Mendel
Senior Member.
magic, magic, magic and magic, not an explanationSo we now have aliens, time travelers, other dimensional beings and conscious plasma entities to explain UFOs.
magic, magic, magic and magic, not an explanationSo we now have aliens, time travelers, other dimensional beings and conscious plasma entities to explain UFOs.
I suppose "magic," by that or any other name, would be an explanation if they would first prove whatever it is they are claiming exists, then prove that it has something to do with the phenomena being observed! But they are skipping two steps, at least.magic, magic, magic and magic, not an explanation
There's also been this growing trend in the UFO communities that there are plasma entities, or "Plasmoids".
So we now have aliens, time travelers, other dimensional beings and conscious plasma entities to explain UFOs.
They're magic.The UFOs are just an expression of a phenomenon that is not part of our physical world. They don't need technology to bend space-time as they're beyond space-time.
But, to recap, can easily be explained by misperception and confabulation (with the added bonus that none of those defies physics).We're sill left at the situation where many of the black triangle UFOs people are reporting, cannot be explained with known technology
But, to recap, can easily be explained by misperception and confabulation (with the added bonus that none of those defies physics).
Everything is hypothetical, noone can say to hold the absolute truth. But there are hypotheticals which are probable, while at the opposite other hypotheticals are improbable or even absurd.Hypothetically.
But the evidence doesn't support your hypothesis.Everything is hypothetical, noone can say to hold the absolute truth. But there are hypotheticals which are probable, while at the opposite other hypotheticals are improbable or even absurd.
Or this which goes back to at least 2006. 3D Plasma shapes created in the air that can be seen in daylight by Burton
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoOiXkXmYQ
Yes, it's a stretch.Regarding plasma and black triangle UFOs, all we can say is people report these big glowing circles of light, that in some cases, change colors. It's not a stretched to consider the light being emitted might come from a plasma, as part of some unknown technology. Didn't even Kirkpatrick mention ionic propulsion (plasma based) technology?
Correction: "Have not been explained to laymen with known technology", and "None of us outside those with expertise in the matter know the answer at this point"....UFOs people are reporting, cannot be explained with known technology, and witnesses have been reporting these UFOs since the 60s. None of us know the answer at this point, we can only make different hypothesis.
Everything is hypothetical, noone can say to hold the absolute truth. But there are hypotheticals which are probable, while at the opposite other hypotheticals are improbable or even absurd.
Quite simply, you do not know what "evidence" there is. You, and the UFOlogists you quote, are still working from a position of not knowing technical details, because they are not disseminated as general knowledge. We are not privy to things which might be held secret for good reasons.But the evidence doesn't support your hypothesis.
Certainly I'd like to see this 'little bit of everything' evidence. But it doesn't sound very different from what we've got now.The fact Tim Phillips claims they have "a little bit of everything" evidence, pointing to black triangle UFOs being a technology we can't replicate is significant, and should compel us to take unconventional hypotheses more seriously.
Ion-based propulsion systems are a useful technology, but they are only useful in space. Because they are not capable of lifting their own mass off the ground, they can't be used to launch spacecraft, or maintain an object in hovering flight above the Earth.
What is an example of an established fact about one specific black triangle UFO that lacks a plausible concrete explanation, and therefore needs new theory in order to explain?The ionic drones Kirkpatrick mentioned are useful, but that specific kind of technology doesn't seem capable of explaining black triangle UFOs.
But there are plasma based propulsion concepts that, in theory, could be useful in our atmosphere for high performance vehicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive#Aircraft_propulsion
But there's no conflicting information. All the evidence we have on the 'giant physics-defying (magical) black triangles' is easily explained by misperception and confabulation (and of course also lies, hoaxes and other mundane psychological causes could be in the act, but I wanted to keep the list short): there's nothing else left to explain.You can use the everyone is mistaken or lying hypothetical as a candidate explanation for anything. And you can choose to interpret examples of people making mistakes and lying as evidence supporting that in every case. But it's a vacuous explanation that presumptuously hand waves away all of the conflicting information of potential value for hypothesis formation.
There is a problem here, however; by modelling this phenomenon as a single continuous fuselage you might influence various witnesses to retroactively remember this as a single, hard-bodied object with a structure connecting the lights
Easily is doing the heavy lifting here. The intuition you have about how easy it is, is being implicitly converted to a subjectively estimated prior probability. There is a lot more work to do than that, to get truly well justified prior probability estimations. There is a lot of information we have to examine, and it is difficult to evaluate, and it is by no means easy to estimate the prior probabilities.But there's no conflicting information. All the evidence we have on the 'giant physics-defying (magical) black triangles' is easily explained by misperception and confabulation (and of course also lies, hoaxes and other mundane psychological causes could be in the act, but I wanted to keep the list short): there's nothing else left to explain.
The 29 Palms flares case shows how easy it is. I'm amazed you instead find it easier to believe in magical unknown technology from outer space.Easily is doing the heavy lifting here. The intuition you have about how easy it is, is being implicitly converted to a subjectively estimated prior probability. There is a lot more work to do than that, to get truly well justified prior probability estimations. There is a lot of information we have to examine, and it is difficult to evaluate, and it is by no means easy to estimate the prior probabilities.
But there are plasma based propulsion concepts that, in theory, could be useful in our atmosphere for high performance vehicles.
External Quote:
In 2023 DARPA launched the PUMP program to build a marine engine using superconducting magnets expected to reach a field strength of 20 Tesla.[10]
Stronger technical limitations apply to air-breathing MHD propulsion (where ambient air is ionized) that is still limited to theoretical concepts and early experiments.[11][12][13]
External Quote:
The working principle involves the acceleration of an electrically conductive fluid (which can be a liquid or an ionized gas called a plasma) by the Lorentz force, resulting from the cross product of an electric current (motion of charge carriers accelerated by an electric field applied between two electrodes) with a perpendicular magnetic field. The Lorentz force accelerates all charged particles, positive and negative species (in opposite directions). If either positive or negative species dominate the vehicle is put in motion in the opposite direction from the net charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive#Aircraft_propulsionExternal Quote:
Such studies covers a field of resistive MHD with magnetic Reynolds number ≪ 1 using nonthermal weakly ionized gases, making the development of demonstrators much more difficult to realize than for MHD in liquids. "Cold plasmas" with magnetic fields are subject to the electrothermal instability occurring at a critical Hall parameter, which makes full-scale developments difficult.[43]
Prospects
MHD propulsion has been considered as the main propulsion system for both marine and space ships since there is no need to produce lift to counter the gravity of Earth in water (due to buoyancy) nor in space (due to weightlessness), which is ruled out in the case of flight in the atmosphere.
Nonetheless, considering the current problem of the electric power source solved (for example with the availability of a still missing multi-megawatt compact fusion reactor), one could imagine future aircraft of a new kind silently powered by MHD accelerators, able to ionize and direct enough air downward to lift several tonnes. As external flow systems can control the flow over the whole wetted area, limiting thermal issues at high speeds, ambient air would be ionized and radially accelerated by Lorentz forces around an axisymmetric body (shaped as a cylinder, a cone, a sphere...), the entire airframe being the engine. Lift and thrust would arise as a consequence of a pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces, induced by the Coandă effect.[44][45] In order to maximize such pressure difference between the two opposite sides, and since the most efficient MHD converters (with a high Hall effect) are disk-shaped, such MHD aircraft would be preferably flattened to take the shape of a biconvex lens. Having no wings nor airbreathing jet engines, it would share no similarities with conventional aircraft, but it would behave like a helicopter whose rotor blades would have been replaced by a "purely electromagnetic rotor" with no moving part, sucking the air downward. Such concepts of flying MHD disks have been developed in the peer review literature from the mid 1970s mainly by physicists Leik Myrabo with the Lightcraft,[46][47][48][49][50] and Subrata Roy with the Wingless Electromagnetic Air Vehicle (WEAV).[51][52][53]
These futuristic visions have been advertised in the media although they still remain beyond the reach of modern technology.[54][11][55]
The everyone can be mistaken or lying, and anything beyond our understanding is magic and therefore can't exist, epistemological framework has failed us repeatedly throughout history.The 29 Palms flares case shows how easy it is. I'm amazed you instead find it easier to believe in magical unknown technology from outer space.
I appreciate what you are doing; I've made the occasional graphic reconstruction myself (though not up to your standard); and there are several other CGI artists on this forum who are very good. But we all need to be aware that a graphic reconstruction can overpower the actual memories of those concerned. Memory is hard enough to pin down as it is.My "artists impression" is based on multiple reports and well known graphical reconstructions that have been around for well over a decade (probably two) already. Its not a commentary on the accuracy of the witness reports.
Artists do visualizations of stories. That's all I'm doing.
Well, quite. That is why photographic and video evidence is a useful source of evidence that can be analysed with some confidence, whereas eyewitness testimonies remain unreliable.You can use the everyone is mistaken or lying hypothetical as a candidate explanation for anything. And you can choose to interpret examples of people making mistakes and lying as evidence supporting that in every case.
You have put together a true proposition ('everyone can be mistaken or lying') with a false one ('anything beyond our understanding is magic', whoever said that, lol?) to derive an obviously false conclusion ('anything beyond our understanding can't exist') to create a fake epistemology which then you correctly dispatch. Not much useful, to say the best, but fun.The everyone can be mistaken or lying, and anything beyond our understanding is magic and therefore can't exist, epistemological framework has failed us repeatedly throughout history.
The 29 Palms flares case shows how easy it is. I'm amazed you instead find it easier to believe in magical unknown technology from outer space.
Quite a few of those concepts use an external laser based on the ground to illuminate the underneath of a disk-shaped craft, turning the air underneath the disk into plasma and producing lift that way. The laser would need to be incredibly bright, and the area of plasma under the vessel would be unbearably brilliant to look at.So, even for MHD used as an assist to traditional propulsion, is difficult.
It is not the case we have no evidence. It is the case we have insufficient evidence to form confident conclusions. The epistemological shortcomings I am talking about are to do with evaluating the evidence we do have, and estimating the priors, in order to weight the different hypotheses that we have, then ruling some out that shouldn't be, or asserting too much confidence in others. I believe that some are apriori ruling out (or assigning so little probability that it should be ignored) the actual reality of what is going on. I am fine with not knowing the answer yet, as I have no choice, but don't want to confidently rule out what actually ends up being the truth.You have put together a true proposition ('everyone can be mistaken or lying') with a false one ('anything beyond our understanding is magic', whoever said that, lol?) to derive an obviously false conclusion ('anything beyond our understanding cannot exist') to create a fake epistemology which then you correctly dispatch. Not much useful, to say the best.
I'll give you a hint of what a good epistemology looks like: the discriminant is having evidence vs. having none.
Thanks and I do appreciate where you're coming from. I just think its not my concern as an animator/illustrator, nor should it be. While I understand that visuals can influence perception, I'm not responsible for how an illustration might shape someone's evolving memory. My goal with the majority of my animations is to honour the story, not reinterpret or verify it. The Phoenix Lights animation was a rare exception where I took dramatic license & which I primarily did for fun and practise. Shortly after publishing it & receiving criticism from believers and sceptics due to its inaccuracy, I promptly made it "unlisted" so as not to cause confusion.I appreciate what you are doing; I've made the occasional graphic reconstruction myself (though not up to your standard); and there are several other CGI artists on this forum who are very good. But we all need to be aware that a graphic reconstruction can overpower the actual memories of those concerned. Memory is hard enough to pin down as it is.
But you showed none.It is not the case we have no evidence.
Same thing about the existence of leprechauns (why does it always ends in leprechauns? I guess I love the name). Can you exclude leprechauns exist? They could even travel in giant black triangular ships at times.It is the case we have insufficient evidence to form confident conclusions.
You're free to believe whatever pleases you. When you have the necessary evidence, you can come back here and I shall re-evaluate my opinion on the actual reality of what is going on. You worry too much about priors: cheer up, even the most dismal prior can be overcome by sufficient evidence, you only need that.The epistemological shortcomings I am talking about are to do with evaluating the evidence we do have, and estimating the priors, in order to weight the the different hypotheses that we have. I believe that some are apriori ruling out the actual reality of what is going on.
We're sill left at the situation where many of the black triangle UFOs people are reporting, cannot be explained with known technology
VRT NWS (national Flemish broadcaster, Belgium, 27 July 2011 https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2011/07/27/belgian_ufo_picturewasreallyaforgery-1-1075881/External Quote:
Belgian UFO picture was really a forgery
A photograph said to depict an unidentified flying object in the night sky above Wallonia that was seen across the globe over twenty years ago was a forgery. The picture was taken in Petit Rechain near Verviers in Liege province on 4 April 1990, but the Walloon photographer has now conceded that it was faked.
The photograph was influential. It features on the first numbered page of the UK Ministry of Defence's Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the UK Air Defence Region, the 400-page result of Project Condign (Wikipedia), which is viewable via the Black Vault website.External Quote:... the photographer Patrick Maréchal stated it was a picture of a polystyrene triangle with four lightbulbs.
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_CondignExternal Quote:Due to the secret nature of the report, it was apparently not subject to peer review, and it has been suggested that the "buoyant plasma" hypothesis would not have withstood independent scrutiny
Awkward, because the mesosphere and ionosphere are included in the term "atmosphere". We might charitably think the author(s) meant "...in the atmosphere, in the mesosphere and ionosphere" but we'd be wrong; the authors discuss the risks of aircraft collisions with buoyant plasmas, advising fighters shouldn't pull hard manoeuvres in attempts to intercept them and, though risk might be low, pilots should try to keep the UAP aft if spotted. However, the Mesosphere is far above the operating altitudes of jet fighters and airliners. There is no indication, AFAIK, that the report's air safety advice was forwarded to pilots or otherwise acted upon.External Quote:
Considerable evidence exists to support the thesis that the events are almost certainly attributable to physical , electrical and magnetic phenomena in the atmosphere, mesosphere and ionosphere.
Wikipedia, as above.External Quote:According to professor of religion Lisa J. Schwebel, claims of the miracle present a number of difficulties. Schwebel states, "Not only did all those present not see the phenomenon, but also there are considerable inconsistencies among witnesses as to what they did see". Schwebel also observes that there is no authentic photo of the solar phenomena claimed, "despite the presence of hundreds of reporters and photographers at the field"
External Quote:Arnold described them as a series of objects with convex shapes, though he later revealed that one of the objects differed from the other eight by being crescent-shaped. Several years later, Arnold would state he likened their movement to saucers skipping on water
External Quote:[Arnold] described the objects as 'flat like a pie-pan and somewhat bat-shaped'."
Note the "craft" has a distinct front and rear.External Quote:[Above] Kenneth Arnold's report to Army Air Forces (AAF) intelligence, dated July 12, 1947, which includes annotated sketches of the typical craft in the chain of nine objects
Arnold later posed with this artist's impression, which might be taken as a form of endorsement. Perhaps this is of the crescent-shaped object that he said was with 8 other objects (as drawn in his sketch for USAAF, above). As far as I'm aware, Arnold didn't describe seeing any surface details on the objects in his early descriptions.External Quote:A review of early newspaper stories indicates that immediately after his sighting, Arnold generally described the objects' shape as thin and flat, rounded in the front but chopped in the back and coming to a point
External Quote:Several years later, Arnold would state he likened their movement to saucers skipping on water, without comparing their actual shapes to saucers...
Yet strangely, not long after Arnold's sighting- and the press use of the term flying disc- lots of people reported seeing flying discs. Not craft of the shape reported by Arnold.External Quote:Starting June 26 and June 27, newspapers first began using the terms "flying saucer" and "flying disk" (or "disc") to describe the sighted objects. Thus the Arnold sighting is credited with giving rise to these popular terms. The actual origin of the terms is somewhat complicated. Jerome Clark cites a 1970 study by Herbert Strentz, who reviewed U.S. newspaper accounts of the Arnold UFO sighting, and concluded that the term was probably due to an editor or headline writer: the body of the early Arnold news stories did not use the term "flying saucer" or "flying disc... ...It wasn't until June 28 that Bequette [reporter from the East Oregonian newspaper] first used the term "flying disc" (but not "flying saucer").
Today's parade cost double AARO's annual budget. Make of that what you will.Where was DOGE when the UK MoD needed it?
Ah, I was speaking with tongue in cheek as it were. I'll remove that bit of my post.Today's parade cost double AARO's annual budget. Make of that what you will.
...and the rest?External Quote:
Which might suggest they're not technological artefacts. We have no testable, convincing evidence of their objective existence.We're sill left at the situation where many of the black triangle UFOs people are reporting, cannot be explained with known technology
I suggest you pick the best one you can think of, and start a thread for it. Other cases of "high quality multiple observer accounts" that have been mentioned by others in this thread (29 Palms, Phoenix Lights) have been shown to have been based on misunderstandings and misperceptions of mundane things like flares. But if you have a good one, put it out there and let's discuss it -- I can't really do much to evaluate lots of claimed cases that are not named.we have lots of high quality multiple observer accounts, that are hard to dismiss or explain
Same thing about the existence of leprechauns (why does it always ends in leprechauns? I guess I love the name).
I already admitted we don't have conclusive evidence. But I think we have sufficient evidence to take it seriously, and not dismiss it.Ah, I was speaking with tongue in cheek as it were. I'll remove that bit of my post.
What about the
...and the rest?External Quote:
Which might suggest they're not technological artefacts. We have no testable, convincing evidence of their objective existence.