, to which you have just given such a witless reply.
I know you do-- on both sides of it. Or were you referring to just what you'd said in your last, inapplicably non sequitur response? Either way, thanks for the update-- LOL.
When you eventually make up your mind let me know. I don't have much desire to wander down any of Alice's rabbit holes.
Sorry, I thought that was obvious. The only possibility you've discussed is that UFOs are the result of intelligent extra-terrestrial aliens trying to communicate with us. You've not even mentioned any of the other almost infinite possibilities, be that some kind of aliens with different motives or nothing to do with aliens at all. That focus of a singular possibility just feels entirely inconsistent with the idea of following the evidence where-ever it takes us.
Then I have FAILED to make myself CLEAR because that was NEVER my intention but rather one HYPOTHESIS that should be INCLUDED while REEXAMINING all of the data we have in a SERIOUS Scientific Method procedure. @Grey Matter raised the matter of Spectrochemical Analysis which makes a great deal of sense to me given that would yield some interesting results if it were possible to use it directly on these phenomena. Doing that might be challenging but if we can put the JWST out there then why not give that a try? Speaking of the JWST we now have a conundrum regarding the age of the universe. Hasn't that triggered an investigation to reconcile the data we have already with the new data? Why shouldn't we reexamine our existing data using our latest knowledge base? Just as evolution has been proven by multiple different scientific fields why MUST there be ONLY a single means to detect intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Does that CLARIFY my position?
Not really. I'm now not sure whether you're talking about means to determine the cause(s) of UFO sightings or means to detecting intelligent life in the universe. Those would be entirely different questions. As far as UFOs go, I'm still not sure what new knowledge or evidence there is that would require re-examination now? As I've said, UFO sightings do get a lot of analysis, by both official government organisations and private individuals or groups, probably more than any other phenomena in fact. Plenty of them are identified, at least to some level of confidence, as a result (and, significantly, exactly zero as having anything to do with any form of extra-terrestrial intelligence). The remainder remain unknown, not least because they occur apparently at random and fleetingly, leaving a fixed and limited amount of evidence behind. In that context, I really don't see what you're actually expecting to be done differently in specific practical terms.
So pointing a Spectroscope at a UFO is NOT a practical approach? The light REFLECTED from the surface WON'T tell us anything at all about it? Granted there are DIFFICULTIES involved but isn't that just a part of the challenge?
Not a practical one no. Given that we have no idea of where or when UFO sightings might occur, or whether they'll be the type where this kind of observation would be applicable, how would you even achieve this? You'd need a network of expensive devices set up all around the world, constantly waiting for a UFO. We rarely even get clear photographs or videos of UFO sightings, so trying to get even more technical direct observations strikes me as unrealistic.
Was it UNREALISTIC to go through the MASSIVE expense of launching Space Telescopes given that "we rarely" obtained "clear photographs or videos of planet sightings WITHOUT them? Once upon a time we assumed we were the center of the universe until scientists did the math. Once upon a time we had no knowledge of planets BEYOND our solar system until we built a Space Telescope. The math tells us that life exists elsewhere in the Universe. The math tells us that if life exists elsewhere in the Universe then so does Intelligence. Why NOT search for signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe? Wouldn't that be something that Intelligent Life DOES? Or are we just NOT intelligent enough?
