Featured “Extraordinary Claims DEMAND Extraordinary Evidence”

[Multicolored Lemur]

The story behind the "Tic Tac" UFO sighting by Navy pilots in 2004

Retired Navy pilot David Fravor said that in 2004 off the coast of Southern California, advanced radar detected what operators called "multiple anomalous aerial vehicles" descending 80,000 feet in less than a second.

www.cbsnews.com

‘ . . He and Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich were training with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group about 100 miles southwest of San Diego, Favor told "60 Minutes." At the time, advanced radar on a ship that was a part of their training group, the USS Princeton, detected what operators called "multiple anomalous aerial vehicles" over the horizon, descending 80,000 feet in less than a second. Fravor and Dietrich diverted to investigate. . ’

.

.

‘Fravor went in for a closer look. He described the "Tic Tac" object mirroring his movements, saying "it was aware we were there." . . ’

—————————

This is the 2004 “Tic Tac” sighting, called that because the oval shape kind of looked like a Tic Tac candy. The fact that’s there’s also radar makes it a better sighting.

However —

the part about mirroring the pilot’s actions makes it sound like an optical phenomenon.


?? ice clouds that reflect light ??

?? can radar also be bounced in weird ways ??

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

The Thames River at night, illustrating that light can do weird things.

——-//-/—

Unrelated to this, I think there is something called a “Sun dog.”

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So, you’re saying the UFO evidence didn’t get better, we just started to look at it more honestly?

I think both played a role, but the latter option plays the biggest role. Here's why I believe that...

I don't think the quality of evidence has changed much (since the 1990s at least), but the quantity of evidence has. That probably plays a role but not by much I believe. Most of the good evidence for UFOs is just video footage, which I think we've had since the time that cameras started becoming more widespread (1990s and on). The Phoenix Lights had a lot of video documentation and that was in the year 1997. This is a good point where I think people should've started taking UFOs seriously.

Fast forward to 2021, which is the time when the Pentagon publicly acknowledged the existence of UFOs (they call it Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAP). I really think with the government, they always were curious about it but kept it secret. But with the academia, there was always a taboo and that started to change to make UFOs a more serious topic once the US government came out publically about it.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

But with the academia, there was always a taboo and that started to change to make UFOs a more serious topic once the US government came out publically about it.

and therefore, someone studying to get their Master’s degree or PhD can study the field with a lot less ridicule.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Made this post elsewhere but it's also relevant here...

The world back then was largely illiterate. That alone would be reason to not expect many writings about extraordinary events such as the resurrection.

I think I’m starting to understand how you and I might view things differently.

I think you take the view that we accept details on certain battles involving Julius Caesar based on much later writings, and we should do the same with the Resurrection.

Whereas I'm saying, the bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence needs to be.

That goes with a common point that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I tend to disagree with that point because it almost sounds as though we're expecting some mind-blowing type of evidence, may as well even call it some miraculous level type of evidence. In my view, the type of evidence is limited to what the field can produce. Since the resurrection is a past event, then the type of evidence we could expect for it is historical level. I believe we have that. As an example, let's even say that a modern-day resurrection occurred and we had scientific evidence of the person dying and coming back to life. Wouldn't that type of medical evidence be like any other type of ordinary? medical evidence? Or I can ask what would be considered extraordinary evidence (more than medical evidence?) and why would that be required.

In some cases, I think the issue is that some are wanting the evidence to be able to explain all of the implications, explain how it would square with already known events, etc. My response to that would be that we don't need to fully understand something before establishing that it exists (example UFOs, consciousness, etc). We can have evidence to establish existence, and then gather additional evidence to help explain all of the other things. I mean others might bring up there being an anti-supernatural bias or that skeptics are really rejecting these things based on metaphysical reasons and not because of evidence, but I can go more on that if that comes up in our discussions.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

As an example, let's even say that a modern-day resurrection occurred and we had scientific evidence of the person dying and coming back to life. Wouldn't that type of medical evidence be like any other type of ordinary? medical evidence?

You bring up good points. I will take my time and think about them.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

ordinary? medical evidence?

Yes, in the vast majority of cases.

I mean, I don't think we should try to develop and use unusual methods at the same time we're facing an unusual situation.

For example, we’re good at CT scans, MRI's, growing microbes in petri dishes, toxicology screens, etc, etc, etc. So many methods! Let's use what we’re good at, first and foremost.

And then maybe cautiously introduce 1 or 2 new methods.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

You bring up good points. I will take my time and think about them.

Wasn't just directed to you but really to the whole idea about extraordinary evidence.

Yes, in the vast majority of cases.

I mean, I don't think we should try to unusual methods at the same time we're facing an unusual situation.

For example, we’re good at CT scans, MRI's, growing microbes in petri dishes, toxicology screens, etc, etc, etc. So many methods! Let's use what we’re good at first and foremost.

And then maybe cautiously introduce 1 or 2 new methods.

I imagine that in some cases we do need new methods and maybe even a new science. That seems to be one thought when it comes to things like UFOs. And that's because the UFOs are elusive and we seem to lack the tech to study aerial phenomenon. Just look at how the authorities seemed helpless when dealing with the recent New Jersey drones that were flying all over the place for a month.

But in other cases, I don't think that's necessary for all extraordinary events. Like for a resurrection, I think we do have the tools to do a lot even if it is not to fully explain it. The medical tools are adequate enough, and if otherwise, then it's up to the skeptic to explain why not or why dismiss any current medical evidence entirely for a vague "extraordinary" level of evidence.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Like for a resurrection, I think we do have the tools to do a lot even if it is not to fully explain it. The medical tools are adequate enough, and if otherwise, then it's up to the skeptic to explain why not or why dismiss any current medical evidence entirely for a vague "extraordinary" level of evidence.

If I was trying to “win” a debate, I might say, hey, we need to take a tissue biopsy of heart tissue which shows decomposition of cells, etc, etc.

But that seems excessive.

From the book The Great Train Robbery by Michael Crichton , the same guy who wrote Jurassic Park, people in 1800s England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, were scared to death of being buried alive. They even attached the finger of the corpse to a chord which could ring a bell in the coffin.

worried the person might be in a spell somehow ? ? ?

Then the story in the Gospel of John that Jesus’ friend Lazarus was dead for 4 whole days and raised by Jesus. This could have built up from rumor and legend, but then again, maybe there something to it.

* and please notice that my saying 4 “whole” days may have added to this. That may not be what John says.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

IMPROVED BURIAL-CASE - Brown & Michaels

www.bpmlegal.com

“This patent, one of literally dozens on coffins with escape hatches and/or signaling means, may seem odd to twenty-first century eyes, but it reflects more a change in the world than latent insanity on the part of our mid- to late-eighteenth century ancestors.

“One reads in many 18th century sources of the exhumed corpses with hair and nails grown long, the fingernail scratches in the coffin lid, etc., but there are few reliably documented cases of live burial. While the reports of live burials are suspect, the fear of burial alive was very real. When the Industrial Revolution was new there were no reliable methods for determining death. At the same time, new methods of putting people in comas (electricity, chemicals, industrial accidents from the new machinery and railroads, etc.) were multiplying.”

———

Weird.

But this is something people used to worry about.