Scholarly and open treatment of UFOs / UAPs

[Lotharson]

Hello folks, in the following post I introduce myself and am interested in profound, respectful and mutually enriching discussions concerning paranormal phenomena, especially UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena) or UFO.

Shards of Magonia: on hallucinations, UFOs and paralell worlds

I want to approach such topics in a responsible and scholarly manner and am wary to avoid both the pitfalls of the "True Believers" and of the "Debunkers" who are all too often two sides of the same coin.

I'm a strong believer in the principle of mutual respect and hope we'll enjoy fruitful exchanges :-)

Lovely greetings from a Germanic Frenchman living in England.

[Kenemet]

I would disagree with your statement that a UFO is "a flying object whose existence we cannot account for with our current public knowledge."

The statement would be correct if you said "whose existence THE OBSERVER cannot account for..."

I couldn't identify one plane from another, and some of the odd planes (known to spy plane aficionados) I would mark as 'something I can't identify that I see flying.'

I take lots of photos of birds and wildlife, and have quite a few "UFO" photos that are just birds streaking through the frame. I can often tell what size and what kind of bird it was -- and yet I've had people insist those birds are UFOs. Same with medieval paintings of halos and glories (where there's written documentation that this is what they are and what they represent) -- those who don't know the subject are more likely to believe "UFO."

So, to say that our knowledge can't identify it is incorrect. It's correct to say that the observer can't (or won't) identify it.

[lost_shaman]

A UFO is the reported sighting of an object or light seen in the sky or on land, whose appearance, trajectory, actions, motions, lights, and colors do not have a logical, conventional, or natural explanation, and which cannot be explained, not only by the original witness, but by scientists or technical experts who try to make a common sense identification after examining the evidence.

Note the part I've place in Bold.

[crypto-ufologist]

Hello folks, in the following post I introduce myself and am interested in profound, respectful and mutually enriching discussions concerning paranormal phenomena, especially UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena) or UFO.

Shards of Magonia: on hallucinations, UFOs and paralell worlds

I want to approach such topics in a responsible and scholarly manner and am wary to avoid both the pitfalls of the "True Believers" and of the "Debunkers" who are all too often two sides of the same coin.

I'm a strong believer in the principle of mutual respect and hope we'll enjoy fruitful exchanges :-)

Lovely greetings from a Germanic Frenchman living in England.

Hi, I love your idea but you're in the wrong place if you expect any kind of even handed discussion here. I'm presently writing an ebook on the subject and with your scientific expertise, your opinion on the basic idea would be greatly appreciated. I've developed the idea considerably and have a 30 year Journal of UFO and Bizarre Humanoid sightings as data with which I can wrap my ideas around. See here Opinion: Giant Insects Could be Real

[mister]

Hello folks, in the following post I introduce myself and am interested in profound, respectful and mutually enriching discussions concerning paranormal phenomena, especially UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena) or UFO.

Shards of Magonia: on hallucinations, UFOs and paralell worlds

I want to approach such topics in a responsible and scholarly manner and am wary to avoid both the pitfalls of the "True Believers" and of the "Debunkers" who are all too often two sides of the same coin.

I'm a strong believer in the principle of mutual respect and hope we'll enjoy fruitful exchanges :-)

Lovely greetings from a Germanic Frenchman living in England.

Wats up. I also enjoy discussing this subject. I am very aware about what I can or cannot prove, but I see nothing wrong with speculating.

What exactly would you like to discuss? UFO's, UAP, ETH, or specific cases?

[psyche101]

Hi, I love your idea but you're in the wrong place if you expect any kind of even handed discussion here. I'm presently writing an ebook on the subject and with your scientific expertise, your opinion on the basic idea would be greatly appreciated. I've developed the idea considerably and have a 30 year Journal of UFO and Bizarre Humanoid sightings as data with which I can wrap my ideas around. See here Opinion: Giant Insects Could be Real

You mean you are in the wrong place if you are seeking self validation. The link he provided says he is interested in open skeptisism. We deal in critical thinking here, so it seems he is in the right place after all.

[psyche101]

Hello folks, in the following post I introduce myself and am interested in profound, respectful and mutually enriching discussions concerning paranormal phenomena, especially UAP (Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena) or UFO.

Shards of Magonia: on hallucinations, UFOs and paralell worlds

I want to approach such topics in a responsible and scholarly manner and am wary to avoid both the pitfalls of the "True Believers" and of the "Debunkers" who are all too often two sides of the same coin.

I'm a strong believer in the principle of mutual respect and hope we'll enjoy fruitful exchanges :-)

Lovely greetings from a Germanic Frenchman living in England.

I have the same question mister does. What aspect do you wish to look at in depth? I note your site says:

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

But are UFOs really "extraordinary", i.e. extremely unlikely to begin with?

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you feel that UFO's are unlikely to be resolved at all? I do not think they are extremely unlikely when considering natural phenomena, they seem a requirement.

[lost_shaman]

I have the same question mister does. What aspect do you wish to look at in depth? I note your site says:

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

But are UFOs really "extraordinary", i.e. extremely unlikely to begin with?

What exactly do you mean by that? Do you feel that UFO's are unlikely to be resolved at all? I do not think they are extremely unlikely when considering natural phenomena, they seem a requirement.

Seems straight forward to me Psyche. If people see ufos, things that defy explaination, why do we need extraodinary evidence for these sightings?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Hi, I love your idea but you're in the wrong place if you expect any kind of even handed discussion here. I'm presently writing an ebook on the subject and with your scientific expertise, your opinion on the basic idea would be greatly appreciated. I've developed the idea considerably and have a 30 year Journal of UFO and Bizarre Humanoid sightings as data with which I can wrap my ideas around. See here Opinion: Giant Insects Could be Real

The only thing stopping giant insects, IIRC, are the type of lung arrangement all known insects have.

[crypto-ufologist]

The only thing stopping giant insects, IIRC, are the type of lung arrangement all known insects have.

I'm saying that gas exchange could take place through an all-the-way-through trachea adaptation. Not only would this increase efficiency from the currently known insect dead-end trachea tubes but also allow for the evolution of a type of inbuilt 'jet-propulsion'. It's only the speed of muscle contractions that needs to be extremely rapid. Even new physics can take place at these high speeds, allowing for extra energy via cavitation and even radiation, which could account for the bizarre evolution of self-induced gene mutations. This new physics takes place when a mantis shrimp strikes a crab shell with such speed that extra energy needed to crack the shell is obtained and light is produced under water.

See here: Extreme high speed video of cavitation during a mantis shrimp strike

See here: Bubble fusion

Edited August 26, 2014 by crypto-ufologist

[Kenemet]

Note the part I've place in Bold.

There are two problems with this:

* when a scientist says 'I can't identify that' it means "I don't have enough information to identify it". This is generally taken as "Little Green Men"/flying saucers/interstellar craft and not "well, I can't really make out enough for a good id."

* frequently scientists and technicians (and us bird watchers) step in and make an expert identification. We're then accused of all manner of things. The community seems to reject any alternative explanations.

[kartikg]

There are two problems with this:

* frequently scientists and technicians (and us bird watchers) step in and make an expert identification. We're then accused of all manner of things. The community seems to reject any alternative explanations.

Now they are being skeptical of your explanation. It's the opposite of someone trying to convince you of the picture being an ufo

[toast]

Ehm, what exactly is this thread about?

[stereologist]

I'm saying that gas exchange could take place through an all-the-way-through trachea adaptation. Not only would this increase efficiency from the currently known insect dead-end trachea tubes but also allow for the evolution of a type of inbuilt 'jet-propulsion'. It's only the speed of muscle contractions that needs to be extremely rapid. Even new physics can take place at these high speeds, allowing for extra energy via cavitation and even radiation, which could account for the bizarre evolution of self-induced gene mutations. This new physics takes place when a mantis shrimp strikes a crab shell with such speed that extra energy needed to crack the shell is obtained and light is produced under water.

See here: Extreme high speed video of cavitation during a mantis shrimp strike

See here: Bubble fusion

Air flow in insects is restricted to prevent water loss. Would a through system make water loss more efficient? How are you going to get a "jet propulsion" system out of tubules that are microns across?

Is that light produced underwater or simply a reflection?

Bubble fusion is still questionable. What has that got to do with a shrimp?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

... "new physics"?

[psyche101]

Seems straight forward to me Psyche. If people see ufos, things that defy explaination, why do we need extraodinary evidence for these sightings?

Ahh, I see, if someting appears as extraordinay, it does not mean that an extraordinary explaination is required?

Eg. If someone sees a UFO and claims it is an interplanetary spaceship, it might actually simply be swamp gas?

[lost_shaman]

There are two problems with this:

* when a scientist says 'I can't identify that' it means "I don't have enough information to identify it". This is generally taken as "Little Green Men"/flying saucers/interstellar craft and not "well, I can't really make out enough for a good id."

* frequently scientists and technicians (and us bird watchers) step in and make an expert identification. We're then accused of all manner of things. The community seems to reject any alternative explanations.

Look again at the definition. Read it several times if you need to. If there isnt enough information it didn't meet the criteria prima facie. Tom, Dick, and Harry don't believe you? Well that's a non sequitur as the definition explicitly addresses that issue. Read it again.

Edited August 28, 2014 by lost_shaman