Discovery Institute doesn’t believe in nuts&bolts aliens

The "evidence" usually gets debunked and then the debunking gets predictably hand-waved away by die-hard proponents.

This statement appears to show that you are completely ignorant of the fact that over large numbers of UFO sightings a considerable percentage of the reports have ended up unexplained despite having good amounts of data, completely contrary to the skeptics' claim that the more the data on a sighting the more likely it is to be conventionally explained. I won't bother to challenge you to explain away several of the better sightings. It would be a waste of effort.

However, there does seem to be a fair amount of evidence for a physical reality and also evidence that UFOs can mess with people's consciousness.

Honest question - what is the evidence for a physical reality?

There are a few claims out there - such as the metallic implant in Whitley Streiber's (IIRC) ear. And also some stuff about seeing physical craft.

However some of the accounts of physical craft seem to involve bizarre, Deep Weird events that suggest the craft are something like a dream-image of technology rather than something constructed on another planet/dimension and then brought to earth.

[Other] claims of physical craft also seem wanting. I say this not as a hard skeptic, as I do think something unconventional and paranormal is going on with UFOs/UAPs, but as someone deeply skeptical of the "nuts & bolts" hypothesis.

Honest question - what is the evidence for a physical reality?

There are a few claims out there - such as the metallic implant in Whitley Streiber's (IIRC) ear. And also some stuff about seeing physical craft.

However some of the accounts of physical craft seem to involve bizarre, Deep Weird events that suggest the craft are something like a dream-image of technology rather than something constructed on another planet/dimension and then brought to earth.

[Other] claims of physical craft also seem wanting. I say this not as a hard skeptic, as I do think something unconventional and paranormal is going on with UFOs/UAPs, but as someone deeply skeptical of the "nuts & bolts" hypothesis.

There seems to be quite a lot of military radar evidence.

David

There seems to be quite a lot of military radar evidence.

David

Ah ok, so nothing physical in the sense of craft.

This is what I thought was available as well.

Ah ok, so nothing physical in the sense of craft.

This is what I thought was available as well.

Nothing physical? You discount the strong evidence of there being in some cases an actual electromagnetic signal reflecting and emitting manufactured technological physical object or UFO vehicle. 

I would think that actual military air and ground recordings of radar contact with apparent UFO vehicles (indicating certainly occuring electromagnetic reflection of the radar pulses from a physical probably metallic object), plus recordings of apparent electronic radar and communications jamming signals (requiring physical ECM/ELINT transmitters of some sort within the UFO vehicle), all from the direction of the very bright light emitted by the vehicle, would be sufficient to establish the physicality of the UFO vehicle.

The following synopsizes the classic 1957 case of the Air Force RB47 jet ELINT/ECM aircraft (along with military ground station) encounters with a subsequently unexplained jamming signal-emitting and radar-reflecting apparent UFO vehicle:

Summarized at https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/...47-ufo.htm. This has been considered one of the best UFO vehicle cases ever. A better and more detailed account is at http://www.noufors.com/the_RB-47_ufo_encounter.html .

“Possessing the most sophisticated electronic intelligence (ELINT) gear available to the U.S. Air Force, the RB-47 could handle anything.

Unfortunately, in the morning hours of July 17, 1957, over the southern United States, an RB-47 came across something it was unprepared for.

In the first hint of what was to come, one of the three officers who operate the electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment detected an odd signal. Moving up the radar screen, the blip passed some distance in front of the RB-47, then over Mississippi. Though puzzled, he sai­d nothing. However, a few minutes later, at 4:10 A.M., the sudden appearance of an intense blue light bearing down on the aircraft shook the pilot and copilot. Even more unnerving, the object changed course in the blink of an eye and disappeared at the two o’clock position. The aircraft radar picked up a strong signal in the same spot. The UFO maintained this position even as the RB-47 continued toward east Texas.

The pilot then observed a “huge” light, attached, he suspected, to an even bigger something that the darkness obscured. When the electronics gear noted the presence of another UFO in the same general location as the first, the pilot turned the plane and accelerated toward it. The UFO shot away. By now the crew had alerted the Duncanville, Texas, Air Force ground radar station, and it was soon tracking the one UFO that remained (the second had disappeared after a brief time). At 4:50 radar showed the UFO abruptly stopping as the RB-47 passed under it. Barely seconds later it was gone.

This incredible case — considered one of the most significant UFO reports ever — remained classified for years. When it became known years later, the Air Force declared that the RB-47 crew had tracked an airliner. Physicist Gordon David Thayer, who investigated the incident for the University of Colorado UFO Project (Condon Report), called this explanation “literally ridiculous.””

Nothing physical? You discount the strong evidence of there being in some cases an actual electromagnetic signal reflecting and emitting manufactured technological physical object or UFO vehicle. 

I would think that actual military air and ground recordings of radar contact with apparent UFO vehicles (indicating certainly occuring electromagnetic reflection of the radar pulses from a physical probably metallic object), plus recordings of apparent electronic radar and communications jamming signals (requiring physical ECM/ELINT transmitters of some sort within the UFO vehicle), all from the direction of the very bright light emitted by the vehicle, would be sufficient to establish the physicality of the UFO vehicle.

The following synopsizes the classic 1957 case of the Air Force RB47 jet ELINT/ECM aircraft (along with military ground station) encounters with a subsequently unexplained jamming signal-emitting and radar-reflecting apparent UFO vehicle:

Summarized at https://science.howstuffworks.com/space/...47-ufo.htm. This has been considered one of the best UFO vehicle cases ever. A better and more detailed account is at http://www.noufors.com/the_RB-47_ufo_encounter.html .

If detection by radar is physical, why isn't detection by eyes?

If a ghost disturbed any detection equipment, does that make it physical and thus subject to entropy?

If detection by radar is physical, why isn't detection by eyes?

I suppose the aim is to distinguish the case where UFO's interact with human consciousness, as opposed to interact with physical matter. The latter leaves a physical record. However the hair splitting could probably go on for ever.

David

I suppose the aim is to distinguish the case where UFO's interact with human consciousness, as opposed to interact with physical matter. The latter leaves a physical record. However the hair splitting could probably go on for ever.

David

It's more that Nuts & Bolts is a claim that is rather weak in terms of actual evidence, and all the accounts don't really make a good case for the idea that aliens from another planet/dimension built a vehicle and used it to come here.

So less about hair splitting and more just realizing that Nuts & Bolts is a position rife with issues. Once we accept that we can start to think about what the UFO/UAP phenomena are actually about.

Radar picks up everything. Not only metallic objects. Radar observations are not good evidence for UFOs, e.g atmospheric phenomenas such as temperature inversions, humidity variations, or electromagnetic disturbances can create radar anomalies. These phenomena can cause radar to display objects that are not actually there. Visible observations correlated with radar are needed to even make a data point remotely interesting.

Pentagon acknowledged that there do exists abnomalies coupled with visual observations but that of course doesn’t mean it’s extraterrestial - it requires a vivid imagination to conclude that.

I’m sorry nbtruthman - there are no hidden nuts&bolts UFOs.

[Laird]

If detection by radar is physical, why isn't detection by eyes?

I guess that invites the question: if not radar combined with (matching) visuals - both by military personnel - then what would you accept as evidence of physicality?