UFOs shows government competence as either surprisingly high or low(overcomingbias.com)
overcomingbias.com
UFOs shows government competence as either surprisingly high or low
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2021/05/ufos-say-govt-competence-is-either-surprisingly-high-or-surprisingly-low.html
259 comments
What you saw might have been ball lightning.
A friend and I saw one when we were kids. I only came to find out what it was many years later. From the distance it looked no different than an airplane light until it got really close, around 30ft from us. It looked like a ball of white light, a bit larger than a basketball. There was no clear contour, like when you look at a very bright lamp. It made no noise whatsoever. We lost it from sight for a moment and it was gone.
I'm not totally sure but I think the sky was clear that night.
A friend and I saw one when we were kids. I only came to find out what it was many years later. From the distance it looked no different than an airplane light until it got really close, around 30ft from us. It looked like a ball of white light, a bit larger than a basketball. There was no clear contour, like when you look at a very bright lamp. It made no noise whatsoever. We lost it from sight for a moment and it was gone.
I'm not totally sure but I think the sky was clear that night.
Do you remember the weather? Were there low clouds? Are you on a hill or near a valley?
If it is just a silent incandescent circle it is possible that you saw light from a car or other similar object reflecting on a fog/cloud or maybe temperature difference in the air.
If it is just a silent incandescent circle it is possible that you saw light from a car or other similar object reflecting on a fog/cloud or maybe temperature difference in the air.
I’d say it was clear sky, but honestly I don’t remember the weather. The topology of the terrain is flat.
Chances are it was some sort of atmospheric optic phenomenon, but I’ve never seen anything like it since.
Chances are it was some sort of atmospheric optic phenomenon, but I’ve never seen anything like it since.
What is paradoxical is that decades ago we had many pcitures in newspapers with UFOs or Jesus/Mary apparitions (and here in Romania there were newspaper focused only on paranormal stories vampires,ghosts, witches etc) but today when is easy to create proofs with your phone the number of this encounters decreased instead of increasing.
Btw my father has a similar story to tell (but with a small ball of light that moved around the home and garden) so IMO there are some natural phenomena that we do not understand well and manifest as spherical lights,
Btw my father has a similar story to tell (but with a small ball of light that moved around the home and garden) so IMO there are some natural phenomena that we do not understand well and manifest as spherical lights,
There are so many phones with cameras, there are dash cams in cars, there are home security cams and yet no credible ball lightning video.
What does that tell you?
What does that tell you?
Good question, what does it tell you?
let me add some extra info, the incident happened 50+ years ago in a village without electricity. So we have no light pollution or devices to distract people. There were 3 witnesses so it was no hallucination, so what could it be ? maybe insects, someone prank , or a rare phenomena.
But for sure I expect to see more videos with such phenomena ,I do not think that light pollution and less people outside in nature can explain the missing of the videos.
But for sure I expect to see more videos with such phenomena ,I do not think that light pollution and less people outside in nature can explain the missing of the videos.
> There were 3 witnesses so it was no hallucination
A mass hallucination is a phenomenon in which a large group of people, usually in physical proximity to each other, all experience the same hallucination simultaneously.
https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Mass_hallucination
A mass hallucination is a phenomenon in which a large group of people, usually in physical proximity to each other, all experience the same hallucination simultaneously.
https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Mass_hallucination
Was it translucent? Maybe it was a circular beam of light from the local discoteque reflecting from the clouds :D
As a kid, I was in an astronomy group and knew the skies well.
First time I saw a discoteque lights in the sky, I was sure I am seeing an UFO. I noted down the time and place but realized since it was in the sky constantly that it can't really be an UFO. Later I learned it was just a reflector pointed to the sky.
I wouldn't be surprised if a similar effect but from car lights or plane lights could throw people off. Since it could be a one time event, it's hard to explain it.
First time I saw a discoteque lights in the sky, I was sure I am seeing an UFO. I noted down the time and place but realized since it was in the sky constantly that it can't really be an UFO. Later I learned it was just a reflector pointed to the sky.
I wouldn't be surprised if a similar effect but from car lights or plane lights could throw people off. Since it could be a one time event, it's hard to explain it.
Nope. At that point we had no disco light. Small town, Eastern Europe. And the cloud cover would be way too low.
Hi. Hotlinking doesn't work directly, but I figured out what you were pointing to: the portal from Dr. Strange.
I took the liberty to illustrate how I remember it, note that the picture is randomly from the internet and not as it was: https://i.postimg.cc/3NbJ0tvT/HNUFO.png .
I took the liberty to illustrate how I remember it, note that the picture is randomly from the internet and not as it was: https://i.postimg.cc/3NbJ0tvT/HNUFO.png .
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_phenomenon
What is crazy is that if the people in this movie are not lying, then every person on earth should be trying to solve this mystery. It would take crazy technology and time for anything to travel from another galaxy and be able to handle this environment without slowly studying and incorporating our DNA into theirs over a period of time.(60 years is nothing when you think about it) What is even crazier is that a whole civilization could be living in our own ocean without detection, especially if said civilization had the technology to get here in the first place. Look it all sounds crazy but nothing is crazier than aliens from another planet actually finding us and traveling the distance. The intelligence and technology to do this is not even comparable using living things born on earth. (The difference between the intelligence of Albert Einstein and an ant is far less than Albert Einstein and some living thing which is able to make it to earth and live here undetected for 60/? years )
Honestly if the UFO thing, which has been an issue since the 40's, turn out to be some counter intelligence mind control military garbage..
My theory: Humans are at an evolutionary point where they can't advance without outside help. For example we think we are smart ("Mars is out next home") yet we cannot even stop ourselves from dumping chemicals into our oceans, knowing it is making it harder for us to reproduce.
What is crazy is that if the people in this movie are not lying, then every person on earth should be trying to solve this mystery. It would take crazy technology and time for anything to travel from another galaxy and be able to handle this environment without slowly studying and incorporating our DNA into theirs over a period of time.(60 years is nothing when you think about it) What is even crazier is that a whole civilization could be living in our own ocean without detection, especially if said civilization had the technology to get here in the first place. Look it all sounds crazy but nothing is crazier than aliens from another planet actually finding us and traveling the distance. The intelligence and technology to do this is not even comparable using living things born on earth. (The difference between the intelligence of Albert Einstein and an ant is far less than Albert Einstein and some living thing which is able to make it to earth and live here undetected for 60/? years )
Honestly if the UFO thing, which has been an issue since the 40's, turn out to be some counter intelligence mind control military garbage..
My theory: Humans are at an evolutionary point where they can't advance without outside help. For example we think we are smart ("Mars is out next home") yet we cannot even stop ourselves from dumping chemicals into our oceans, knowing it is making it harder for us to reproduce.
> (The difference between the intelligence of Albert Einstein and an ant is far less than Albert Einstein and some living thing which is able to make it to earth and live here undetected for 60/? years )
Eh? That’s a really weird way of looking at intelligence.
By all accounts of you pluck baby from 10,000 BCE and raise it today it wouldn’t be any different than an average person today.
Now one can argue that aliens might be much more physiologically intelligent than humans on a biological level but that’s not necessarily a given or a requirement.
“Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” is true but it doesn’t mean that you can’t understand if it’s explained to you.
An alien civilization that simply has a time lead on humanity might be much more advanced but it doesn’t mean that we won’t be able to understand the physics of how they got here once we learn about it.
An ant is severely limited by biology, for the most part it can not really learn or understand things on an abstract level. Humans on the other hand very much can, if aliens can travel faster than light by exploiting some new physics we just need access to their Wikipedia.
Eh? That’s a really weird way of looking at intelligence.
By all accounts of you pluck baby from 10,000 BCE and raise it today it wouldn’t be any different than an average person today.
Now one can argue that aliens might be much more physiologically intelligent than humans on a biological level but that’s not necessarily a given or a requirement.
“Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” is true but it doesn’t mean that you can’t understand if it’s explained to you.
An alien civilization that simply has a time lead on humanity might be much more advanced but it doesn’t mean that we won’t be able to understand the physics of how they got here once we learn about it.
An ant is severely limited by biology, for the most part it can not really learn or understand things on an abstract level. Humans on the other hand very much can, if aliens can travel faster than light by exploiting some new physics we just need access to their Wikipedia.
The aliens might also be less intelligent than humans, but more advanced technologically due to the lead time or just higher cooperativity. "Dumb aliens" could be a refreshing premise for a sci-fi story.. although it lies on the same continuum as any ant-like intelligent collective, so it's nothing new after all.
It's a cool idea. I'd bet that it's unlikely for a sufficiently intelligent species (say one capable of creating machines to cross interstellar distances) to stay dumb, though.
Humanity is fast approaching the point where we can edit our genes or otherwise select for intelligence. Even the idea of creating non-human super intelligent agents of some sort is arguably within reach over the course of the next few hundred years.
I like to think that though the starting average intelligence for a given species might be lower than others, eventually we all wind up at the same place, either turning ourselves into or building some hypothetically (given the laws of the universe) maximally intelligent system.
Humanity is fast approaching the point where we can edit our genes or otherwise select for intelligence. Even the idea of creating non-human super intelligent agents of some sort is arguably within reach over the course of the next few hundred years.
I like to think that though the starting average intelligence for a given species might be lower than others, eventually we all wind up at the same place, either turning ourselves into or building some hypothetically (given the laws of the universe) maximally intelligent system.
[deleted]
Here's a classic one:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3302567-pandora-s-planet
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3302567-pandora-s-planet
Isaac Arthur made a video titled “Stupid Aliens”:
https://youtu.be/yXWe8g0zziw
https://youtu.be/yXWe8g0zziw
Yeah ancient folks were still smart. Engineers and scientists of all sorts still. I think people often give way too much weight to intelligence, and not enough to just tools.
Give a dude in 1000 a voltmeter and things get crazy.
Give a dude in 1000 a voltmeter and things get crazy.
[deleted]
> By all accounts of you pluck baby from 10,000 BCE and raise it today it wouldn’t be any different than an average person today.
There are people who would disagree with this.
There are people who would disagree with this.
Why ? I've heard that things might have changed 80k years ago when thanks to cultural progress autism went from negative to positive (for the community), but otherwise AFAIK there haven't been any significant changes since the apparition of homo sapiens 350k-400k years ago ?
There is an argument that the mind of people changed a few thousand years ago, part as a cultural phenomenon, part as a genetic selection process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
(the genetic selection process is mentioned in the book, the wiki abstract puts more focus on a cultural development)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
(the genetic selection process is mentioned in the book, the wiki abstract puts more focus on a cultural development)
The bicameral mind is an interesting story, but it is not taken as a serious possibility in any branch of science that studies the human mind, as far as I know.
That's a fascinating theory, but also quite a wild claim which seems to be hard to falsify ? (And the link with the matter at hand is even more tenuous, since it's only partially genetic.)
It's a bit like if you were saying that you couldn't teach a prehistoric child to read (but even more exaggerated) ?
It's a bit like if you were saying that you couldn't teach a prehistoric child to read (but even more exaggerated) ?
Everything so far ago is at least hard to prove/falsify, however this is true either way. I think every possible scenario (prehistorics being of more, less or equal potential) is at least plausible. At least it's easy to come up with arguments for each of these cases (and a hidden one being of different brain specialization).
Not really since we do have DNA sequencing of prehistoric humans.
Whilst we don’t understand the correlation between genetics and intelligence on a sufficient level there aren’t that many genetic differences in fact you can’t necessarily distinguish the age of the sample that easily either unless you are looking at very specific groups.
And as far as modern hunter gatherers go we know that they aren’t less intelligent than urban humans.
Whilst we don’t understand the correlation between genetics and intelligence on a sufficient level there aren’t that many genetic differences in fact you can’t necessarily distinguish the age of the sample that easily either unless you are looking at very specific groups.
And as far as modern hunter gatherers go we know that they aren’t less intelligent than urban humans.
People have also claimed, hunters may have been smarter on average. BTW, DNA sequencing does not tell you much. You would need an extremely big sample for comparisons, and even this would exclude methylation patterns and other things.
People claim a lot of things, it doesn’t mean they are of substance.
We have sufficient evidence of advanced tool making and culture spanning back far enough through human history to indicate that intelligence isn't a modern fluke, heck copper mining and smelting dates back to at least 9000 BCE, the pyramids in Giza date back to 2600 BCE which means that we are closer to Caesar to today than Caesar was to the pyramids.
While I’m open to discussion that over 350-400K years some evolutionary steps happened as far as our intelligence goes. But I am more than comfortable with stating that plucking a human from 10K BCE and exposing them to modern education would yield an average human today.
We have sufficient evidence of advanced tool making and culture spanning back far enough through human history to indicate that intelligence isn't a modern fluke, heck copper mining and smelting dates back to at least 9000 BCE, the pyramids in Giza date back to 2600 BCE which means that we are closer to Caesar to today than Caesar was to the pyramids.
While I’m open to discussion that over 350-400K years some evolutionary steps happened as far as our intelligence goes. But I am more than comfortable with stating that plucking a human from 10K BCE and exposing them to modern education would yield an average human today.
One of my favourite cyberpunk novels was inspired by this, Snow Crash.
Autism is by (original) definition a disorder. If everyone has that disorder, then it is no longer a disorder.
I think many people confuse specializaiton, focus and/or intellect with autism.
I think many people confuse specializaiton, focus and/or intellect with autism.
I feel that is just one of the definitions of autism ?
Anyway, I didn't want to suggest that everyone had to have it :
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25484160
Anyway, I didn't want to suggest that everyone had to have it :
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25484160
> What is crazy is that if the people in this movie are not lying, then every person on earth should be trying to solve this mystery
To be fair that's also true of Lord of the Rings :)
But being serious, the scientific mindedness of army personnel and politicians is not widely reputed. I find it still far more likely that they are overblowing simple flukes for fear of dismissing a legitimate threat, than I find it that we are occasionally stumbling into high-technology that contradicts our understanding of physics.
The fact that these sightings are almost always happening at high altitudes and in stressful situations makes it even more likely that they are instrument or human blips, or rare weather-related phenomena.
To be fair that's also true of Lord of the Rings :)
But being serious, the scientific mindedness of army personnel and politicians is not widely reputed. I find it still far more likely that they are overblowing simple flukes for fear of dismissing a legitimate threat, than I find it that we are occasionally stumbling into high-technology that contradicts our understanding of physics.
The fact that these sightings are almost always happening at high altitudes and in stressful situations makes it even more likely that they are instrument or human blips, or rare weather-related phenomena.
>The fact that these sightings are almost always happening at high altitudes and in stressful situations
But that isn't a fact. I strongly recommend you read up on the complete timeline of the Nimitz incident. It happened over several days and was recorded on an entire suite of sensors including multiple sets of human eyeballs.
But that isn't a fact. I strongly recommend you read up on the complete timeline of the Nimitz incident. It happened over several days and was recorded on an entire suite of sensors including multiple sets of human eyeballs.
> What is crazy is that if the people in this movie are not lying, then every person on earth should be trying to solve this mystery.
If the people in the movie are not lying, are not taken out of context, and are not mistaken.
If the people in the movie are not lying, are not taken out of context, and are not mistaken.
There’s not much to investigate. People say they say something that’s not there now and wasn’t when they reported it, in most cases that nobody else saw and with little useful information.
I watched that documentary, it is certainly very well researched. I note that Christopher Mellon (fmr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense) on May 5 appeared on the Joe Rogan show for 3 hours, it's worth a listen.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2V0uWX1C4m8xEL0HHYqbnE
I'm with you on this. What I think is crazy tho is how ready and willing many people are to discount, absolutely discount and say, "well that is crazy" the experiences of so many people, who open themselves to ridicule and share some weird thing that happened. And these people are prepared to judge, discount, minimize and dismiss, these other human beings, because....it didn't personally happen to the person judging?
That seems incredibly ungenerous, and low empathy. Even for regular human behavior. So, why, in this case?
There's even more respect, in the main, between people of different religious faiths.
So why? Because some big "Authority Agency with Capital A" has not come out and told everyone, "It's OK, it's OK for you to think this is true now, because we can tell you, we checked, and it's True." Is it really driven by fear of stigma and lack of endorsement by authority? Are we really all living in the Earth-centric, pre-Galileo, dark ages?
The sad, and I think the crazy, thing is, yes, to some extent we are still living in that time, with regard to human mindset and the manipulability of people in large groups via narratives and authority. Even in this age, with all our progress, all our tech, all our ideas and discussions and connectedness.
Like why are we trusting all these theorists and commentators over the people who say they have experience?
A striking parallel I think is with the Time's Up / Me Too movement. It strikes me that we as a society, used to, and in many ways still do, treat survivor's of abuse, domestic and sexual violence as "crazy UFO nuts", who no matter how many come forward, often at great personal cost, to share their stories, and to try to establish some equality, healing and justice. Despite this, and despite the obvious reality that (Ca) there must be some reality behind all these stories and (Cb) not all of these people are simply delusional or making things up, people are so ready and willing to just discount them, and to listen to all the theorists and commentators discounting their experiences.
What I wonder is, how can we as a society do that, and how can the people who judge them do that, when we, and those people judging them, have no idea either way, but are ready to do so, to these other human beings who may be at one of their most vulnerable times. Even when multiple people corroborate their stories.
So while it's a different set of stories, our reaction, and lack of consideration for these brave people, is strikingly similar. To me at least. Maybe now's ripe for a Time's Up or Me Too movement for people who's stories of UFO encounters and ET contact have been dismissed, minimized, discounted and ridiculed for too long. No?
The other thing I think is crazy, is how so many of us are prepared to dig in a position on this topic where none of has really has any idea what's going on. Stake out a tiny circle of our own certainty and say, "Now, here is the truth. All those who doubt me, are clearly nuts." Why does this topic trigger such idiotic, low-empathy and crazy behavior from otherwise extremely logical, balanced and productive individuals?
That seems incredibly ungenerous, and low empathy. Even for regular human behavior. So, why, in this case?
There's even more respect, in the main, between people of different religious faiths.
So why? Because some big "Authority Agency with Capital A" has not come out and told everyone, "It's OK, it's OK for you to think this is true now, because we can tell you, we checked, and it's True." Is it really driven by fear of stigma and lack of endorsement by authority? Are we really all living in the Earth-centric, pre-Galileo, dark ages?
The sad, and I think the crazy, thing is, yes, to some extent we are still living in that time, with regard to human mindset and the manipulability of people in large groups via narratives and authority. Even in this age, with all our progress, all our tech, all our ideas and discussions and connectedness.
Like why are we trusting all these theorists and commentators over the people who say they have experience?
A striking parallel I think is with the Time's Up / Me Too movement. It strikes me that we as a society, used to, and in many ways still do, treat survivor's of abuse, domestic and sexual violence as "crazy UFO nuts", who no matter how many come forward, often at great personal cost, to share their stories, and to try to establish some equality, healing and justice. Despite this, and despite the obvious reality that (Ca) there must be some reality behind all these stories and (Cb) not all of these people are simply delusional or making things up, people are so ready and willing to just discount them, and to listen to all the theorists and commentators discounting their experiences.
What I wonder is, how can we as a society do that, and how can the people who judge them do that, when we, and those people judging them, have no idea either way, but are ready to do so, to these other human beings who may be at one of their most vulnerable times. Even when multiple people corroborate their stories.
So while it's a different set of stories, our reaction, and lack of consideration for these brave people, is strikingly similar. To me at least. Maybe now's ripe for a Time's Up or Me Too movement for people who's stories of UFO encounters and ET contact have been dismissed, minimized, discounted and ridiculed for too long. No?
The other thing I think is crazy, is how so many of us are prepared to dig in a position on this topic where none of has really has any idea what's going on. Stake out a tiny circle of our own certainty and say, "Now, here is the truth. All those who doubt me, are clearly nuts." Why does this topic trigger such idiotic, low-empathy and crazy behavior from otherwise extremely logical, balanced and productive individuals?
I think the sad reality is a sizable portion of the population is waiting for permission from mainstream sources before acknowledging the new reality.
The normalization campaign has already begun (2017 NY Times report) and the next big push is the June 2021 release.
The normalization campaign has already begun (2017 NY Times report) and the next big push is the June 2021 release.
Definitely agree with that.
Maybe all of this is just the government or the corporate interests trying to get out in front of this narrative because there's been a proliferation of speculation growing over the last couple of years and now they intend to go full bluebook style to try to put an end to that to try to control the narrative, and maybe, in line with that, they'll come out and say, look all of this stuff is either misinterpreted data or it's our own classified projects and we can say no more about it. In an attempt to shut down that speculation which is really started to get a major foothold in the mass consciousness.
Or maybe they're going to throw their arms up in the air and say we have no fucking idea what's going on, leaving the door slightly ajar for more information to come out in future.
I'm not optimistic we're going to see a big reveal, such as, these are the trading agreements we have with extraterrestrial civilizations and these are all the devices and recovered objects and craft we've reverse engineered and these are the different types of extra terrestrials that were aware of and oh by the way sorry for gaslighting you and intimidating witnesses over the last 60 years, and sorry for rubber stamping programs of alien genetic experimentation on Earth but please don't blame us the aliens twisted our arm. But you never know.
I actually think the government is basically like a pinata in this issue I think they're the ones that cop blame but I think that's by design I think the real movers and shakers behind all this have to be corporate interests some sort of corporate funded military industrial deep state that controls and utilizes this technology and information.
I think it's rather unfortunate that it's sort of the government's job to be The whipping boy and to take all the public blame and for everyone sort of blame the government for all their suppressing the technology but I don't think it's actually the government at all.
And I certainly don't buy the explanation that people simply couldn't handle it. I think it's much more likely that it's a cabal of corporate interests that simply wants to control this advantage and not have it sort of opened up. I think the sad reality is in this issue the government answers to those interests.
I think all of the narrative we have about this all of the stories of galactic civilizations all of the really detailed so-called whistleblower testimony I think it's all an elaborate mythological disinformation narrative crafted by the corporate interests that want to control whatever this phenomenon, technology and information is. and the more conflict there is between different groups, the more some people are true believers some people are true to bunkers, the better that is for the disinformation agents because that controlled opposition, that triggered conflict, gives them ample opportunities to control the narrative and protect their own interests.
After trying to absorb a lot of this information reflect on it and study things in this space the last couple of years that's one perspective I have that is pretty strong and compelling to me right now. I would love for it to be different so let's wait and see.
Maybe all of this is just the government or the corporate interests trying to get out in front of this narrative because there's been a proliferation of speculation growing over the last couple of years and now they intend to go full bluebook style to try to put an end to that to try to control the narrative, and maybe, in line with that, they'll come out and say, look all of this stuff is either misinterpreted data or it's our own classified projects and we can say no more about it. In an attempt to shut down that speculation which is really started to get a major foothold in the mass consciousness.
Or maybe they're going to throw their arms up in the air and say we have no fucking idea what's going on, leaving the door slightly ajar for more information to come out in future.
I'm not optimistic we're going to see a big reveal, such as, these are the trading agreements we have with extraterrestrial civilizations and these are all the devices and recovered objects and craft we've reverse engineered and these are the different types of extra terrestrials that were aware of and oh by the way sorry for gaslighting you and intimidating witnesses over the last 60 years, and sorry for rubber stamping programs of alien genetic experimentation on Earth but please don't blame us the aliens twisted our arm. But you never know.
I actually think the government is basically like a pinata in this issue I think they're the ones that cop blame but I think that's by design I think the real movers and shakers behind all this have to be corporate interests some sort of corporate funded military industrial deep state that controls and utilizes this technology and information.
I think it's rather unfortunate that it's sort of the government's job to be The whipping boy and to take all the public blame and for everyone sort of blame the government for all their suppressing the technology but I don't think it's actually the government at all.
And I certainly don't buy the explanation that people simply couldn't handle it. I think it's much more likely that it's a cabal of corporate interests that simply wants to control this advantage and not have it sort of opened up. I think the sad reality is in this issue the government answers to those interests.
I think all of the narrative we have about this all of the stories of galactic civilizations all of the really detailed so-called whistleblower testimony I think it's all an elaborate mythological disinformation narrative crafted by the corporate interests that want to control whatever this phenomenon, technology and information is. and the more conflict there is between different groups, the more some people are true believers some people are true to bunkers, the better that is for the disinformation agents because that controlled opposition, that triggered conflict, gives them ample opportunities to control the narrative and protect their own interests.
After trying to absorb a lot of this information reflect on it and study things in this space the last couple of years that's one perspective I have that is pretty strong and compelling to me right now. I would love for it to be different so let's wait and see.
you are saying we can't stop destroying environment, but it's entirely possible we just haven't managed it yet. as you said 60 years is not that much history wise
The author's explanations of UFOs:
(A) Honest mistakes
(B) New Govt. Tech
(C) Hoaxes & Lies
(D) Aliens, Etc.
It seems an obvious oversight to me that unexplained physical phenomena are missing, e.g. weather/atmospheric effects that are extremely rare and wait to be discovered.
In terms of likelihood the complementary event is "we have discovered all existing weather/atmospheric effects" which has probability zero.
That's the exciting thing about UFOs - rule out mistakes, hoaxes and aliens and you are left with new tech and new physical phenomena!
(A) Honest mistakes
(B) New Govt. Tech
(C) Hoaxes & Lies
(D) Aliens, Etc.
It seems an obvious oversight to me that unexplained physical phenomena are missing, e.g. weather/atmospheric effects that are extremely rare and wait to be discovered.
In terms of likelihood the complementary event is "we have discovered all existing weather/atmospheric effects" which has probability zero.
That's the exciting thing about UFOs - rule out mistakes, hoaxes and aliens and you are left with new tech and new physical phenomena!
UFOs exist. Alien spaceships do not.
Occam's Razor.
Also, having the technology to fly light years through interstellar space, means that you should surely be able to construct a craft that doesn't crash on Earth (Roswell), or waste your time flying for years to dip into the atmosphere, do a little light show and fly off, or harassing a farmer in the middle of nowhere vs landing in Central Park.
The gimbal video and others have all be plausibly explained.
Everyone on planet Earth now carries the best photographic equipment in human history in their pockets. Where are 20MP pictures of flying saucers? Similarly Bigfoot (Bigfeet?), Yetis, the Loch Ness monster, and so on.
Occam's Razor.
Also, having the technology to fly light years through interstellar space, means that you should surely be able to construct a craft that doesn't crash on Earth (Roswell), or waste your time flying for years to dip into the atmosphere, do a little light show and fly off, or harassing a farmer in the middle of nowhere vs landing in Central Park.
The gimbal video and others have all be plausibly explained.
Everyone on planet Earth now carries the best photographic equipment in human history in their pockets. Where are 20MP pictures of flying saucers? Similarly Bigfoot (Bigfeet?), Yetis, the Loch Ness monster, and so on.
Occam's Razor is a heuristic. It does not determine what is real or not. According to your usage of the Occam's Razor, relativity and quantum mechanics would be invalid because classic mechanics is much simpler. That's not how science works.
No, because classic mechanics isn't an "explanation" for observed reality.
God this is such an awful thread.
God this is such an awful thread.
UFO stuff seems mostly driven by the west, wouldn't be surprised if it was just a psy-ops. To get some more defense funding for the space force.
If you can generate almost infinite energy to cross deep space to probe some humans I'm not sure I would take such an alien race serious. It would be more like how global factions on earth fight over resources, so I subscribe more to the Dark forest view of things. If they reckon crossing deep space is worth it, they will come over here to invade not to probe and troll farmers.
If you can generate almost infinite energy to cross deep space to probe some humans I'm not sure I would take such an alien race serious. It would be more like how global factions on earth fight over resources, so I subscribe more to the Dark forest view of things. If they reckon crossing deep space is worth it, they will come over here to invade not to probe and troll farmers.
> UFO stuff seems mostly driven by the west
This is what smells the most, to me. Why are almost all the sightings we hear about in the US? You'd expect them to be evenly distributed.
This is what smells the most, to me. Why are almost all the sightings we hear about in the US? You'd expect them to be evenly distributed.
Probably because you speak English and don’t engage in communities that aren’t in English.
I'm Greek and live in Greece, I don't know of anyone here having seen an alien spaceship or anything that looks like one.
I'm sure there are plenty of Greek folks who think they've seen an alien.
There may be other culturally appropriate explanations. Strange lights in the sky were reported as dragons in Northern England a 1000 years ago, for example.
I have a feeling this has something to do with scale.
If you can generate almost infinite energy, what would you gain by invading earth vs, say, consuming resources from an uninhabited planet? Earth makes up a small amount of the mass in our solar system.
But the inverse is also just as likely (fantastical): if you can generate almost infinite amounts of energy, what else is there to do other than troll rando life forms (farmers)?
Both cases do have one thing in common: humans sure do think highly of themselves and the one, small planet they inhabit.
But the inverse is also just as likely (fantastical): if you can generate almost infinite amounts of energy, what else is there to do other than troll rando life forms (farmers)?
Both cases do have one thing in common: humans sure do think highly of themselves and the one, small planet they inhabit.
> what else is there to do other than troll rando life forms (farmers)?
I would love it if we really lived in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy universe and "teasers" were really a thing.
> infinite energy, what would you gain
Also "they're coming for our water!" despite more existing in the asteroids and moons outside of our, and the Sun's gravity well. There's literally very few reasons to come to Earth other than to say "hi!".
I would love it if we really lived in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy universe and "teasers" were really a thing.
> infinite energy, what would you gain
Also "they're coming for our water!" despite more existing in the asteroids and moons outside of our, and the Sun's gravity well. There's literally very few reasons to come to Earth other than to say "hi!".
Good point could also ask why invade earth when you have a lot of easily minable resources in the asteroid belt. Given they can already generate almost infinite energy I'm pretty sure they will have mastered space resource extraction.
Why even come to this solar system when the amount of minable resources that isn't our solar system is so much greater?
That also a thing, why even take the effort to go. if I'm not mistaken there's a asteroid in the belt that if it could be mined could make every person on earth as rich/poor as Bezos.
Having seen a flying orb along with a complete stranger who also saw it, there is no time to just pull out my phone and snap a picture. Additionally, seeing something that is seemingly unreal is spell binding.
And let’s be real, if there was a high quality photo, you would just claim it was photoshopped. You need to see it to believe it, and that’s fair.
And let’s be real, if there was a high quality photo, you would just claim it was photoshopped. You need to see it to believe it, and that’s fair.
Not to deny your orbs (though, orbs are pretty "common" - like ball lightning)... but I saw 3 flying orbs in the 90s that I thought were ufos (or, one ufo) - like they were kind of linked, but moving independently. Weird looking. I woke my parents to come and verify I wasn't crazy. I called the telephone operator (lol, trust me, they were a thing once) to get the number for the observatory and the operator said "You saw them too? Let me know if you find out what it is!". The observatory was closed and I never chased it up.
I started thinking about that again recently and went to see if others had the same experience. Ended up finding video footage of exactly what I saw, and... US spy equipment. I have the program name written down somewhere - it wasn't Black Triangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)) - but it was something similar. I was so disappointed.
I started thinking about that again recently and went to see if others had the same experience. Ended up finding video footage of exactly what I saw, and... US spy equipment. I have the program name written down somewhere - it wasn't Black Triangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_triangle_(UFO)) - but it was something similar. I was so disappointed.
I saw 3 flying orbs in the 90s that I thought were ufos (or, one ufo)
This terminology is all screwed up. You did see "unidentified flying objects". But you thought, and were ultimately hoping, they were "identified flying objects": identified as extraterrestrial in origin.
Which is to say that there's a lot of confusion over when a "ufo" implies "alien".
This terminology is all screwed up. You did see "unidentified flying objects". But you thought, and were ultimately hoping, they were "identified flying objects": identified as extraterrestrial in origin.
Which is to say that there's a lot of confusion over when a "ufo" implies "alien".
Occam's Razor postulates that the simple solution is often the right one. That does not mean it's always so. For the longest time Occam's Razor would have favored a flat earth, before we knew better.
Alien intelligence would also be alien enough if it wasn't interstellar. Interplanetary, inter-dimensional or subterranean would be alien by my standard, too.
The Videos might have been plausibly explained, but i would argue that the pentagon has certainly more footage and sensor data to base their statement on.
And please do try to take photos of planes in the night sky with your smartphone camera. The image quality is not great.
Alien intelligence would also be alien enough if it wasn't interstellar. Interplanetary, inter-dimensional or subterranean would be alien by my standard, too.
The Videos might have been plausibly explained, but i would argue that the pentagon has certainly more footage and sensor data to base their statement on.
And please do try to take photos of planes in the night sky with your smartphone camera. The image quality is not great.
There is nothing "simple" about the concept of flat earth. It's one set of exceptions on top of another set of exceptions, ad infinitum.
To use the pre-enlightenment list of exceptions: It's flat, but not infinite. It's a disc. Ringed by mountains. Held up by giant elephants. On the back of a turtle. On the back of another turtle.
The modern "rationale" for flat earth is just as complex (not simple) an explanation of exceptions upon exceptions. The Copernican, Galileo-an and Newtonian attempts to explain things are much closer to "simple", despite being incomplete, because they are experimentally gathered and predictive and not just mentally created from whole cloth.
To use the pre-enlightenment list of exceptions: It's flat, but not infinite. It's a disc. Ringed by mountains. Held up by giant elephants. On the back of a turtle. On the back of another turtle.
The modern "rationale" for flat earth is just as complex (not simple) an explanation of exceptions upon exceptions. The Copernican, Galileo-an and Newtonian attempts to explain things are much closer to "simple", despite being incomplete, because they are experimentally gathered and predictive and not just mentally created from whole cloth.
Medieval people did not think the Earth was flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Medieval people certainly believed that. The linked wikipedia page does not say otherwise. It states that "European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat". Most people in Medieval times were not scholars or educated. Furthermore I haven't even said anything about Medieval times.
There are other examples like rocks falling from the sky or the earth- or solar-centric cosmos, if you prefer.
There are other examples like rocks falling from the sky or the earth- or solar-centric cosmos, if you prefer.
That Wikipedia page can be edited by any visitor, therefore it is not a reliable authority on the posted information. Take a look at the revision history page for your link, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myth_of_the_flat_.... Half of the edits appear not to be attributed to people but to unnamed ip addresses.
i.e. Don't believe everything you read.
To illustrate this point, go to different Wikipedia page that shows the opposite of what you wrote, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth and look at the Early Middle Ages of Europe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Europe:_Early_Middl....
i.e. Don't believe everything you read.
To illustrate this point, go to different Wikipedia page that shows the opposite of what you wrote, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth and look at the Early Middle Ages of Europe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Europe:_Early_Middl....
So what would you consider a reliable source? How much time are you willing to put into evaluating your source?
Pretty much anything on the internet is written by random people, all of whom could be great authorities on the subject or complete crackpots.
A couple more sources on the Myth of the Flat Earth, written by random people on the internet and found by a google search:
[0] : https://www.discovery.org/v/the-flat-earth-myth/
[1] : https://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm
[2] : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003172170708800...
[3] : https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/why-did-so-many-peop...
Pretty much anything on the internet is written by random people, all of whom could be great authorities on the subject or complete crackpots.
A couple more sources on the Myth of the Flat Earth, written by random people on the internet and found by a google search:
[0] : https://www.discovery.org/v/the-flat-earth-myth/
[1] : https://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm
[2] : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003172170708800...
[3] : https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/why-did-so-many-peop...
"Occam's Razor postulates that the simple solution is often the right one. That does not mean it's always so. For the longest time Occam's Razor would have favored a flat earth, before we knew better."
Actually this is problem with the simplifying Occam's Razor. It is not about simple solution, it is about fewer assumptions. Actually with each assumption you are limiting the domain of the question.
Actually before we observed more (like before we knew better), earth being flat is the correct solution vs earth being round.
Actually this is problem with the simplifying Occam's Razor. It is not about simple solution, it is about fewer assumptions. Actually with each assumption you are limiting the domain of the question.
Actually before we observed more (like before we knew better), earth being flat is the correct solution vs earth being round.
Anytime I try to take a good nighttime photo of something small far away, it looks awful & is quite difficult to make out - even on my iPhone XR.
I really don't buy the argument that our advanced phone cameras are capable of capturing conclusive images of anything unexplainable, since they can barely capture good images of things that are explainable.
I really don't buy the argument that our advanced phone cameras are capable of capturing conclusive images of anything unexplainable, since they can barely capture good images of things that are explainable.
Maybe not the silver flying saucers claimed to have been seen hovering over barns in the mid-west, but I recommend reading Extraterrestrial for a fascinating argument for Oumuamua's likelihood in being an extraterrestrial object.
Reference:
Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth - by Avi Loeb
> Harvard’s top astronomer lays out his controversial theory that our solar system was recently visited by advanced alien technology from a distant star.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48930288-extraterrestria...
Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth - by Avi Loeb
> Harvard’s top astronomer lays out his controversial theory that our solar system was recently visited by advanced alien technology from a distant star.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48930288-extraterrestria...
As Stephen Hawkings and Neil deGrasse Tyson have quipped, in Earth’s history, any time a more technologically advanced civilization has come across a less technologically advanced civilization, it has never ended well for the less technologically advanced civilization.
Any hypothetical which places a group of extraterrestrials capable of interstellar travel on Earth is fundamentally a catastrophe. It’s a lot like discussing an imminent asteroidal impact.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any human-extraterrestrial contact would end well for humanity. If anything, I’d expect it to be like playing a chess game against an AGI where the loser gets “terminated”.
Anyway, the basic human need to expediently file away all low likelihood ideas into the deep recesses of the brain, never to be examined; the proliferation of general con artistry rooted in financial desperation; and the immense social stigma attached to the pursuit keep people from contemplating the potential of extraterrestrial intelligence. None of those are an especially good reason.
Any hypothetical which places a group of extraterrestrials capable of interstellar travel on Earth is fundamentally a catastrophe. It’s a lot like discussing an imminent asteroidal impact.
There is absolutely no reason to believe any human-extraterrestrial contact would end well for humanity. If anything, I’d expect it to be like playing a chess game against an AGI where the loser gets “terminated”.
Anyway, the basic human need to expediently file away all low likelihood ideas into the deep recesses of the brain, never to be examined; the proliferation of general con artistry rooted in financial desperation; and the immense social stigma attached to the pursuit keep people from contemplating the potential of extraterrestrial intelligence. None of those are an especially good reason.
I have one counter-example for you - North Sentinel Island. This is a small island in the Indian Ocean where people live who are completely isolated from the rest of the world and as such are probably the least technologically advanced civilization on earth. They're able to remain this way because it's generally been agreed that we should leave them alone (you can't go within 5 nm, of the island) but India does try to keep an eye on them from afar, presumably in case some catastrophic event occurs that would otherwise result in their demise.
So while I agree that the most likely outcome of a technologically more advanced alien civilization encountering us would be a pretty nasty one ... there's a remote possibility that we would instead be a curiousity to them and that they might treat us as we now treat the Sentinelese.
Note: there has been contact between the Sentinelese and the outside world, some peaceful (I found something about Indian expeditions in the early 90s) some a little less so (the British kidnapping six islanders). But it didn't result in their extinction or being colonized, and they remain isolated.
So while I agree that the most likely outcome of a technologically more advanced alien civilization encountering us would be a pretty nasty one ... there's a remote possibility that we would instead be a curiousity to them and that they might treat us as we now treat the Sentinelese.
Note: there has been contact between the Sentinelese and the outside world, some peaceful (I found something about Indian expeditions in the early 90s) some a little less so (the British kidnapping six islanders). But it didn't result in their extinction or being colonized, and they remain isolated.
It would be awesome to hear their stories and myths regarding the external world. How do they explain boats and planes, how do they tell the encounter stories, etc
Very interesting. I wish there was a way to share basic medicine etc to improve their life quality without further damage to their existence. It's a shame to have means of reducing suffering and not share them with your fellow beings.
This reminds me of the allegory of the cave, and one observation I've had, or maybe stolen?, of it.
Who is anyone to invade another's life, uninvited, and tell them how they're living wrong?
Would their subjective life experience really be better if they were chasing the next iPhone, pickup truck, opium den, bonus, or sexcapade?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
Who is anyone to invade another's life, uninvited, and tell them how they're living wrong?
Would their subjective life experience really be better if they were chasing the next iPhone, pickup truck, opium den, bonus, or sexcapade?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
Yeah it's gotta be hard to figure out where the line is between helping and interfering. A few accounts of the Sentinelese suggest they don't want any help but I think some of the peaceful exchanges in the past show that they don't mind contact and are happy to receive packages of food and bits of iron for tools. All I know is that I'm not gonna be the one to reach out, an American preacher repeatedly tried to do so a few years back and ended up killed as a result. It was 100% his own fault, on one of his attempts a Sentinelese kid fired an arrow at him that struck his bible which if I was religious I would have taken as a sign to GTFO ...
>on one of his attempts a Sentinelese kid fired an arrow at him that struck his bible which if I was religious I would have taken as a sign to GTFO ...
If I was religious I'd have interpreted it as God protecting me, like in the tales of bibles stopping bullets.
If I was religious I'd have interpreted it as God protecting me, like in the tales of bibles stopping bullets.
Oh funny, I didn't think of it that way but I guess it's about where you imagine the bible was. I visualized him waving the bible around when an arrow pierces it as if to say "god has no power here, this is your only warning, there won't be another"
But if it was in his shirt pocket, then yeah that could indeed be interpreted the other way round!
But if it was in his shirt pocket, then yeah that could indeed be interpreted the other way round!
This reminded me of the book ‘Hard to be a God’ by the Strugatsky brothers.
This is true when the other side is a physical equal and of a similar species battling for resources.
I don't think this holds true when one side is far superior to the other, of a different species, and doesn't really require the same resources as the inferior species.
Example: I'm not out to destroy the squirrels in my woods, even though occasionally they do something that inconveniences me, because they are not a threat and I want nothing of their acorn or walnut resources.
They can be very entertaining to watch however.
I don't think this holds true when one side is far superior to the other, of a different species, and doesn't really require the same resources as the inferior species.
Example: I'm not out to destroy the squirrels in my woods, even though occasionally they do something that inconveniences me, because they are not a threat and I want nothing of their acorn or walnut resources.
They can be very entertaining to watch however.
It isn't always about actively attacking the lesser species.
For instance, bees. We don't want to hurt bees. But we've certainly done a lot of stuff that's been harmful to bee populations.
There are many other species that are endangered because of humans and their changing of the environment, too.
For instance, bees. We don't want to hurt bees. But we've certainly done a lot of stuff that's been harmful to bee populations.
There are many other species that are endangered because of humans and their changing of the environment, too.
We endanger bees largely because we occupy their spaces to live. It does not seem like aliens want to move in, if they are visiting already.
I agree.
But I don't think your example has any parallels too the parent discussion.
Unless an alien species is currently modifing the earth's atmosphere without our knowledge. It seems pretty apparent that we humans are the ones doing the modification.
But I don't think your example has any parallels too the parent discussion.
Unless an alien species is currently modifing the earth's atmosphere without our knowledge. It seems pretty apparent that we humans are the ones doing the modification.
The Dilbert take of "Wanna play another game of Hide The Pellet?" comes to mind.
I don't think it makes sense to compare interactions between, on the one hand, different groups of primitive humans on Earth and, on the other hand, interactions between interstellar intelligences, which might be (and in my opinion probably would be) some kind of distributed AI which does not think or behave like a living organism, the product of biological evolution.
My guess is that an extraterrestrial intelligence investigating the Earth would be very stealthy, for two reasons: firstly because, like scientists, they want to observe life on Earth without disturbing it, and secondly because they will naturally suspect that other extraterrestrial intelligences are also lurking around the Earth and will also want to observe those, if possible, and will understand that they'll have a better chance of spotting those other extraterrestrial intelligences if those other extraterrestrial intelligences don't spot them first and take evasive action.
So my conclusion from all this is that it's quite plausible that multiple extraterrestrial intelligences are already lurking around the Earth, with their probes disguised as tiny insects, for example, and probably they are not all aware of each other's presence.
They may be observing you now!
My guess is that an extraterrestrial intelligence investigating the Earth would be very stealthy, for two reasons: firstly because, like scientists, they want to observe life on Earth without disturbing it, and secondly because they will naturally suspect that other extraterrestrial intelligences are also lurking around the Earth and will also want to observe those, if possible, and will understand that they'll have a better chance of spotting those other extraterrestrial intelligences if those other extraterrestrial intelligences don't spot them first and take evasive action.
So my conclusion from all this is that it's quite plausible that multiple extraterrestrial intelligences are already lurking around the Earth, with their probes disguised as tiny insects, for example, and probably they are not all aware of each other's presence.
They may be observing you now!
I still find this notion that all alien civilizations will be meek little wall flowers pussy footing their way around the galaxy as completely unsupported by evidence. Most of the argument appears to be based on a not very good sci-fi novel. If our own history is any guide then civilizations will continue to run headlong into each other with little regard for consequences even when they know better, the motivations driving expansion and exploration are so strong that they overpower any cautions from the sideline. If life is common in the galaxy then it’s probably saturated every star system and all the space between by now and the reason we don’t see it is because we’re still having trouble figuring out how to spot the pebbles in our own neighborhood that might bump into us and wipe us out. Thinking we’d obviously see the aliens first if they were there is like expecting Montezuma to discover Spain.
Maybe Nikola Tesla was on to something when he fell in love with a pigeon...
> ...any time a more technologically advanced civilization has come across a less technologically advanced civilization, it has never ended well for the less technologically advanced civilization.
This assumes resource competition, which isn't a guarantee. Colonialism was driven by the need for open markets, resources, and vanity satisfaction from a declining class of European elites.
It's very likely that we don't have anything that a technologically advanced civilization would actually need. In this case, the situation would be more akin to Amazon coexisting with brick and mortar coffee shops, and less like Netflix competing with video rental shops.
This assumes resource competition, which isn't a guarantee. Colonialism was driven by the need for open markets, resources, and vanity satisfaction from a declining class of European elites.
It's very likely that we don't have anything that a technologically advanced civilization would actually need. In this case, the situation would be more akin to Amazon coexisting with brick and mortar coffee shops, and less like Netflix competing with video rental shops.
> This assumes resource competition, which isn't a guarantee. Colonialism was driven by the need for open markets, resources, and vanity satisfaction from a declining class of European elites.
What about enslavement? Here Hawkings / Neil deGrasse Tyson make another interesting point: any civilization which could peacefully colonize a galaxy is not the kind of civilization that would colonize the galaxy at all. The very act of wanting to colonize self-selects for violence/exploitation.
> It's very likely that we don't have anything that a technologically advanced civilization would actually need. In this case, the situation would be more akin to Amazon coexisting with brick and mortar coffee shops, and less like Netflix competing with video rental shops.
Surely any civilization advanced enough to master interstellar travel would be better than we are at gathering intelligence and predicting humanity’s next move, which for all we know might threaten their interests.
If extraterrestrials are silently monitoring humans, isn’t it more likely to be for intelligence gathering purposes than for altruistic reasons? If the monitoring were intended to be altruistic, where’s the proof of the altruism?
What about enslavement? Here Hawkings / Neil deGrasse Tyson make another interesting point: any civilization which could peacefully colonize a galaxy is not the kind of civilization that would colonize the galaxy at all. The very act of wanting to colonize self-selects for violence/exploitation.
> It's very likely that we don't have anything that a technologically advanced civilization would actually need. In this case, the situation would be more akin to Amazon coexisting with brick and mortar coffee shops, and less like Netflix competing with video rental shops.
Surely any civilization advanced enough to master interstellar travel would be better than we are at gathering intelligence and predicting humanity’s next move, which for all we know might threaten their interests.
If extraterrestrials are silently monitoring humans, isn’t it more likely to be for intelligence gathering purposes than for altruistic reasons? If the monitoring were intended to be altruistic, where’s the proof of the altruism?
What would be the point of a galaxy spanning civilization enslaving other species? We’re single planet savages and we’re getting close to building universal robots that can perform all of our labor, at the most it will be another half century. At that point any non bioengineered organism will be slower, weaker, less durable and less replaceable.
It’s much more likely that we just don’t have anything they want.
It’s much more likely that we just don’t have anything they want.
I don't even know if we can argue that there is an economic point to enslaving other humans (look at rates of industrialism in ex-slave owning regions).
Splitting my response into two comments.
> any civilization which could peacefully colonize a galaxy is not the kind of civilization that would colonize the galaxy at all. The very act of wanting to colonize self-selects for violence/exploitation.
This isn't necessarily true. Colonizing is simply the act of moving to a different piece of land. Violence and exploitation occurs when colonists are engaged in resource competition. It's not hard to imagine that, given high enough levels of technological development and the overall size of the universe, a colonizing civilisation can pre-select and coexist with existing occupants.
To put it another way, two hundred years ago, if I wanted to move a bunch of Europeans to what are now Addis Ababa or Bangkok, I would have to "colonize" the area. Now, all I would have to do is buy (multiple) apartments, or a plot of land or two and build a gated retirement community.
> any civilization which could peacefully colonize a galaxy is not the kind of civilization that would colonize the galaxy at all. The very act of wanting to colonize self-selects for violence/exploitation.
This isn't necessarily true. Colonizing is simply the act of moving to a different piece of land. Violence and exploitation occurs when colonists are engaged in resource competition. It's not hard to imagine that, given high enough levels of technological development and the overall size of the universe, a colonizing civilisation can pre-select and coexist with existing occupants.
To put it another way, two hundred years ago, if I wanted to move a bunch of Europeans to what are now Addis Ababa or Bangkok, I would have to "colonize" the area. Now, all I would have to do is buy (multiple) apartments, or a plot of land or two and build a gated retirement community.
> If extraterrestrials are silently monitoring humans, isn’t it more likely to be for intelligence gathering purposes than for altruistic reasons?
Why? The Gulf War showed that a gap of ~eleven years of advancement was enough to lead to arguably the largest one-sided victory in the history of warfare. There is no need for an advanced civilisation to silently monitor us for nefarious purposes. All they have to do is show up.
> If the monitoring were intended to be altruistic, where’s the proof of the altruism?
If we are being monitored, the fact that we're not aware of it is likely sufficient proof that their intentions aren't inherently malicious. Whether or not this means that their intentions are altruistic is another argument.
However, if we are in fact being monitored, it's far more likely that we're supporting a bunch of intergalactic Ph.D. theses - and maybe a documentary or two - than putting ourselves in the sights of some malevolent conquering race.
Why? The Gulf War showed that a gap of ~eleven years of advancement was enough to lead to arguably the largest one-sided victory in the history of warfare. There is no need for an advanced civilisation to silently monitor us for nefarious purposes. All they have to do is show up.
> If the monitoring were intended to be altruistic, where’s the proof of the altruism?
If we are being monitored, the fact that we're not aware of it is likely sufficient proof that their intentions aren't inherently malicious. Whether or not this means that their intentions are altruistic is another argument.
However, if we are in fact being monitored, it's far more likely that we're supporting a bunch of intergalactic Ph.D. theses - and maybe a documentary or two - than putting ourselves in the sights of some malevolent conquering race.
I think it's more likely that any sufficiently advanced civilization capable of monitoring earth, relatively undetected, has evolved beyond the types of problems that compose the way we view everything. Assuming that mundane explanations have been systematically and thoroughly refuted I'd posit we're the curiosity of the extraterrestrial version of something along the lines of a zoologist, student, or voyeur.
We have a planet that is quite suitable for carbon based life forms. Those might be worth something to interstellar intelligences.
Unlikely if you can just build your own habitat. Who wants to live at the bottom of an annoying gravity well on a filthy rock with uncontrollable weather and geological processes that’s infested with non-engineered microbes? Maybe for a weekend camping expedition but you wouldn’t want to live there.
Maybe you can't and all you do is send semi-autonomous drones containing DNA and sophisticated 3d printers.
"Any hypothetical which places a group of extraterrestrials capable of interstellar travel on Earth is fundamentally a catastrophe."
This is not totally correct, if you assume they have to survive countless conflicts (in which such advanced technology, it means aggressive ones would destroy themselves), you may end up with extraordinarily peaceful species.
This is not totally correct, if you assume they have to survive countless conflicts (in which such advanced technology, it means aggressive ones would destroy themselves), you may end up with extraordinarily peaceful species.
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking and Niel deGrasse Tyson, the reason humans fight other humans for resources is that we all live in the same resource-constrained environment, and we have developed various cultural and religious imperatives which prefer hegemony, exploitation and colonization over cooperation.
But resources are abundant in space, and there's nothing that can be found on Earth (barring life, specifically) that can't be found in orders of magnitude greater quantities elsewhere. It's like our entire solar system is a buffet but we're the only dish with flies buzzing it. If you're looking for a meal, you wouldn't even bother with that.
But resources are abundant in space, and there's nothing that can be found on Earth (barring life, specifically) that can't be found in orders of magnitude greater quantities elsewhere. It's like our entire solar system is a buffet but we're the only dish with flies buzzing it. If you're looking for a meal, you wouldn't even bother with that.
That sounds nice, but is it true?
Weren't the Vikings, later Normen, far less advanced than the places they raided? They absorbed the technology, the land and culture and used it to conquer and form what is present-day England.
Maybe we'll beat the aliens with our savagery.
Weren't the Vikings, later Normen, far less advanced than the places they raided? They absorbed the technology, the land and culture and used it to conquer and form what is present-day England.
Maybe we'll beat the aliens with our savagery.
There is a funny Sci-Fi book by Poul Anderson on this topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Crusade
A species capable of intersteller travel could bomb us and we'd have no ability to bomb their homeworld back.
There would be no way for humans to win.
There would be no way for humans to win.
It really depends if the two civilizations are competing for resources. In that case, the less advanced civilization is obviously going to have a bad time. There were cases in human history where human civilizations connected for exploration, trade and research and weren't competing for resources. Not all of those ended badly. Many of those that did end badly, ended badly because of disease. In the case of alien life, the risk of communicable disease would likely be low since any alien life would probably be a significantly different species that microbes would have a hard time jumping between.
[deleted]
While true, we as humans can't even fathom how an alien lifeform would reason if they came here. To base how aliens would act if they came here on how we as humans have acted throughout history is kind of stupid in my opinion.
This reasoning is excessive extrapolation. Any civilization that master interstellar space travel must be far more intelligent than us. The rules followed by such civilizations may not be the same as the rules we know.
I think you're saying "how do we know that aliens aren't already here? Because we are still here".
If so, good point.
If so, good point.
UFOs shouldn't be synonymous with alien intelligence. If anything evolved to travel through the universe, wouldn't it be logical to assume that it originated from a place where this ability was necessary for survival, e.g. the edge of a black hole? Such a life form could be quite different from our rock-bound existence. They might be closer to fish than to us.
Stanisław Lem has explored this sort of idea in his works very often. Like in Solaris, where the entire planet is very clearly an organism - it exhibits reactions to events, it maybe even has conscious thought, but it's on such a gigantic scale and on such long timeline that any idea of "communicating" with it is just fantasy. Or in Fiasco where there is a whole planet covered in microorganisms which have evolved a "society" including weapons to defend themselves with, but which again have no way to communicate with us. Or in Invincible, where life has evolved into self assembling nano machines whose only directive is to survive and consume - clearly an "intelligent" construct but one which isn't in the slightest open to "communication". List of examples could go on and on and on.
Lem is a treasure of science fiction and I can’t recommend him enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel) explores this idea.
My intuition is that every intelligent species is interested in space travel. That ability will be developed if possible regardless of whether it is an imperative.
The whole thing is a masterpiece of bizarre statements dressed up as reasoning
Take: Second, between (Ca) spontaneous decentralized hoaxes and lies, and (Cb) hoaxes and lies coordinated by a big central organization, (Cb) seems much more likely.
Apply this to reports of something other than UFOs, like, say fairies, ghosts or angels. You don't need to be an Oxford research associate writing about overcoming bias to realise the most common explanation for the phenomena is clearly (Cc) other such reports are already circulating in the public consciousness, and people are very impressed by them.
Neither spontaneity nor coordination is required to explain a sharp rise in sightings of saucer-shaped starships and little grey aliens after ships which flew like saucers and little grey aliens hogged the media for a decade, just like there isn't any conspiracy required to explain why people were a lot more likely to interact with spirits than be probed by 'greys' a few centuries back. (The great thing about "popular consciousness" explanations is they intersect with honest mistakes and delusions as well as big fat lies)
If Nick's desire for stuff that's in the movies to be real is so obvious he neglects the existence of the actual movies in his reasoning, he should probably consider renaming his blog
Take: Second, between (Ca) spontaneous decentralized hoaxes and lies, and (Cb) hoaxes and lies coordinated by a big central organization, (Cb) seems much more likely.
Apply this to reports of something other than UFOs, like, say fairies, ghosts or angels. You don't need to be an Oxford research associate writing about overcoming bias to realise the most common explanation for the phenomena is clearly (Cc) other such reports are already circulating in the public consciousness, and people are very impressed by them.
Neither spontaneity nor coordination is required to explain a sharp rise in sightings of saucer-shaped starships and little grey aliens after ships which flew like saucers and little grey aliens hogged the media for a decade, just like there isn't any conspiracy required to explain why people were a lot more likely to interact with spirits than be probed by 'greys' a few centuries back. (The great thing about "popular consciousness" explanations is they intersect with honest mistakes and delusions as well as big fat lies)
If Nick's desire for stuff that's in the movies to be real is so obvious he neglects the existence of the actual movies in his reasoning, he should probably consider renaming his blog
It's possible that your bias against believing this means your interpretation is a lot of bizarre takes dressed up as the only possible conclusions.
What I don't get is the arrogance of every side about this subject. We have no answers. We have no understanding. The government seems to be about to admit as much. But the true believers are sure, and the true debunkers, yourself included, are sure. To me, you're both just tin foil hat flunkies clinging to your own special precious version of the coming apocalypse. Your own special cult. Why can't people be more: (Ca) open to nuance and ambiguity and comfortable with their not being a resolution right now, and (Cb) genuinely curious and accepting of other people's perspectives rather than so "sweaty fear sprung" to be full of conviction that everyone who doesn't swallow their brand of belief on the matter is clearly a crank?
More specifically, in your case, you have an actual mirror case of crank-iness: you have a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence, rather than a conspiracy for the suppression of it. I mean, don't you see that parallel? And aren't you a little suspicious of that?
That's what I mean. I don't blame you specifically. Something about this topic seems to short-circuit everyone to leap logic and arrive directly at certainty. It's a big human blindspot. I wonder why this topic triggers it? Maybe because we don't have any answers, but the stakes, perhaps, are so high.
I'm sorry but your casual debunking, dressed up as reasonableness, is no better than the crankiest of crank theories. Let's all do better, so... meet you somewhere in the middle. :) ;P xx
What I don't get is the arrogance of every side about this subject. We have no answers. We have no understanding. The government seems to be about to admit as much. But the true believers are sure, and the true debunkers, yourself included, are sure. To me, you're both just tin foil hat flunkies clinging to your own special precious version of the coming apocalypse. Your own special cult. Why can't people be more: (Ca) open to nuance and ambiguity and comfortable with their not being a resolution right now, and (Cb) genuinely curious and accepting of other people's perspectives rather than so "sweaty fear sprung" to be full of conviction that everyone who doesn't swallow their brand of belief on the matter is clearly a crank?
More specifically, in your case, you have an actual mirror case of crank-iness: you have a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence, rather than a conspiracy for the suppression of it. I mean, don't you see that parallel? And aren't you a little suspicious of that?
That's what I mean. I don't blame you specifically. Something about this topic seems to short-circuit everyone to leap logic and arrive directly at certainty. It's a big human blindspot. I wonder why this topic triggers it? Maybe because we don't have any answers, but the stakes, perhaps, are so high.
I'm sorry but your casual debunking, dressed up as reasonableness, is no better than the crankiest of crank theories. Let's all do better, so... meet you somewhere in the middle. :) ;P xx
What’s the middle of “something definitely exists” and “nothing exists”?
Seems like it would err on the side of “maybe something exists” which doesn’t quite feel like a middle ground.
Replace UFOs with Sasquatch.
“Sasquatch exists and here is the picture and Sasquatch tracks to prove it!”
“You made that up. It’s a guy in a costume. Why can’t we find any single dead Sasquatch? Why are all the pictures and videos crappy?”
“Why can’t you meet me in the middle and at least admit it’s possible that Sasquatch exists??”
Personally I’m open-minded and find the topic of aliens quite interesting. But there isn’t a single ounce of convincing evidence and it would require a gigantic coverup with tons of complicit actors. There needs to be extraordinary evidence before anyone needs to agree to meet anywhere in the middle. Until then we should default toward it not existing. In other words, your null hypothesis is that it doesn’t exist. So far the evidence has failed to cause someone to reject that hypothesis.
Seems like it would err on the side of “maybe something exists” which doesn’t quite feel like a middle ground.
Replace UFOs with Sasquatch.
“Sasquatch exists and here is the picture and Sasquatch tracks to prove it!”
“You made that up. It’s a guy in a costume. Why can’t we find any single dead Sasquatch? Why are all the pictures and videos crappy?”
“Why can’t you meet me in the middle and at least admit it’s possible that Sasquatch exists??”
Personally I’m open-minded and find the topic of aliens quite interesting. But there isn’t a single ounce of convincing evidence and it would require a gigantic coverup with tons of complicit actors. There needs to be extraordinary evidence before anyone needs to agree to meet anywhere in the middle. Until then we should default toward it not existing. In other words, your null hypothesis is that it doesn’t exist. So far the evidence has failed to cause someone to reject that hypothesis.
I think we should all be engaging in this topic critically and openly. With curiosity rather than certainty, when none exists. I think we should not be so casual or strident in just dismissing or discounting other human beings personal experiences. Especially when there are so many people with stories. These humans are valuable, and their stories are valuable. We shouldn't dismiss that, or disrespect them. But also, in aggregate, with other evidence, we should consider it and be curious. Not rush to conclusion either way. Be wary of the theorists and commentariat, but be curious about it. I think you see this, that's what you're saying too, I think. Except the "default toward not existing" is the crazy thing. You should just default toward "not understanding". To me, being sure that it's whatever your theory is, and being sure that it's all just fabricated, are both equally wrong. Just calmly face the evidence, think about it if it interests you, don't rush to opine.
I never really understood this line of argument. It’s possible to engage with something openly, yet reach a conclusion about what the available evidence says about factual circumstances. Interpreting someone’s account of an experience differently than they do themselves does not mean they didn’t have the experience, or that you are dismissing them.
For example, I’m an atheist, but I don’t doubt that many people frequently have religious experiences. I just think that there are more likely explanations of those experiences than that they are caused by a god. I still find religion and accounts of religious experiences fascinating, and I very much respect that it’s a fundamental part of many people’s lives.
Having an opinion doesn’t mean you dismiss everyone who has a different opinion.
For example, I’m an atheist, but I don’t doubt that many people frequently have religious experiences. I just think that there are more likely explanations of those experiences than that they are caused by a god. I still find religion and accounts of religious experiences fascinating, and I very much respect that it’s a fundamental part of many people’s lives.
Having an opinion doesn’t mean you dismiss everyone who has a different opinion.
No way. Modern research has demonstrated how unstructured and unscientific our reasoning is, easy to fool and game, falling prey to a plethora of biases. If anything, rejecting your own and other people's personal experience should be the default, because the information we gather when not taking the utmost care to calibrate our instruments is pretty much garbage. A quick example of this would be how unreliable eyewitness testimony is in trials, but of course the sightings of various unproven phenomena(sasquatch, loch ness monster, etc) are also a great example of our "personal experience" being put to the test and found to be useless.
To me, it's more plausible to believe that the world we "experience" practically does not exist, and our memories and perceptions very rarely match reality, than to concede that these particular collective personal experiences amount to evidence of anything.
To me, it's more plausible to believe that the world we "experience" practically does not exist, and our memories and perceptions very rarely match reality, than to concede that these particular collective personal experiences amount to evidence of anything.
Theory and Observation in Science:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observatio...
no offense but I think you're unfairly and inconsistently dialing down your personal reliability for your subjective experience in this topic because this topic has the implications and emotional and psychological baggage that it does but you would be much more likely to trust yourself in your everyday life with the things that you already know. And I think that's reasonable. if I had some experience where there was a UFO or aliens I would definitely be doubting myself. But I think given time, or given repeated experiences, or given other people who had similar experiences and if I reflected on it I could definitely come to trust that what I experienced was true. Maybe that makes me unreliable... I mean I am unreliable my memory is unreliable my logic is unreliable my interpretations are unreliable my senses are unreliable. But I still have to piece together an existence just like everyone does. Just like I think you'd believe the things that happened to you in your everyday life. and I don't think we can discount other people's experiences so easily. Particularly if yeah so many experiences. Even if you have an unreliable sensor or sparse signals you can reconstruct an accurate picture, particularly if you have enough sensors. I'm not saying that all of the people's experiences means that it must be aliens I'm just saying it means that something is happening and I don't think it's honest for people to judge that as oh well this just means these people are unreliable. If that's true then it's just as equally likely that your judgment of them is unreliable too. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Being uncertain is in the middle. It's a position that too few humans are willing to take on any issue, treating it as if it were madness. If you are uncertain your options are to either ignore the issue or explore all the options.
That’s the point though, isn’t it? Many people have devoted their entire lives to “exploring the options” and still come up with basically nothing.
No, that's not the point. That what your think, and i think, it's a little harsh and dismissive for you to judge someone else's life work or experience or what they amount to and say they've achieved nothing. I bet a lot of other actual human beings would reject your characterization of them. I think you should think of that and I think not enough people remember the human in this topic. And I think that's selfish and cruel
Yeah there aren’t three fixed points of either disbelief, true middle ground, or belief. It’s a spectrum and I fall more towards the disbelief point in this case, but that doesn’t stop me from critically evaluating the possibility that I’m on the wrong end of the spectrum
That's all I'm asking. Good on you and I think it's courageous to do that in a topic where there's so much stigma
A reasonable take would be asking “why are there stories of a giant bipedal ape told around the world by different cultures?” Could they be based on actual creatures like Gigantopithecus whose existence may have been recorded in oral histories for thousands of years? It doesn’t have to mean maybe they exist now but it can serve as a good motivation to do anthropological and archeological research.
Totally agree. I don't want to be the guy who's trying to have the last word and comment on everything here. I guess I just want to engage on this topic where I feel like I got so much to say. I'm sure there are other people here have more to say than me, I hope to try to create a sort of welcoming environment for those people come and engage too by removing or stopping some of the incorrect negativity and dismissals that I see around this topic.
Convincing is your value judgment for you. And that's fair enough but just because you don't find it convincing doesn't mean we as in everybody should default towards not believing. Or discounting that it's possible. to me the large number of people who have personal experience is extraordinary evidence. I think that definitely means something's happening but I don't know what that something is.
keeping the middle ground is just remaining open-minded. Not discounting any possibility. I think that logical argument you make is a trap and I don't really understand it. Why assume non-existence is a default position. It seems kind of stupid and arrogant that because God hasn't come down and shown you something personally because he hasn't personally convinced you then the smartest thing for you to do is to believe that it just simply can't exist. No offense and you're not the only one who thinks like this but I just think that's kind of stupid and arrogant. I don't think you're stupid I think you're a very smart person but I don't understand why people think that default not existence position is smart. I mean to put it in an engineering point of view just because you haven't seen a bridge failure or just because your software hasnt experienced a particular failure mode yet is not a smart reason for you to believe that it's impossible. I'm sure without an eye blink within one heartbeat you would accept that statement so I don't get why you contract away from this notion as applied to other areas particularly areas where we have no fucking clue what's going on. No offense
my feeling in general is that people contract away from that because the implications emotionally psychologically are too scary. But I don't think that subjective emotional reaction to a possible implication should guide the primary response. maybe I'm making too much of it maybe it doesn't matter but I just think it's an important topic it's an important question. I don't think whether it's decided one way or another I don't think that will have all the answers for us as a species I just think it's interesting and it would be interesting to know.
keeping the middle ground is just remaining open-minded. Not discounting any possibility. I think that logical argument you make is a trap and I don't really understand it. Why assume non-existence is a default position. It seems kind of stupid and arrogant that because God hasn't come down and shown you something personally because he hasn't personally convinced you then the smartest thing for you to do is to believe that it just simply can't exist. No offense and you're not the only one who thinks like this but I just think that's kind of stupid and arrogant. I don't think you're stupid I think you're a very smart person but I don't understand why people think that default not existence position is smart. I mean to put it in an engineering point of view just because you haven't seen a bridge failure or just because your software hasnt experienced a particular failure mode yet is not a smart reason for you to believe that it's impossible. I'm sure without an eye blink within one heartbeat you would accept that statement so I don't get why you contract away from this notion as applied to other areas particularly areas where we have no fucking clue what's going on. No offense
my feeling in general is that people contract away from that because the implications emotionally psychologically are too scary. But I don't think that subjective emotional reaction to a possible implication should guide the primary response. maybe I'm making too much of it maybe it doesn't matter but I just think it's an important topic it's an important question. I don't think whether it's decided one way or another I don't think that will have all the answers for us as a species I just think it's interesting and it would be interesting to know.
> What I don't get is the arrogance of every side about this subject. We have no answers. We have no understanding. The government seems to be about to admit as much. But the true believers are sure, and the true debunkers, yourself included, are sure. To me, you're both just tin foil hat flunkies clinging to your own special precious version of the coming apocalypse. Your own special cult.
Generally speaking, it seems like good epistemology to withhold belief in propositions until evidence exists to support them. There aren't "two equally unreasonable cults" on the issue; it's unreasonable to believe in aliens absent evidence and it is reasonable to be skeptical of the former group's claims.
Generally speaking, it seems like good epistemology to withhold belief in propositions until evidence exists to support them. There aren't "two equally unreasonable cults" on the issue; it's unreasonable to believe in aliens absent evidence and it is reasonable to be skeptical of the former group's claims.
I want to add that I think we should make a clear distinction between (1) “believing” in aliens and (2) believing aliens have visited us.
I am for instance virtually certain that life in general and intelligent life in particular abounds in the Universe. I am even more certain that any accounts people tell and have told of alien sightings are lies or misunderstandings.
I am for instance virtually certain that life in general and intelligent life in particular abounds in the Universe. I am even more certain that any accounts people tell and have told of alien sightings are lies or misunderstandings.
How many thousands of people would have to agree on a sighting (that you were not a part of) for you to consider?
Not so many if any of them were working at any of the many companies and institutions that would detected such a thing and had measurements to support it.
A 100 years ago if a few thousand people all swore they saw a flying saucer over Stonehenge it would be rather convincing. Nowadays, such a sighting is impossible to witnesses without the object also being caught on any number of detectors around the globe, so if they don’t support the eyewitnesses I’m inclined to believe the sensors.
A 100 years ago if a few thousand people all swore they saw a flying saucer over Stonehenge it would be rather convincing. Nowadays, such a sighting is impossible to witnesses without the object also being caught on any number of detectors around the globe, so if they don’t support the eyewitnesses I’m inclined to believe the sensors.
But I suspect you've convinced yourself with explanations that the sensors of the Navy around those released UAP videos were somehow invalid, or the many, if you search, nightvision UFO video, are also invalid. it would be cool if humans really had silent anti-gravity triangles, and if people see those or have an experience with them I think it's wrong to say well given that one of the possibly interpretations is aliens therefore this evidence must be discounted in these people must be crazy. I'm not saying you're saying that but I think there's definitely an incorrect trend in that direction
Something interesting about this stuff is that there's not perfect cover across all sensors always. Maybe sometimes you have people seeing something that's not on radar. Or you have something that's on radar but not on other types of sensor. Or you have something that's in the infrared but not in the visible. I'm not asking you to believe anyone interpretation just to be open and consistent I think that if you're willing to believe the sensors are malfunctioning and creating ghost tracks it's also reasonable to consider that the sensors are not capable of picking up some sorts of technology. I understand that depending on your pliers there's different takes have different probabilities to you but I don't think it's okay to rush to certainty and discount any of those interpretations and say that anyone who suggests as much or obvious for those is out and out crazy. that's offensive and abusive to people and not I think in the spirit of investigation and curiosity.
Something interesting about this stuff is that there's not perfect cover across all sensors always. Maybe sometimes you have people seeing something that's not on radar. Or you have something that's on radar but not on other types of sensor. Or you have something that's in the infrared but not in the visible. I'm not asking you to believe anyone interpretation just to be open and consistent I think that if you're willing to believe the sensors are malfunctioning and creating ghost tracks it's also reasonable to consider that the sensors are not capable of picking up some sorts of technology. I understand that depending on your pliers there's different takes have different probabilities to you but I don't think it's okay to rush to certainty and discount any of those interpretations and say that anyone who suggests as much or obvious for those is out and out crazy. that's offensive and abusive to people and not I think in the spirit of investigation and curiosity.
I never said people are crazy.
And I don’t know about the examples you mentioned because I haven’t looked into it.
My point is basically that explaining an anomaly by “visiting aliens” is quite a leap of faith.
I also highly doubt that a credible sighting would not be picked up by the general scientific public.
So given the immense vastness of space and the resulting difficulties in colonising it, I remain unconvinced.
And I don’t know about the examples you mentioned because I haven’t looked into it.
My point is basically that explaining an anomaly by “visiting aliens” is quite a leap of faith.
I also highly doubt that a credible sighting would not be picked up by the general scientific public.
So given the immense vastness of space and the resulting difficulties in colonising it, I remain unconvinced.
That's good to know, because I find that abusive, and disrespectful to people who are just trying to discuss things. But people on the "believer" side are no better. I'm sorry to seem to falsely accuse you of that, I really wasn't. I'm just sort of waxing in all directions to share my views, taking as a starting point the inspiration from people's comments here. It needed to be said, anyway :P ;) xx
I agree with you that it's a leap of faith. I'm not asking you to make that leap. Seems you have an open mind. All I'm saying is all these experiencer testimonies I think means something is happening.
I'm not sure if by picked up you mean "detected in their telescopes" or "the story picked up and discussed". Case 1 is I think unlikely unless there were sightings everywhere at once. But there have been multiple things seen in the sky over a number of places, like Mexico City, Phoenix, Belgium, etc, that got lots of press, and have videos and hundreds of witnesses. Case 2 I think is a result of stigma. For the same reason that, even tho > 50% of people believe in aliens and psychic abilities, you are not allowed to research into those things, and if you do, people will call you crazy. It's changing a bit now...but
I agree with you on the vastness making it difficult. But I think it's arrogant to say, "Well, it looks difficult. Nah, can't be done." because that assumes that other civilizations would be unlikely to achieve more than us. I think the vastness of space and time, and our civilization's minuteness, is its own counter example to that take. It permits an alternate take which suggests there has to be somebody else out there, and they had plenty of time to do stuff.
In terms of why there's no "open contact" I like to fall back on the Star Trek Prime Directive.
I agree with you that it's a leap of faith. I'm not asking you to make that leap. Seems you have an open mind. All I'm saying is all these experiencer testimonies I think means something is happening.
I'm not sure if by picked up you mean "detected in their telescopes" or "the story picked up and discussed". Case 1 is I think unlikely unless there were sightings everywhere at once. But there have been multiple things seen in the sky over a number of places, like Mexico City, Phoenix, Belgium, etc, that got lots of press, and have videos and hundreds of witnesses. Case 2 I think is a result of stigma. For the same reason that, even tho > 50% of people believe in aliens and psychic abilities, you are not allowed to research into those things, and if you do, people will call you crazy. It's changing a bit now...but
I agree with you on the vastness making it difficult. But I think it's arrogant to say, "Well, it looks difficult. Nah, can't be done." because that assumes that other civilizations would be unlikely to achieve more than us. I think the vastness of space and time, and our civilization's minuteness, is its own counter example to that take. It permits an alternate take which suggests there has to be somebody else out there, and they had plenty of time to do stuff.
In terms of why there's no "open contact" I like to fall back on the Star Trek Prime Directive.
By picked up I meant your Case 2.
But I don't believe people are afraid of stigma. I think people in general are very curious about and interested in these kind of news. Think about the Oumuamua coverage. It was a strange thing that had no clear explanation and a remote but exciting possibility that it was an alien ship.
That went all over the world and credible/authoritative people commented on it and the possibility. Of course with all the appropriate caveats and scepticism, but the discussion was had.
About the capabilities of other civilizations, I of course concede there are almost certainly many out there with vastly greater capabilities than us. But space is just so stupidly large. Also what is the chance that aliens happen to make contact just as we as a species started to realise there was more out there than us?
Why isn't there already an alien colony here that was established a 100 million years ago?
That's actually the plot in a sci-fi I'm reading these days so there's that... In addition to the Prime Directive there is also the Dark Forest theory explaining no contact, I quite enjoyed Ken Liu's Three Body Problem trilogy.
I am very excited by our near-term (next 200 years or so) possibilities to colonize the solar system. Rather disappointed I won't get to see it happen barring some major life prologing therapies in the next decades.
That went all over the world and credible/authoritative people commented on it and the possibility. Of course with all the appropriate caveats and scepticism, but the discussion was had.
About the capabilities of other civilizations, I of course concede there are almost certainly many out there with vastly greater capabilities than us. But space is just so stupidly large. Also what is the chance that aliens happen to make contact just as we as a species started to realise there was more out there than us?
Why isn't there already an alien colony here that was established a 100 million years ago?
That's actually the plot in a sci-fi I'm reading these days so there's that... In addition to the Prime Directive there is also the Dark Forest theory explaining no contact, I quite enjoyed Ken Liu's Three Body Problem trilogy.
I am very excited by our near-term (next 200 years or so) possibilities to colonize the solar system. Rather disappointed I won't get to see it happen barring some major life prologing therapies in the next decades.
I thought the reasonable approach was to believe in aliens (not here per se) due to the law of large numbers.
Yeah it's funny that we don't even have an agreement as to what the logical reasonable stance on this topic is. I think that's maybe an indication of how far out this topic is in terms of how far away it is from our human faculty of logic and understanding to be able to make sense of it. That alone I think is reason enough to just basically distrust a lot of things about this and keep an open mind.
I would agree with you if I accepted your framing of this. I think the framing is too narrow and doesn't do justice to the issue but within this frame your logical argument definitely makes sense.
I'm sure you may object that your frame is simply a semantically equivalent restating of what I was saying. So I would counter that that's simply your interpretation.
by the way I love your phrasing two equally unreasonable cults that's exactly what I think. the reason I think your framing is wrong is because there's not an equivalence, which I think you are assuming, between people's individual experience and people without that experience. So I'm not asking you to be a member of either of those unreasonable cults I'm not asking you to believe in aliens and I'm not asking you to believe that experiences fabricate their stories. I'm just asking you not to discount people's experiences and upon hearing those to keep an open mind.
I'm sure you may object that your frame is simply a semantically equivalent restating of what I was saying. So I would counter that that's simply your interpretation.
by the way I love your phrasing two equally unreasonable cults that's exactly what I think. the reason I think your framing is wrong is because there's not an equivalence, which I think you are assuming, between people's individual experience and people without that experience. So I'm not asking you to be a member of either of those unreasonable cults I'm not asking you to believe in aliens and I'm not asking you to believe that experiences fabricate their stories. I'm just asking you not to discount people's experiences and upon hearing those to keep an open mind.
> It's possible that your bias against believing this means your interpretation is a lot of bizarre takes dressed up as the only possible conclusions.
Robin presented an argument dependent on a false syllogism: if people were lying about aliens then either (Ca) they were spontaneously coming up with the same hoax or (Cb) there was some organization coordinating the hoaxes
I pointed out this syllogism missed the most obvious, commonly argued and evidentially supported alternative explanation for lots of humans telling the same story or fabricating the same evidence - humans copy each other and adapt popular stories, as they have been doing for thousands of years. That's neither spontaneous, decentralized and unlikely nor a conspiracy: it's the essence of shared knowledge and mythology. Regardless of whether I'm biased against Robin's explanation or not, he simply overlooked this in what was supposed to be his list of only possible conclusions
At no point did I discount other possibilities (I mean, I don't think fairies, angels or "greys" are likely but my argument didn't touch on that branch of the argument). I simply pointed out Robin's enthusiasm for a couple of fantastic explanations (government conspiracies to fake aliens, or actual aliens) lead him to string together a chain of reasoning which altogether neglected one of the most mundane. Which is pretty ironic, given that trying to avoid that kind of bias is literally his specialist subject!
> More specifically, in your case, you have an actual mirror case of crank-iness: you have a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence, rather than a conspiracy for the suppression of it.
No, I specifically attack Robin's suggestion that a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence is likely [if the evidence isn't true]. You're welcome to argue that my "humans intentionally and unintentionally copy each others' stories" hypothesis is completely wrong or vanishingly unlikely, of course, but that's a stronger knowledge claim than I made.
Perhaps you should heed your own words about leaping logic to arrive directly at certainty...
I'm sorry, but if you're going to lecture people on nuance and not being arrogant after calling them tinfoil hat flunkies, you probably should read the arguments you're commenting on first (including Robin's). Makes meeting in the middle that bit easier (I really don't have any strong opinions either way on what individual reports did or didn't see) :D
Robin presented an argument dependent on a false syllogism: if people were lying about aliens then either (Ca) they were spontaneously coming up with the same hoax or (Cb) there was some organization coordinating the hoaxes
I pointed out this syllogism missed the most obvious, commonly argued and evidentially supported alternative explanation for lots of humans telling the same story or fabricating the same evidence - humans copy each other and adapt popular stories, as they have been doing for thousands of years. That's neither spontaneous, decentralized and unlikely nor a conspiracy: it's the essence of shared knowledge and mythology. Regardless of whether I'm biased against Robin's explanation or not, he simply overlooked this in what was supposed to be his list of only possible conclusions
At no point did I discount other possibilities (I mean, I don't think fairies, angels or "greys" are likely but my argument didn't touch on that branch of the argument). I simply pointed out Robin's enthusiasm for a couple of fantastic explanations (government conspiracies to fake aliens, or actual aliens) lead him to string together a chain of reasoning which altogether neglected one of the most mundane. Which is pretty ironic, given that trying to avoid that kind of bias is literally his specialist subject!
> More specifically, in your case, you have an actual mirror case of crank-iness: you have a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence, rather than a conspiracy for the suppression of it.
No, I specifically attack Robin's suggestion that a conspiracy for the creation of all the evidence is likely [if the evidence isn't true]. You're welcome to argue that my "humans intentionally and unintentionally copy each others' stories" hypothesis is completely wrong or vanishingly unlikely, of course, but that's a stronger knowledge claim than I made.
Perhaps you should heed your own words about leaping logic to arrive directly at certainty...
I'm sorry, but if you're going to lecture people on nuance and not being arrogant after calling them tinfoil hat flunkies, you probably should read the arguments you're commenting on first (including Robin's). Makes meeting in the middle that bit easier (I really don't have any strong opinions either way on what individual reports did or didn't see) :D
No no you're right, we should all do better myself included. I shouldn't have called you a tin foil hat wearing flunky. The other side does that and I don't agree with that. I'm sorry I take that back.
I guess my point was there's a parallel between theorizing that it has to be aliens in theorizing that it has to be fabrication that I see is equally crazy.
I like your point about people mimicking each other. I hadn't thought about that and I do think it's a definite possibility. I guess as I've said elsewhere I simply have too much faith in people to believe there are so many morally corrupt people who fabricate this kind of stuff for some sort of attention or money or fame.
I reached a different conclusion to you and it's normal that will have different views on this topic because it's a big complex topic and none of us have any idea what it's about.
I was pretty harsh to you so I'm sorry. It's no excuse but I guess I feel hurt and angry about what I see as the normalization of abuse of people bold enough to share their stories and say maybe there's something we don't understand is going on. On closer reading of what you said and on your subsequent explanation where I think you did a much better job of explaining your points (I don't think you explained it at all clearly in the first one but you definitely explained it in the follow-up) I see that you weren't saying that. You're just critiquing Robin's particular logic. But I sensed that you delivered it with that kind of contempt for this topic that I see as so corrosive and hurtful, and I hoped to push you away from that into a more reflective and more open and respectful stance towards this topic, And the people brave enough to say what they think about it. Clearly I didn't go about that in the right way. I'm sorry please forgive me, ...but ... i do have more "lecturing" to give you ;) ;p xx if you're up for that
I guess my point was there's a parallel between theorizing that it has to be aliens in theorizing that it has to be fabrication that I see is equally crazy.
I like your point about people mimicking each other. I hadn't thought about that and I do think it's a definite possibility. I guess as I've said elsewhere I simply have too much faith in people to believe there are so many morally corrupt people who fabricate this kind of stuff for some sort of attention or money or fame.
I reached a different conclusion to you and it's normal that will have different views on this topic because it's a big complex topic and none of us have any idea what it's about.
I was pretty harsh to you so I'm sorry. It's no excuse but I guess I feel hurt and angry about what I see as the normalization of abuse of people bold enough to share their stories and say maybe there's something we don't understand is going on. On closer reading of what you said and on your subsequent explanation where I think you did a much better job of explaining your points (I don't think you explained it at all clearly in the first one but you definitely explained it in the follow-up) I see that you weren't saying that. You're just critiquing Robin's particular logic. But I sensed that you delivered it with that kind of contempt for this topic that I see as so corrosive and hurtful, and I hoped to push you away from that into a more reflective and more open and respectful stance towards this topic, And the people brave enough to say what they think about it. Clearly I didn't go about that in the right way. I'm sorry please forgive me, ...but ... i do have more "lecturing" to give you ;) ;p xx if you're up for that
Alright here's my more "lecturing":
I read them so you shouldn't assume that i didn't and that's in the rules but apart from that it's arrogant and narrow minded because if you're assuming the only reason I disagree with you is because I didn't read what you read then your implicit assumption is that you are absolutely right because if I had read what you'd read I would have reached the same conclusion as you. it's very disrespectful to other viewpoints and so I think if you're going to lecture people on logic and implications then you do well to sharpen your own. Logic without perspective is blind and useless, it's like knowing how to drive the car but not knowing where you're going.
I wasn't lecturing you...as "lecturing" in that usage implies there was angry criticizing, I wasn't angry. But if you feel like it's lecturing and you're feeling resistance to that I guess that might be part of your problem because you're assuming that I don't have anything that I could teach you. So I'm not lecturing I'm teaching you. You taught me About the idea that people copying each other. I'd never thought of that but it's a good point.
So if you're assuming that I have nothing to teach you it's going to be hard for you to be willing to hear what I'm saying and if you're not going to be willing to hear what I'm saying you're probably going to be assuming that you're totally right and you have nothing to learn. So it's not going to be very useful for you for me to continue to talk now is it? That's got nothing to do with me of course that's just where you're at. So before you blame me for how you took what I was saying maybe you could consider how your reaction is getting in the way of you learning something here.
So I think that validates the point that you assume that I didn't read the things that you read, because I had a different view to you. Tho doesn't it seem normal that different people are going to arrive at different views even if they read or look at the same thing? And isn't that kind of diversity of viewpoints something that you're okay with?
See I think it's very arrogant and narrow minded apart from being in the rules, to not assume that people are not reading, the implication being that there's only one truth, one possible conclusion and you're in possession of it. so clearly I think this demonstrates that you're not willing to hear on this topic right now as I said before. I don't blame you specifically I think it's something about this topic that triggers people to leaping logic and going straight to certainty and I don't think you've escaped that yet. Best of luck with doing that I think you'll be able to just open your mind a bit. I'm heartened to hear that you don't have any strong opinions about people's personal experiences I'm totally with you on that.
I read them so you shouldn't assume that i didn't and that's in the rules but apart from that it's arrogant and narrow minded because if you're assuming the only reason I disagree with you is because I didn't read what you read then your implicit assumption is that you are absolutely right because if I had read what you'd read I would have reached the same conclusion as you. it's very disrespectful to other viewpoints and so I think if you're going to lecture people on logic and implications then you do well to sharpen your own. Logic without perspective is blind and useless, it's like knowing how to drive the car but not knowing where you're going.
I wasn't lecturing you...as "lecturing" in that usage implies there was angry criticizing, I wasn't angry. But if you feel like it's lecturing and you're feeling resistance to that I guess that might be part of your problem because you're assuming that I don't have anything that I could teach you. So I'm not lecturing I'm teaching you. You taught me About the idea that people copying each other. I'd never thought of that but it's a good point.
So if you're assuming that I have nothing to teach you it's going to be hard for you to be willing to hear what I'm saying and if you're not going to be willing to hear what I'm saying you're probably going to be assuming that you're totally right and you have nothing to learn. So it's not going to be very useful for you for me to continue to talk now is it? That's got nothing to do with me of course that's just where you're at. So before you blame me for how you took what I was saying maybe you could consider how your reaction is getting in the way of you learning something here.
So I think that validates the point that you assume that I didn't read the things that you read, because I had a different view to you. Tho doesn't it seem normal that different people are going to arrive at different views even if they read or look at the same thing? And isn't that kind of diversity of viewpoints something that you're okay with?
See I think it's very arrogant and narrow minded apart from being in the rules, to not assume that people are not reading, the implication being that there's only one truth, one possible conclusion and you're in possession of it. so clearly I think this demonstrates that you're not willing to hear on this topic right now as I said before. I don't blame you specifically I think it's something about this topic that triggers people to leaping logic and going straight to certainty and I don't think you've escaped that yet. Best of luck with doing that I think you'll be able to just open your mind a bit. I'm heartened to hear that you don't have any strong opinions about people's personal experiences I'm totally with you on that.
> I wonder why this topic triggers it?
I think that this is one of those topics that is pefectly ready for inconclusive bike-shedding: easy to build an opinion and argue about it "safely" - without any risk of losing someone's face when proven wrong due to insufficient data. It's some kind of sport where after the match both sides gp home feeling superior to the other because there's no objective way to establish the winner.
I think that this is one of those topics that is pefectly ready for inconclusive bike-shedding: easy to build an opinion and argue about it "safely" - without any risk of losing someone's face when proven wrong due to insufficient data. It's some kind of sport where after the match both sides gp home feeling superior to the other because there's no objective way to establish the winner.
Totally with you on that. The point you make is the key where there's no risk for being wrong. You have no skin in the game you can be a armchair, in the stands commentator, who doesn't actually have to get any results, and you're not wearing it for any choices or for the accuracy of what you're saying. Combine that with ego and the desire to lord it over other people by pretending they're idiots and I think you have a large part of the explanation for how people interact about this.
This dynamic is not confined to this topic obviously but I think it's kind of a tragedy because it would be interesting and great to see some real logical scientific investigation of this stuff you know from all different actors, just like it would to see real investigation of parapsychological phenomenon, but there's too much craziness, stigma and exactly what you said involved for that to happen easily I think.
That to me is a tragedy and major missed opportunity for us humans to learn something to push forward our knowledge at the frontier of what we understand, in the place where science should really excel, and should really be able to be like a shield to go beyond our limitations of ego, group think and emotion... it's the exact place where in these topics it's the weakest.
So the very things that we could understand more about that are so interesting it's like we've crippled ourselves from doing that because of our mass psychology and however these topics have been manipulated by whoever.
This dynamic is not confined to this topic obviously but I think it's kind of a tragedy because it would be interesting and great to see some real logical scientific investigation of this stuff you know from all different actors, just like it would to see real investigation of parapsychological phenomenon, but there's too much craziness, stigma and exactly what you said involved for that to happen easily I think.
That to me is a tragedy and major missed opportunity for us humans to learn something to push forward our knowledge at the frontier of what we understand, in the place where science should really excel, and should really be able to be like a shield to go beyond our limitations of ego, group think and emotion... it's the exact place where in these topics it's the weakest.
So the very things that we could understand more about that are so interesting it's like we've crippled ourselves from doing that because of our mass psychology and however these topics have been manipulated by whoever.
The evidence in question is shaky at best, but even taking it at face value, it's evidence of...something. Our limited understanding and ability to collect and categorize information, perhaps. It's quite the stretch for it to be evidence of aliens, particulary of the kind that can be covered up by a government conspiracy. The whole theory is based on incredibly shaky foundations - we struggle to define what is sentience(what if we're not sentient? what if stars are?), what is life, whether there even is life in the solar system, what that life would look like(why would it use spaceships?), whether it would be even detectable with our senses and apparatus, and many more questionable assumptions to arrive to our concept of aliens "visiting" us.
"Somewhere in the middle" would be "yeah, I don't know what causes that, but neither do you" - that leaves us pretty much nowhere, very very far from aliens.
"Somewhere in the middle" would be "yeah, I don't know what causes that, but neither do you" - that leaves us pretty much nowhere, very very far from aliens.
I agree and that's where I think we should be. I don't agree with your interpretation that it's only evidence of our inability to collect evidence I agree with your ambiguity. I have no idea what this is about I have no personal experiences of any of this but I don't doubt the people who say they have. What I doubt is the so called program insider whistler blower testimony. maybe that's ungenerous of me but I just suspect that it's probably easier to run a disinformation campaign with a small number of vocal so-called insiders actually just disinfo agents than it is, to get all of these people making up stories.
Tho as other people have said maybe they're just copying other people. Which I think is a good point but I'm reluctant to believe that. I genuinely trust the people who come forward and say this crazy shit happened. Because there's so many of them and it's gone on for such a long time. Also, i see there's no motivation to fabricate, not because there's no money and no fame, not because people are uninterested in money and fame, it's just because I don't think that so many people are so morally corrupt that they would just invent this stuff as a way to get money and fame for themselves. I guess I just have a little more faith in people perhaps a little too much faith than to think that.
Tho as other people have said maybe they're just copying other people. Which I think is a good point but I'm reluctant to believe that. I genuinely trust the people who come forward and say this crazy shit happened. Because there's so many of them and it's gone on for such a long time. Also, i see there's no motivation to fabricate, not because there's no money and no fame, not because people are uninterested in money and fame, it's just because I don't think that so many people are so morally corrupt that they would just invent this stuff as a way to get money and fame for themselves. I guess I just have a little more faith in people perhaps a little too much faith than to think that.
> We have no answers. We have no understanding.
This is factually incorrect. We have plenty of answers and understanding.
This is factually incorrect. We have plenty of answers and understanding.
If you have some please send me some links I would love to get more answers and understanding about this.
There are no easy links for this. You have to just research any given supposed UFO sighting, and if you actually try, you will find that people have most likely found an entirely reasonable and utterly boring explanation for it, that has not spread anywhere near as far and wide as the claim that it is a mysterious spacecraft, because the spacecraft is exciting and the explanation of what it actually is is not.
Sorry this is not true. I've done that and seen reports of lights that were explained away. But stories of encounters with beings and abductions? These things are not so easily explained away.
And even though I trust them much less than the random individuals who claim they have experiences, the countless government ex officials who repeat story after story of reverse engineered technology, of interviewing people who have encounters and of acquiring objects that were given to them and acquiring photographs that they took and classifying those objects and photographs.
I think there's two or three things I want to say one is I'm sorry but it seems like sort of willful blindness on your part if you are saying that you think every single report of something like this has been explained away. and that's okay if you don't want to look at this I'm not saying that you need to look at something that scares you or that you're not interested in. I'm not even saying you have to own it and say yeah I just don't want to know about this stuff so I'm just saying it doesn't exist. If you want to do that that's your choice and that's okay and I'm okay with that. I think it would be great if that were the case and you would have said yeah I just don't want to know about this so I'm just going to pretend it's not true, rather than pretend like what you're saying is the truth but I don't even require you to do that. It's okay to live in that pretend. It's a scary crazy kind of subject that I don't think anyone really knows about. So not looking at it at all is pretty smart I think.
The other thing is I sort of reject the memetic idea that UFO story spread because they're interesting and explanations don't spread. I certainly think you can find a lot of explanations if you go looking for UFO stories, but I think debunking actually does spread because it's like a mental algorithm it's like a generally applicable technique that you can apply to any story. I'm not saying that lessens it's quality as a form of skepticism I'm just saying I believe that makes it easier for debunking to actually spread because you can remember when you see a new story you can remember all of the debunking methods and start to pick that apart. But for a story to spread you actually have to spread it from The source because a story is specific so you have to spread the details but a debunking method is just a general method that can apply to many stories.
The third thing that I think is characterizing explanations these days is they seem more crazy more desperate and more reaching then just admitting that there's something going on here. Like the explanations are such crazy mental gymnastics that's sort of like the crazy people have become the debunkers the crazy people have become the ones performing these mental gymnastics to try to explain away things that it looks like they just don't want to face. I really think the tide has turned and that's what a lot of people explaining this stuff away now look like whereas in the past the people debunking it were very much seen as you know sort of logical and sensible but now they don't have that protection. But I believe there's still a lot of stigma attached to it
And even though I trust them much less than the random individuals who claim they have experiences, the countless government ex officials who repeat story after story of reverse engineered technology, of interviewing people who have encounters and of acquiring objects that were given to them and acquiring photographs that they took and classifying those objects and photographs.
I think there's two or three things I want to say one is I'm sorry but it seems like sort of willful blindness on your part if you are saying that you think every single report of something like this has been explained away. and that's okay if you don't want to look at this I'm not saying that you need to look at something that scares you or that you're not interested in. I'm not even saying you have to own it and say yeah I just don't want to know about this stuff so I'm just saying it doesn't exist. If you want to do that that's your choice and that's okay and I'm okay with that. I think it would be great if that were the case and you would have said yeah I just don't want to know about this so I'm just going to pretend it's not true, rather than pretend like what you're saying is the truth but I don't even require you to do that. It's okay to live in that pretend. It's a scary crazy kind of subject that I don't think anyone really knows about. So not looking at it at all is pretty smart I think.
The other thing is I sort of reject the memetic idea that UFO story spread because they're interesting and explanations don't spread. I certainly think you can find a lot of explanations if you go looking for UFO stories, but I think debunking actually does spread because it's like a mental algorithm it's like a generally applicable technique that you can apply to any story. I'm not saying that lessens it's quality as a form of skepticism I'm just saying I believe that makes it easier for debunking to actually spread because you can remember when you see a new story you can remember all of the debunking methods and start to pick that apart. But for a story to spread you actually have to spread it from The source because a story is specific so you have to spread the details but a debunking method is just a general method that can apply to many stories.
The third thing that I think is characterizing explanations these days is they seem more crazy more desperate and more reaching then just admitting that there's something going on here. Like the explanations are such crazy mental gymnastics that's sort of like the crazy people have become the debunkers the crazy people have become the ones performing these mental gymnastics to try to explain away things that it looks like they just don't want to face. I really think the tide has turned and that's what a lot of people explaining this stuff away now look like whereas in the past the people debunking it were very much seen as you know sort of logical and sensible but now they don't have that protection. But I believe there's still a lot of stigma attached to it
People lie. People hallucinate. People imagine things. That's really all there is to it.
I agree; especially when you combine a possibility like cognition-altering gas exposure (CO, etc), the brain can do some weird shit; connecting disparate strands of thought between movies you've seen, things you've heard, etc. When a fighter pilot says "both myself and my copilot saw it"... you're breathing the same air, right? Ate the same meal four hours ago? Touching the same control surfaces?
There are certainly some reports that stand up beyond this level of scrutiny.
I don't understand the assertion that "aliens are more likely than (a laundry list of other supernatural things)". The most significant point against modern day alien contact isn't really that "aliens don't exist"; that seems foolish to think. Its that space is insanely vast, and a civilization would need faster-than-light travel to travel across it in any decent amount of time; faster than light travel is roughly on the same level of "physically possible by our understanding of physics" as Time Travel or Dimensional Travel.
So, its a stretch to think its aliens, but you might as well also believe it could be any of those other things. In fact, I could envision a far-out argument for time travel being more likely; if they're both pretty incomprehensible from a physics standpoint, maybe we flipped their improbability. Maybe time travel is actually more possible than FTL travel. And here's one absolute certainty; across the four dimensions, the dimensionally nearest form of advanced, sentient life is You, ten seconds from now.
There are certainly some reports that stand up beyond this level of scrutiny.
I don't understand the assertion that "aliens are more likely than (a laundry list of other supernatural things)". The most significant point against modern day alien contact isn't really that "aliens don't exist"; that seems foolish to think. Its that space is insanely vast, and a civilization would need faster-than-light travel to travel across it in any decent amount of time; faster than light travel is roughly on the same level of "physically possible by our understanding of physics" as Time Travel or Dimensional Travel.
So, its a stretch to think its aliens, but you might as well also believe it could be any of those other things. In fact, I could envision a far-out argument for time travel being more likely; if they're both pretty incomprehensible from a physics standpoint, maybe we flipped their improbability. Maybe time travel is actually more possible than FTL travel. And here's one absolute certainty; across the four dimensions, the dimensionally nearest form of advanced, sentient life is You, ten seconds from now.
Go back in time a thousand years and tell people that one day man will fly faster than a bird and land on the moon.
FTL is not impossible. The only thing physics say is that you can’t accelerate a particle that has mass past c because that would require infinite energy. But accelerating an object doesn’t have to be the only way to move “faster” than light.
Look at our civilization today and compare it to what it was a thousand or two thousand years back. Now imagine a civilization that’s had three hundred thousand year head start on us.
Who’s to say they haven’t mastered wormholes or bending gravity or harnessing dark energy to accomplish things that are purely in the realm of science fiction today?
FTL is not impossible. The only thing physics say is that you can’t accelerate a particle that has mass past c because that would require infinite energy. But accelerating an object doesn’t have to be the only way to move “faster” than light.
Look at our civilization today and compare it to what it was a thousand or two thousand years back. Now imagine a civilization that’s had three hundred thousand year head start on us.
Who’s to say they haven’t mastered wormholes or bending gravity or harnessing dark energy to accomplish things that are purely in the realm of science fiction today?
> Apply this to reports of something other than UFOs, like, say fairies, ghosts or angels.
Fairies, ghosts and angels don't show up on radar or FLIR and the Inspector General of the DoD has never launched an investigation into how they have been handled by that department.
Fairies, ghosts and angels don't show up on radar or FLIR and the Inspector General of the DoD has never launched an investigation into how they have been handled by that department.
Are we talking about the three US military videos that surfaced in recent years? I've seen all of them clearly and thoroughly explained away. In one case, you could literally use the numbers on the recording and some middle-school level geometry skills to calculate that the tracked object is a bird.
And it's quite easy to guess why these videos were released. They're technology demonstrators. The general public can think UFOs if they want, but what Chinese and Russian militaries saw was, "holy shit, US can auto-track a far-away bird from a jet fighter".
And it's quite easy to guess why these videos were released. They're technology demonstrators. The general public can think UFOs if they want, but what Chinese and Russian militaries saw was, "holy shit, US can auto-track a far-away bird from a jet fighter".
Mick West's explanation of the FLIR1 video (the one from the Nimitz incident), that it was an ordinary aircraft, makes zero sense because given the quantity and quality of situational awareness data available to the pilots who captured the video it would require an extraordinary degree of incompetence to make such a mistake.
I'm no expert on naval technology but given my limited understanding of carrier strike group operations this was my intuitive belief from the first time I heard this theory. Since then a number of knowledgeable people have confirmed that this explanation makes practically no sense.
I'm no expert on naval technology but given my limited understanding of carrier strike group operations this was my intuitive belief from the first time I heard this theory. Since then a number of knowledgeable people have confirmed that this explanation makes practically no sense.
It doesn't take incompetence to make a mistake, any of us can make mistakes even in things we're highly competent in. Optical artefacts are particularly difficult to account for.
Take Go Fast for example, they're highly competent experienced aviators, but they still very clearly completely misidentified what, in hindsight, is obviously a bird. Clearly if trained operators can make a mistake like that, other mistakes are possible, so you can't just discount the possibility as absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8
I can easily see someone thinking an image is of a near object when it's actually a far object, and we know for a fact that highly trained operators can make terrible mistakes using complex tracking equipment.
Take Go Fast for example, they're highly competent experienced aviators, but they still very clearly completely misidentified what, in hindsight, is obviously a bird. Clearly if trained operators can make a mistake like that, other mistakes are possible, so you can't just discount the possibility as absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8
I can easily see someone thinking an image is of a near object when it's actually a far object, and we know for a fact that highly trained operators can make terrible mistakes using complex tracking equipment.
> Optical artefacts are particularly difficult to account for.
We're not talking about optical artifacts. The aircraft had radar and it also had access to data from radars installed on the surface ships. The entire system is designed to make identifying friendly targets easy and to give pilots an overview of the tactical situation. IFF in aerial combat has been a solved problem almost since World War II.
We're not talking about optical artifacts. The aircraft had radar and it also had access to data from radars installed on the surface ships. The entire system is designed to make identifying friendly targets easy and to give pilots an overview of the tactical situation. IFF in aerial combat has been a solved problem almost since World War II.
I’m not sure which case you’re referring to, but in the FLIR1 incident they were tracking something optically while nothing appeared on radar. The proposed explanation is that the object was a much bigger commercial plane than they thought, much further away. Cameras are just as much, if not more susceptible to optical effects than human eyes. It’s quite plausible that a plane could be thought to be say 20km away, when actually it was 5x as far and outside radar range.
IFF and radar aren’t going to help you if tye object isn’t actually where you think it is, so most of your sensors are looking in the wrong place.
In the Go Fast case we actually have all the instrument data we need. From the data on the recording and some basic trigonometry we can see the object was very small only a metre or so across, was approximately half way between the plane and the surface, and was actually only travelling at modest speed commensurate with that of a bird. I can’t _prove_ to you that it was a bird, but I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions.
IFF and radar aren’t going to help you if tye object isn’t actually where you think it is, so most of your sensors are looking in the wrong place.
In the Go Fast case we actually have all the instrument data we need. From the data on the recording and some basic trigonometry we can see the object was very small only a metre or so across, was approximately half way between the plane and the surface, and was actually only travelling at modest speed commensurate with that of a bird. I can’t _prove_ to you that it was a bird, but I leave it to you to come to your own conclusions.
If you read my comment that you initially replied to you would see that I was talking about the FLIR1/Nimitz video.
You're the one who brought up Go Fast, I have made no comments about that here.
> The proposed explanation is that the object was a much bigger commercial plane than they thought, much further away.
I don't know which "proposed explanation" you're referring to but in a recent debate between Mick West and Robert Powell of the SCU hosted by John Greenewald of theblackvault.com, Mick said he thinks it was an F-18.
Neither explanation makes sense because the aircraft's radar has far greater range than the ATFLIR camera so if an aircraft showed up on the ATFLIR it also should have been seen on radar. In addition the Princeton's AEGIS radar system was monitoring the airspace within at least a 100 mile radius and would certainly also have detected any ordinary aircraft that could have been seen by the ATFLIR.
You're the one who brought up Go Fast, I have made no comments about that here.
> The proposed explanation is that the object was a much bigger commercial plane than they thought, much further away.
I don't know which "proposed explanation" you're referring to but in a recent debate between Mick West and Robert Powell of the SCU hosted by John Greenewald of theblackvault.com, Mick said he thinks it was an F-18.
Neither explanation makes sense because the aircraft's radar has far greater range than the ATFLIR camera so if an aircraft showed up on the ATFLIR it also should have been seen on radar. In addition the Princeton's AEGIS radar system was monitoring the airspace within at least a 100 mile radius and would certainly also have detected any ordinary aircraft that could have been seen by the ATFLIR.
Cameras, like human eyes, have effectively infinite range. All it takes is an image bright enough, and as I’m sure you are aware, atmospheric effects can induce huge amounts of magnification and even project images from beyond the horizon. Unless you know something special about the ATFLIR camera that makes it specially limited in some way?
At any given time an AEGIS system is going to be tracking dozens of targets. All we can say about nothing showing on RADAR is they weren’t tracking anything where they thought the object was. If that’s not where it actually was, then the issue is moot.
My reference to Go Fast was a counter to your argument that experienced operators and aviators can’t make misidentifications. FLIR1 is a harder case because all we have is a blurry camera image, but in the case of Go Fast it’s perfectly clear the aviators were mistaken, therefore such mistakes are possible.
At any given time an AEGIS system is going to be tracking dozens of targets. All we can say about nothing showing on RADAR is they weren’t tracking anything where they thought the object was. If that’s not where it actually was, then the issue is moot.
My reference to Go Fast was a counter to your argument that experienced operators and aviators can’t make misidentifications. FLIR1 is a harder case because all we have is a blurry camera image, but in the case of Go Fast it’s perfectly clear the aviators were mistaken, therefore such mistakes are possible.
I'm not interested in debating all of the technical points with you here. I've looked into it in the past and come to the conclusion that Mick West's theory is highly improbable (which he now appears to be admitting if you check the latest posts on his blog).
I will however point out that this statement:
> Cameras, like human eyes, have effectively infinite range.
is not true in any meaningful sense. Cameras have finite angular resolution. There is sufficient information to determine the angular size of the object in the video. I don't have the exact numbers at hand but I think it corresponds to an F-18 sized object at a range between 20 to 30 miles, well within the F-18's radar range, which exceeds 60 miles. If the object is much farther away then it is also much larger and that hypothesis leads to a different set of problems.
I will however point out that this statement:
> Cameras, like human eyes, have effectively infinite range.
is not true in any meaningful sense. Cameras have finite angular resolution. There is sufficient information to determine the angular size of the object in the video. I don't have the exact numbers at hand but I think it corresponds to an F-18 sized object at a range between 20 to 30 miles, well within the F-18's radar range, which exceeds 60 miles. If the object is much farther away then it is also much larger and that hypothesis leads to a different set of problems.
>which he now appears to be admitting...
Er, I just checked Metabunk and his last post is from Wednesday, when he said, among other things:
"So we simultaneously have a radar that being jammed and giving all kinds of strange numbers, and you can't even get the airspeed, but is also able to hand over the exact position to the ATFLIR? It does not make sense."
So I'm not sure what you're talking about. His blog is just old posts about becoming a citizen.
Er, I just checked Metabunk and his last post is from Wednesday, when he said, among other things:
"So we simultaneously have a radar that being jammed and giving all kinds of strange numbers, and you can't even get the airspeed, but is also able to hand over the exact position to the ATFLIR? It does not make sense."
So I'm not sure what you're talking about. His blog is just old posts about becoming a citizen.
Consider for a moment that it's not a bird. Have the epistemic humility to realize that such pedestrian explanations are likely to have been proposed and ruled out during internal analysis, before public release.
Also, birds don't move like that on radar.
Also, birds don't move like that on radar.
Have you actually reviewed the analysis, using the instrument data in the video to calculate that it was a typical size and was actually moving at a typical speed and altitude for a bird? If so, what is your critique of the calculations?
See David Fravor's commentary on the videos. He's one of the jet pilots from the Nimitz incident.
https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9711
Specifically in the Go fast video: https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9829
The object is shown colder than the ocean; it can't be a bird.
https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9711
Specifically in the Go fast video: https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=9829
The object is shown colder than the ocean; it can't be a bird.
I haven't seen a debunking that dealt with the aviator accounts.
All I've seen are hypotheticals about how the videos could be anything but what the aviators reported, and yeah, so far have just dismissed or ignored their accounts altogether.
Interested to see otherwise!
All I've seen are hypotheticals about how the videos could be anything but what the aviators reported, and yeah, so far have just dismissed or ignored their accounts altogether.
Interested to see otherwise!
I've been following this topic closely and it was never the case that there was a definitive explanation.
There were many theories and counter theories. It would be misleading to say the matter is settled.
It's also doubtful to propose this is a technology demonstration. The ability to track objects is not a differentiator; there are plenty videos online showing similar HUDs. In any case the public release has been degraded specifically to withhold information on their optical capabilities.
There were many theories and counter theories. It would be misleading to say the matter is settled.
It's also doubtful to propose this is a technology demonstration. The ability to track objects is not a differentiator; there are plenty videos online showing similar HUDs. In any case the public release has been degraded specifically to withhold information on their optical capabilities.
That is simply not true. Here are the explanations for all three at a middle school level. There is literally nothing interesting in those videos and interpreting them as evidence as Extraterrestrial Aliens is simply inexcusable at this point.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA&pbjreload=101
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA&pbjreload=101
Those explanations are misguided and thunderfoot is just rehashing (badly) the points raised by Mike West. See commentary by David Fravor, one of the jet pilots in the incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9671s
David Fravor's testimony is contradicted by the video evidence. What specifically in Dr. Mason's analysis do you think is incorrect? Thanks.
> but what Chinese and Russian militaries saw was, "holy shit, US can auto-track a far-away bird from a jet fighter"
I don't really buy that. I don't think some sort of fancy high resolution, possibly AI-driven bird (drone/jet/etc.) tracking is a particularly impressive capability that would have the Russian & Chinese militaries shaking in their shoes.
I don't really buy that. I don't think some sort of fancy high resolution, possibly AI-driven bird (drone/jet/etc.) tracking is a particularly impressive capability that would have the Russian & Chinese militaries shaking in their shoes.
A bird is smaller than a missile and has a weaker radar response than a stealth fighter. Being able to track a bird in flight over the sea, while yourself flying far above and much faster than it, clearly communicates you'll also be capable of tracking enemy missiles and drones from distance. For technology in active military service it is impressive.
It's also not about "shaking in their shoes", but about making the other powers aware. This is the soft war that's been happening ever since first two human groups met each other - showing off your sticks and stones to deter others from trying to attack you in the first place.
It's also not about "shaking in their shoes", but about making the other powers aware. This is the soft war that's been happening ever since first two human groups met each other - showing off your sticks and stones to deter others from trying to attack you in the first place.
>I've seen all of them clearly and thoroughly explained away.
No, you haven't. Every "debunking" has itself been thoroughly debunked.
No, you haven't. Every "debunking" has itself been thoroughly debunked.
The 'debunk the debunkers' videos I've seen are hilariously, worst fringe of flat earth level wrong headed.
They very much reminded me of the attempts to 'debunk' SpaceX rocket landing videos as fake, all of which died out when they landed multiple rockets in daylight in front of tens of thousands of people.
IIRC one of the air force videos couldn't be readily explained, but that was just because there wasn't enough information in the video to calculate scale or relative motion, so it could have been anything. The other two were definitively explained.
They very much reminded me of the attempts to 'debunk' SpaceX rocket landing videos as fake, all of which died out when they landed multiple rockets in daylight in front of tens of thousands of people.
IIRC one of the air force videos couldn't be readily explained, but that was just because there wasn't enough information in the video to calculate scale or relative motion, so it could have been anything. The other two were definitively explained.
Is this what we’re reduced to?
No you didn’t.
Yes I did.
No you didn’t...
Talk about low bar to discussion.
They have been debunked; even if you refuse to believe that, the overwhelming body of evidence, statistically, shows no consistent conclusive evidence.
So, what do you want to believe?
That there are one or two pieces of “evidence” to prove “it’s all true”, or that there are thousands of pieces of evidence which have shown no evidence of anything out of the ordinary.
This is how conspiracy theory stuff grows; people hang on to the few outliers.
...now when its true, the body of compelling evidence grows over time (see COVID vaccine -> blood clots) and eventually there is enough of a body of evidence that it starts to be compelling.
...but no matter how “smoking gun” your one example is, it does let make it convincing even if it’s true.
What we haven’t seen is a growing compelling body of evidence for ufos.
That’s fair reason to believe that...
> No, you haven’t
Yes. I have.
No you didn’t.
Yes I did.
No you didn’t...
Talk about low bar to discussion.
They have been debunked; even if you refuse to believe that, the overwhelming body of evidence, statistically, shows no consistent conclusive evidence.
So, what do you want to believe?
That there are one or two pieces of “evidence” to prove “it’s all true”, or that there are thousands of pieces of evidence which have shown no evidence of anything out of the ordinary.
This is how conspiracy theory stuff grows; people hang on to the few outliers.
...now when its true, the body of compelling evidence grows over time (see COVID vaccine -> blood clots) and eventually there is enough of a body of evidence that it starts to be compelling.
...but no matter how “smoking gun” your one example is, it does let make it convincing even if it’s true.
What we haven’t seen is a growing compelling body of evidence for ufos.
That’s fair reason to believe that...
> No, you haven’t
Yes. I have.
>But to explain most of these hardest cases mainly in terms of practical jokes seems just a bridge too far. Really, thousands of disconnected people all around the world playing the same big scary jokes for decades, and then almost never breaking down and laughing and crowing about their jokes even decades later?
This is the justification for that. However, they don't "almost never break down and laugh and crow about their jokes". They do this all the time. It's just that when they do this, it moves from the category of "hardest-to-explain UFO cases" to the category of "known hoaxes". It's an obvious selection effect, not something that requires deeper explanation.
This is the justification for that. However, they don't "almost never break down and laugh and crow about their jokes". They do this all the time. It's just that when they do this, it moves from the category of "hardest-to-explain UFO cases" to the category of "known hoaxes". It's an obvious selection effect, not something that requires deeper explanation.
I fully agree.
Side note: this post is by Robin Hanson, not Nick Bostrom.
This is just another thing to add to my book of reasons the "neorationalist" community is just sophistry for the 21st century, in terms of both the rhetorical turns that it takes as well as sociologically what segment of society it appeals to.
Yes, there is also the very contextual nature of psychosis that always expresses a very local cultural content.
I think it's undercounting or failing to consider the likelihood of natural causes. That is to say, physics, biology, higher-dimensional weirdness, etc, that we don't know of and can't anticipate, but is as natural as red sprite lightning. Planes chasing tic-tac aliens could be doing the high-tech equivalent of kittens chasing a laser pointer.
The discussion is basically answered by this short picture: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1374167754404630528
Not only has the quality of cameras increased increadibly in the last decades, especially thanks to modern digital cameras, but in the last 10 years, most of us are carrying a quite good camera in their pocket all of the time. This would easily allow for documenting any strange phenomena. And that this works is shown. When the meteor struck chelyabinsk some years ago, there where plenty of videos thanks to dash cams. When recently debries of a SpaceX second stage reentered the atmosphere near Seattle, there were plenty of videos taken showing this event. This is not even taking into account all the advanced amateurs, who are shooting images of the ISS in orbit, or even any professionals, whose job it is to track the air and space around earth for things. Any metal part in orbit is tracked by NORAD for obvious reasons.
So, where are such videos showing the aliens? It is obvious, that people constantly are seeing things which are not directly explainable, especially to non-scientists. But somehow they are not recorded. One good explanation is: a lot of them are recorded and in the record, they are easily identifiable as what they really are and no longer mentioned.
Not only has the quality of cameras increased increadibly in the last decades, especially thanks to modern digital cameras, but in the last 10 years, most of us are carrying a quite good camera in their pocket all of the time. This would easily allow for documenting any strange phenomena. And that this works is shown. When the meteor struck chelyabinsk some years ago, there where plenty of videos thanks to dash cams. When recently debries of a SpaceX second stage reentered the atmosphere near Seattle, there were plenty of videos taken showing this event. This is not even taking into account all the advanced amateurs, who are shooting images of the ISS in orbit, or even any professionals, whose job it is to track the air and space around earth for things. Any metal part in orbit is tracked by NORAD for obvious reasons.
So, where are such videos showing the aliens? It is obvious, that people constantly are seeing things which are not directly explainable, especially to non-scientists. But somehow they are not recorded. One good explanation is: a lot of them are recorded and in the record, they are easily identifiable as what they really are and no longer mentioned.
Any phenomenon which decreases in rate proportional to our ability to measure it is very unlikely to exist.
This reasoning applies to all historical mumbojumbo: ufos, bigfoot, ghosts, etc. These ideas are plausible insofar as they are constructed to be almost unmeasurable.
The preponderance of camera phones today means we have 1bn+ people able to measure their environment at abitary frequencies, and all such phenomena have essentially disappeared.
Either somehow all ghosts, bigfoots, aliens, etc. are disappearing because we are measuring them; or they never existed.
NB. These ideas "go together" only socially, ie. believed by a secular-religious community. The objects they describe have no intrinsic relationship (bigfoot is not like a ghost). When you have a class of such ideas, it is likely they are wholesale false (ie. mythological).
It is possible to somewhat statistically predict P(IdeaSet is Mythological) by the degree to which each idea in the set is in a common domain with the other ideas. A conspiracy/mythology is an IdeaSet which is mostly disjoint.
This reasoning applies to all historical mumbojumbo: ufos, bigfoot, ghosts, etc. These ideas are plausible insofar as they are constructed to be almost unmeasurable.
The preponderance of camera phones today means we have 1bn+ people able to measure their environment at abitary frequencies, and all such phenomena have essentially disappeared.
Either somehow all ghosts, bigfoots, aliens, etc. are disappearing because we are measuring them; or they never existed.
NB. These ideas "go together" only socially, ie. believed by a secular-religious community. The objects they describe have no intrinsic relationship (bigfoot is not like a ghost). When you have a class of such ideas, it is likely they are wholesale false (ie. mythological).
It is possible to somewhat statistically predict P(IdeaSet is Mythological) by the degree to which each idea in the set is in a common domain with the other ideas. A conspiracy/mythology is an IdeaSet which is mostly disjoint.
>Any phenomenon which decreases in rate proportional to our ability to measure it is very unlikely to exist.
Military UFO sightings have only increased as we have deployed more sophisticated RADAR/LIDAR/Thermal/EWAR systems. In the nimitz case they had just recently been upgraded.
AEGIS/SPY-1 detected objects entering theater at 80,000+ ft, that quickly dropped to sea level. The tracks then disappeared from radar and the carrier groups sub gets a sonar hit in the same location of something going 200MPH under water.
We have complex multi-spectrum/multi-system detection events of objects/crafts capable of trans-medium travel, a capability no known adversary has.
Military UFO sightings have only increased as we have deployed more sophisticated RADAR/LIDAR/Thermal/EWAR systems. In the nimitz case they had just recently been upgraded.
AEGIS/SPY-1 detected objects entering theater at 80,000+ ft, that quickly dropped to sea level. The tracks then disappeared from radar and the carrier groups sub gets a sonar hit in the same location of something going 200MPH under water.
We have complex multi-spectrum/multi-system detection events of objects/crafts capable of trans-medium travel, a capability no known adversary has.
>In the nimitz case they had just recently been upgraded
Fancy new equipment that's new to it's operators, who aren't familiar with it's capabilities and behaviour, using it in a highly complex environment. What could possibly go wrong.
When I see an instrument measure something at some extreme level, which suddenly drops to another extreme level, personally I think instrument auto-recalibration. We had a host suddenly decide it was logging events from 30 years ago, then switch back to 'today'. Turns out it wasn't aliens or ghosts, just a glitch in NTP.
Fancy new equipment that's new to it's operators, who aren't familiar with it's capabilities and behaviour, using it in a highly complex environment. What could possibly go wrong.
When I see an instrument measure something at some extreme level, which suddenly drops to another extreme level, personally I think instrument auto-recalibration. We had a host suddenly decide it was logging events from 30 years ago, then switch back to 'today'. Turns out it wasn't aliens or ghosts, just a glitch in NTP.
Phone cameras have improved in resolution but their optical zoom hasn't gotten much better. The Chelyabinsk meteor is easy to see without any zoom because of the contrail and glow from burning in the atmosphere, but the UFOs that people claim to see don't leave any signatures. They're often reported as just shapes moving in strange ways or balls of light. The few witness testimonies I've seen often estimate the size of the UFO being smaller than a commercial airliner, I believe David Fravor said the Tic Tac was about the size of an F-18 hornet. If they also move as fast and erratically as people often claim, it's not that surprising there isn't more photographic evidence.
And there actually are quite a few photos and videos captured of UFO phenomenon, but they get posted on obscure areas of social media and never make mainstream news. The videos are often debunked as weather balloons, flairs, or something else prosaic. In some cases the debunking theory is confirmed because e.g. we can confirm that skydivers with flairs were in the same region as the video was taken. In most cases it's just a video of a small object in the sky and there's no way to confirm what it is.
Re: NORAD, Jacques Vallee claimed in a Joe Rogan interview that (either the ARTCC or NORAD) do see thousands of objects on radar every month that get classified as "uncorrelated targets" and are ignored because they don't show any inbound trajectory toward the US.
And there actually are quite a few photos and videos captured of UFO phenomenon, but they get posted on obscure areas of social media and never make mainstream news. The videos are often debunked as weather balloons, flairs, or something else prosaic. In some cases the debunking theory is confirmed because e.g. we can confirm that skydivers with flairs were in the same region as the video was taken. In most cases it's just a video of a small object in the sky and there's no way to confirm what it is.
Re: NORAD, Jacques Vallee claimed in a Joe Rogan interview that (either the ARTCC or NORAD) do see thousands of objects on radar every month that get classified as "uncorrelated targets" and are ignored because they don't show any inbound trajectory toward the US.
Both the resolution and the optical magnification have gotten better. Initial mobile phones had an equivalent to a 28mm lens in the 35mm format, today you get 50-70mm equivalents too. In any case, a modern smartphone even with a rather wide angle lens does still get more details than an average eye. So what people indeed are seeing are strange lights which move around, which well, are just some lights they can't explain. And the smartphone will show that rather clearly.
And that is just smartphones, that is not talking about all the high-power digital cameras now being quite ubiquitous, one would expect at least some interesting shots popping up on the internet.
And that is just smartphones, that is not talking about all the high-power digital cameras now being quite ubiquitous, one would expect at least some interesting shots popping up on the internet.
Here’s a completely bizarre experience I had that I attributed to bad luck.
I saw a weird triangular drone/plane flying close to an airport. I went to take a picture of it (to identify later) and my phone died. Just up and black screened. An hour later I was eating dinner and turned back on with ~43% battery power remaining. It wasn’t a particularly cold day, but I attributed to an old battery not handling the temp well. I don’t think it was aliens, or even a UFO (except to me.)
…but if it was an alien UFO, I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks who traversed space to be here could ID a lens and disable my phone.
I saw a weird triangular drone/plane flying close to an airport. I went to take a picture of it (to identify later) and my phone died. Just up and black screened. An hour later I was eating dinner and turned back on with ~43% battery power remaining. It wasn’t a particularly cold day, but I attributed to an old battery not handling the temp well. I don’t think it was aliens, or even a UFO (except to me.)
…but if it was an alien UFO, I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks who traversed space to be here could ID a lens and disable my phone.
Yes, it is an odd coincidence, but as you write, a bad battery or just a weak contact is the likely explanation.
The alternative would assume that there are aliens, which are able to disable your smartphone from the distance, but are not able to make their vehicles somewhat look like current human vehicles. At minimum, they should paint "Pepsi" or "Nike" on them, and no one would notice them :)
The alternative would assume that there are aliens, which are able to disable your smartphone from the distance, but are not able to make their vehicles somewhat look like current human vehicles. At minimum, they should paint "Pepsi" or "Nike" on them, and no one would notice them :)
Same argument could be stretched to say..."same folks could hide themselves from your eyes"
Could've been this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_RQ-170_Sentine...
I've seen those twice on the west side of Puerto Rico. Spooked the hell out of me at the time because they fly very low and make virtually no sound.
I bet that was it! Thanks!
Not really.
A lot of the cases have always been hoaxes or ignorance. Slow moving lights in the skies photographed by exited "believers".
The few remaining good cases are difficult to document. First of all, go out and take a picture of a bird. You get just one chance and it must be flying fast. Your result will not be very good. This our baseline.
Now look at the Nimitz incident. They measured a move of stationary at 80k feet to 80 feet in less than a second - something like 1200g, IIRC. 1200g is a downright silly number.
Now just take a good picture of this /s
The best current theory IMO is that this is done my manipulating/creating geodesic lines. This will create "gravity lensing" (like Einstein crosses) further blurring the craft.
Anyone serious but curios should take a look at uaptheory.com - it is good work on display by someone who understands physics and relativity.
We won't get a good picture because they move ridiculously fast.
A lot of the cases have always been hoaxes or ignorance. Slow moving lights in the skies photographed by exited "believers".
The few remaining good cases are difficult to document. First of all, go out and take a picture of a bird. You get just one chance and it must be flying fast. Your result will not be very good. This our baseline.
Now look at the Nimitz incident. They measured a move of stationary at 80k feet to 80 feet in less than a second - something like 1200g, IIRC. 1200g is a downright silly number.
Now just take a good picture of this /s
The best current theory IMO is that this is done my manipulating/creating geodesic lines. This will create "gravity lensing" (like Einstein crosses) further blurring the craft.
Anyone serious but curios should take a look at uaptheory.com - it is good work on display by someone who understands physics and relativity.
We won't get a good picture because they move ridiculously fast.
That measurement came from a radar cluster for which an update was being tested the same day. The radar data that was quickly grabbed from the strike group (tinfoil explanation: coverup), was actually retrieved for diagnostics and post-mortem for the test which had apparently failed.
The Nimitz incident apparently took place over an entire week. All that instrumentation was wrong... for an entire week? Doesn't pass the smell test.
> They were logged as high as eighty thousand feet, and as low as the ocean’s surface. After about a week of radar observations, Commander David Fravor, a graduate of the élite Topgun fighter-pilot school and the commanding officer of the Black Aces squadron, was sent on an intercept mission.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentag...
> They were logged as high as eighty thousand feet, and as low as the ocean’s surface. After about a week of radar observations, Commander David Fravor, a graduate of the élite Topgun fighter-pilot school and the commanding officer of the Black Aces squadron, was sent on an intercept mission.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/10/how-the-pentag...
So I'm reluctant to post this but here we go..
In this case it is most probably high competence. Coming out of WW2 it wasn't difficult to take national security extremely serious. I thought that there wasn't much to the crash(es) near Corona in 1947 but the witness testimonies are just very very convincing, I actually changed my mind after reading up on the subject recently (before I would have said I don't know anything about it but I'd be amazed if it was true).
A lot of observations had been made the weeks previous to the crash and gathered a lot of headlines, including the one in Portland that coined the expression "flying saucer". The person in the photo with the weather balloon is on record saying that it was not a weather balloon, that was a cover story, as are a lot of other people involved in the handling of wreckage and bodies in the days after. These are people that didn't come forward but had to be found after several decades.
And this was the press release by the military before it was withdrawn and replaced with the balloon story:
"The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves County"
I encourage anyone who is interested to look at Stanton Friedman's interviews with witnesses, they are on youtube.
In this case it is most probably high competence. Coming out of WW2 it wasn't difficult to take national security extremely serious. I thought that there wasn't much to the crash(es) near Corona in 1947 but the witness testimonies are just very very convincing, I actually changed my mind after reading up on the subject recently (before I would have said I don't know anything about it but I'd be amazed if it was true).
A lot of observations had been made the weeks previous to the crash and gathered a lot of headlines, including the one in Portland that coined the expression "flying saucer". The person in the photo with the weather balloon is on record saying that it was not a weather balloon, that was a cover story, as are a lot of other people involved in the handling of wreckage and bodies in the days after. These are people that didn't come forward but had to be found after several decades.
And this was the press release by the military before it was withdrawn and replaced with the balloon story:
"The many rumors regarding the flying disc became a reality yesterday when the intelligence office of the 509th Bomb Group of the Eighth Air Force, Roswell Army Air Field, was fortunate enough to gain possession of a disc through the cooperation of one of the local ranchers and the sheriff's office of Chaves County"
I encourage anyone who is interested to look at Stanton Friedman's interviews with witnesses, they are on youtube.
Apparently, there was a cover-up, but not of an alien spaceship:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Mogul
The speed of light essentially prohibits space travel.
The fastest possible speed for any material object to travel at is incredibly slow compared to any meaningful distance. It is millenia just from the sun to the edge of our solar system, let alone to anything "near by".
The universe is not the kind of place where living things can travel "between worlds". This is scifi -- and it is no coincidence UFO sightings peak in the era of Star Treck, and space races.
P(All life is organic | All known chemistry) ~= Very High
P(All intelligent organic life degrades) ~= Very High
thef.
P(Alien Life Lasts Long Enough To Travel | Above ) ~= Very Low
Physics & Chemistry basically rule out alien contact.
Once you insert these priors into your reasoning the "D - it's aliens!" becomes extraordinarily implausible.
It's remarkable this author finds D-Aliens more likely than D-SecretSociety. The latter only requires plausible localised advancements in knowledge and conspiracy; the former requires believing everything we know about biochemistry and physics to be radically incorrect.
The fastest possible speed for any material object to travel at is incredibly slow compared to any meaningful distance. It is millenia just from the sun to the edge of our solar system, let alone to anything "near by".
The universe is not the kind of place where living things can travel "between worlds". This is scifi -- and it is no coincidence UFO sightings peak in the era of Star Treck, and space races.
P(All life is organic | All known chemistry) ~= Very High
P(All intelligent organic life degrades) ~= Very High
thef.
P(Alien Life Lasts Long Enough To Travel | Above ) ~= Very Low
Physics & Chemistry basically rule out alien contact.
Once you insert these priors into your reasoning the "D - it's aliens!" becomes extraordinarily implausible.
It's remarkable this author finds D-Aliens more likely than D-SecretSociety. The latter only requires plausible localised advancements in knowledge and conspiracy; the former requires believing everything we know about biochemistry and physics to be radically incorrect.
> It is millenia just from the sun to the edge of our solar system
?
We sent two probes in the 70s and they're already out of our solar system, they're definitely going waaaay slower than the speed of light
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46502820
?
We sent two probes in the 70s and they're already out of our solar system, they're definitely going waaaay slower than the speed of light
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46502820
Depends how you define "solar system". I was taxing a maximal definition of the outermost region where the sun's gravity has a meaningful effect; but also, it wouldnt be 1000 light years, I agree.
A more relevant number would just be distance to nearest system with planets of a relevant type. Or, likewise, the distance between this and the nearest galaxy (25k light years).
Space is "big"; much much bigger than its maximal speed. Light is only fast "around here". Traversable space is tiny for everything; and minute for living things.
A more relevant number would just be distance to nearest system with planets of a relevant type. Or, likewise, the distance between this and the nearest galaxy (25k light years).
Space is "big"; much much bigger than its maximal speed. Light is only fast "around here". Traversable space is tiny for everything; and minute for living things.
You seem to ignore Von nuaman (sp) probes, generation ships, non carbon based life. And that’s before we consider that our understanding of physics may not be complete.
I didn't ignore them. It may be clearer to write all probabilities above as being conditioned on "our best knowledge of the universe".
P(All intelligent life is organic | Our best knowldge) =~ 1
Who knows the actual P(All intelligent life is organic).
My point is that OP seems profoundly ignorant of "the facts of the matter" as our best theories describe them.
Such facts make D-AnythingOtherThanAliens vastly more likely than D-Aliens.
It is possible to "imagine" a world in which non-carbon-based life develops to an intelligent point (somehow with evolution...? adaption? ... organic growth...?)...
And it is possible to Imagine they develop space ships, can travel near light speed and survive for billions of years without severe issues (again: how could an intelligent life develop which "thinks on small time scales" enough to build ships, but not be severely affected by having to live for billions of years?).
And its possible to imagine such a species has been exploring the near infinite vastness of space for long enough to have found earth and contacted us in a bizarre series of ways that routinely have little in common.
Etc.
But this imagined scenario is based in exactly zero physics, chemistry, biochemistry or anything else.
That such a novel can be written weighs nothing on whether we ought actual count it as a possibility.
P(All intelligent life is organic | Our best knowldge) =~ 1
Who knows the actual P(All intelligent life is organic).
My point is that OP seems profoundly ignorant of "the facts of the matter" as our best theories describe them.
Such facts make D-AnythingOtherThanAliens vastly more likely than D-Aliens.
It is possible to "imagine" a world in which non-carbon-based life develops to an intelligent point (somehow with evolution...? adaption? ... organic growth...?)...
And it is possible to Imagine they develop space ships, can travel near light speed and survive for billions of years without severe issues (again: how could an intelligent life develop which "thinks on small time scales" enough to build ships, but not be severely affected by having to live for billions of years?).
And its possible to imagine such a species has been exploring the near infinite vastness of space for long enough to have found earth and contacted us in a bizarre series of ways that routinely have little in common.
Etc.
But this imagined scenario is based in exactly zero physics, chemistry, biochemistry or anything else.
That such a novel can be written weighs nothing on whether we ought actual count it as a possibility.
I like your thinking but this still bothers me:
> P(All intelligent life is organic | Our best knowldge) =~ 1
Even looking at ourselves, we are somewhat close to AI and it’s a reasonable belief that we’ll have something smarter than us within a few decades. Why are non organic aliens so unlikely to you?
> P(All intelligent life is organic | Our best knowldge) =~ 1
Even looking at ourselves, we are somewhat close to AI and it’s a reasonable belief that we’ll have something smarter than us within a few decades. Why are non organic aliens so unlikely to you?
I equally think P(Inorganic AI) is also vanishing low.
What the ad companies have been selling, and researchers peacocking, isn't "AI".
It's a system of manipulating electrical abacus beads to follow patterns of interest to human observers. Has very little to do with building systems that have relevant intrinsic properties.
A digital computer does not weight more in virtue of simulating weight. A simulation is just an ape moving a bead along a wire to aid in its thinking. Simulations are cognitive games that enable us to reason more clearly.
Nothing obtains any properties in virute of being a computer. A computer is just a type of gaming we are playing with another physical system.
Intelligence is an instrinic property of really-existing physical systems; largely having to do with the ability to physical adapt on small time scales (ie., the brain grows differently in response to bodily-environmental dynamics). And on large time-scales (ie., evolution provides for the "right material" over >billion years via adaption -- which is an organic process).
Only organic material has demonstrated the relevant short-time and long-time properties for intelligence.
Games with electrical switches are apt to fool an ape looking at an LCD screen into thinking "there really is a virtual world in there!". But there isnt: it's an illusion. The LCD screen only appears to show it because we have rigged the beads to disturb the liquid crystal of the screen so as to present this illusion.
What the ad companies have been selling, and researchers peacocking, isn't "AI".
It's a system of manipulating electrical abacus beads to follow patterns of interest to human observers. Has very little to do with building systems that have relevant intrinsic properties.
A digital computer does not weight more in virtue of simulating weight. A simulation is just an ape moving a bead along a wire to aid in its thinking. Simulations are cognitive games that enable us to reason more clearly.
Nothing obtains any properties in virute of being a computer. A computer is just a type of gaming we are playing with another physical system.
Intelligence is an instrinic property of really-existing physical systems; largely having to do with the ability to physical adapt on small time scales (ie., the brain grows differently in response to bodily-environmental dynamics). And on large time-scales (ie., evolution provides for the "right material" over >billion years via adaption -- which is an organic process).
Only organic material has demonstrated the relevant short-time and long-time properties for intelligence.
Games with electrical switches are apt to fool an ape looking at an LCD screen into thinking "there really is a virtual world in there!". But there isnt: it's an illusion. The LCD screen only appears to show it because we have rigged the beads to disturb the liquid crystal of the screen so as to present this illusion.
>Intelligence is an instrinic property of really-existing physical systems
Why are human brains real, which are just meat full of electricity, but computer brains cannot be real, which are just metal full of electricity?
>Only organic material has demonstrated the relevant short-time and long-time properties for intelligence.
I would argue: so far. We didn't start with Ultra-high-definition televisions. Grandpa had a tv that was barely discernible as a picture, and probably caused massive cancer. Now I have a high def screen in my pocket.
>What the ad companies have been selling, and researchers peacocking, isn't "AI".
I do agree with this, but I certainly do not know enough about it to speak intelligently.
I guess what I'm saying is, your argument comes across as - we can't do it right now, so it must be impossible. That just smacks of being wrong.
Why are human brains real, which are just meat full of electricity, but computer brains cannot be real, which are just metal full of electricity?
>Only organic material has demonstrated the relevant short-time and long-time properties for intelligence.
I would argue: so far. We didn't start with Ultra-high-definition televisions. Grandpa had a tv that was barely discernible as a picture, and probably caused massive cancer. Now I have a high def screen in my pocket.
>What the ad companies have been selling, and researchers peacocking, isn't "AI".
I do agree with this, but I certainly do not know enough about it to speak intelligently.
I guess what I'm saying is, your argument comes across as - we can't do it right now, so it must be impossible. That just smacks of being wrong.
> we can't do it right now, so it must be impossible
Has nothing to do with anything I said.
I said no systems have properties in virtue of being computers. Nothing is a program, let alone intelligence.
>meat full of electricity
Meat grows. Intelligence is just a strategy many animals have adopted as a means of rapid adaptation to their local environment. It is maximal in humans because our motor systems are maximally adaptive, to the extreme degree that we literally learn to walk.
Each cell of the body is an entire universe of factories. And the body a synthesis of trillions providing a "terminator-2"-like plasticity from-top-to-bottom. Each of these trillion cells is capable of unimaginable scales of adaption, let alone the whole body.
I have no idea why people suppose any of that is a purely formal "algorithm" which any old thing might do. Beads of wood, or electrical switches. I can only assume, like the people to watch films for the first time, we apes are easily fooled.
Has nothing to do with anything I said.
I said no systems have properties in virtue of being computers. Nothing is a program, let alone intelligence.
>meat full of electricity
Meat grows. Intelligence is just a strategy many animals have adopted as a means of rapid adaptation to their local environment. It is maximal in humans because our motor systems are maximally adaptive, to the extreme degree that we literally learn to walk.
Each cell of the body is an entire universe of factories. And the body a synthesis of trillions providing a "terminator-2"-like plasticity from-top-to-bottom. Each of these trillion cells is capable of unimaginable scales of adaption, let alone the whole body.
I have no idea why people suppose any of that is a purely formal "algorithm" which any old thing might do. Beads of wood, or electrical switches. I can only assume, like the people to watch films for the first time, we apes are easily fooled.
There is a virtual world in there though. There's rules, objects, processes and people to talk to. There can both fooled apes and a nested world to explore. Occasionally we take something out the simulation and interface it into the real world, or physically replicate the best virtual iteration.
It might be low probability based on today's knowledge, but given that it's an option, that compute and algorithmic progress will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, those odds will continue to rise. The technosphere is the next abstraction that evolution will take place in and we've only had 50 years to get to know it. Give it 1000 years of civilization surviving and I can guarantee non-organic "life" will surpass all expectations.
It might be low probability based on today's knowledge, but given that it's an option, that compute and algorithmic progress will continue to increase for the foreseeable future, those odds will continue to rise. The technosphere is the next abstraction that evolution will take place in and we've only had 50 years to get to know it. Give it 1000 years of civilization surviving and I can guarantee non-organic "life" will surpass all expectations.
I am not following your reasoning here. Is there some property of organic matter that is necessary for intelligence, are you arguing that intelligence can only arise via natural selection, or something else?
While I agree we are no where near creating general artificial intelligence in a way required to found an interstellar civilization, I don't see how it would violate the laws of physics. Which is more likely: it is impossible to create actual artificial intelligence or we just haven't been trying for long enough?
While I agree we are no where near creating general artificial intelligence in a way required to found an interstellar civilization, I don't see how it would violate the laws of physics. Which is more likely: it is impossible to create actual artificial intelligence or we just haven't been trying for long enough?
> we are somewhat close to AI and it’s a reasonable belief that we’ll have something smarter than us within a few decades.
We've been saying that for the past 50 years or so now... We're always two years from self driving cars too.
I wouldn't be so certain about AI, don't forget the 80/20 law, we got very good at pattern matching but we're faaaaar from general AI
We've been saying that for the past 50 years or so now... We're always two years from self driving cars too.
I wouldn't be so certain about AI, don't forget the 80/20 law, we got very good at pattern matching but we're faaaaar from general AI
Generation ships may not be possible, at least for biological lifeforms. Kim Stanley Robinson wrote his novel Aurora in large part to argue this.
I’d be curious what the argument is. They would certainly be able to resupply raw materials if needed. Just plan a stop at a promising star system.
Why wouldn’t a long lived nuclear power system provide the energy for food and life support?
Beyond that, even five or ten generations is enough to get somewhere at .1C.
Why wouldn’t a long lived nuclear power system provide the energy for food and life support?
Beyond that, even five or ten generations is enough to get somewhere at .1C.
I recommend reading the novel. The key line in it is “Life is a planetary phenomenon.” Basically, the argument is that at less than planetary scale, you would be confronted with things like waste products building up too quickly to sustain human life. For example, the generation starship struggles with an excess of salt (which in turn affects food production). The limited confines of the ship also produce deleterious effect on successive human generations akin to those found among species in isolated island ecosystems.
Maybe he had to make his argument into a novel because it isn't good enough to stand up to direct inspection. Deleterious effect of species on small islands are (a) maybe not always present? E.g. kakapo (b) due to factors which needn't be unaddressed in generational ships
He made his argument into a novel because he is a writer, novels are what he does. But he tends to write around the scientific ideas he has been reading and his work often serves as convenient summaries of those ideas for a broad audience – mentioning a KSR plot is standard fare on "news for nerds" sites like this one.
Also, my post above intentionally says "akin to" and not "identical to".
Also, my post above intentionally says "akin to" and not "identical to".
While I agree with your assessment of known modes of travel, this also assumes we know everything. I believe it is a safe assumption that we do not.
There are potential modes of travel via worm holes or similar inter-dimensional transits that could account for vast distances shrinking to zero without violating our known physics laws.
There are potential modes of travel via worm holes or similar inter-dimensional transits that could account for vast distances shrinking to zero without violating our known physics laws.
Your priors seem way off
Your argument is invalid since you incorrectly assume that:
- all known chemistry is all there is to know about chemistry, thus there is no basis to state all life must be organic
- it's impossible biological systems can be made sufficiently error correcting, by technological or other means
- conventional travel is the only form of space travel
- all known chemistry is all there is to know about chemistry, thus there is no basis to state all life must be organic
- it's impossible biological systems can be made sufficiently error correcting, by technological or other means
- conventional travel is the only form of space travel
Humans only discovered the utility of carbon-based energy stores(oil) a couple hundred years ago, and already we've landed on the moon, harnessed nuclear fuel for various purposes, and purposefully fixed nitrogen en masse to allow our population to explode. We only recently connected several billion people on a common communication platform(internet) and discovered how to modify our genetic code in any arbitrary way we want.
Do you honestly think that our current limitations will be the limitations of our species going forward? Imagine a species that has been undergoing such technological advancement for 10,000 years(a geologic blink of an eye) instead of 200. Even if we are fundamentally limited by the speed of light, stasis technologies and resistance to radiation exposure could be developed that make interstellar travel possible. Our closest star is only a few lightyears away.
Do you honestly think that our current limitations will be the limitations of our species going forward? Imagine a species that has been undergoing such technological advancement for 10,000 years(a geologic blink of an eye) instead of 200. Even if we are fundamentally limited by the speed of light, stasis technologies and resistance to radiation exposure could be developed that make interstellar travel possible. Our closest star is only a few lightyears away.
Why does everyone assume the belligerent nature of aliens thinking they evolved as we did?
Maybe aliens evolved from a capybara and all they are looking for in the universe is a warm lake to bath in.
Warm lake tech likely comes before interstellar travel in the tech tree.
It’s both. “The government” is not one entity. Even a commander himself may be baffled by sightings of an advanced technology that he is paying for but isn’t privileged to know about.
This article didn't really live up to my expectations based on the title.
What I would say, based only on information that almost everyone should agree on (ie. public statements and a very small number of authenticated videos) is that there are three possibilities.
1. Surprising government incompetence
This would be the case if all reported military encounters with UAP's could be explained by misinterpretations and mistakes (possibly including failure to identify foreign adversarial technology), as people like Mick West propose, and the government has been unable to determine this.
2. Surprising government competence
This would cover scenarios where the government has either created the UFO phenomenon from scratch as some kind of disinformation campaign (for unclear reasons) or has secretly developed technology far in advance of the publicly known state of the art and has kept it hidden for many decades.
3. A real phenomenon unknown to science
This covers aliens in the broadest possible sense of the term as well as unknown natural phenomena that somehow seem to exhibit intelligent behavior.
What I would say, based only on information that almost everyone should agree on (ie. public statements and a very small number of authenticated videos) is that there are three possibilities.
1. Surprising government incompetence
This would be the case if all reported military encounters with UAP's could be explained by misinterpretations and mistakes (possibly including failure to identify foreign adversarial technology), as people like Mick West propose, and the government has been unable to determine this.
2. Surprising government competence
This would cover scenarios where the government has either created the UFO phenomenon from scratch as some kind of disinformation campaign (for unclear reasons) or has secretly developed technology far in advance of the publicly known state of the art and has kept it hidden for many decades.
3. A real phenomenon unknown to science
This covers aliens in the broadest possible sense of the term as well as unknown natural phenomena that somehow seem to exhibit intelligent behavior.
I don't agree with #1. Why would it be surprising government incompetence? Government is not one person with infinite knowledge, plenty of them are elected officials with questionable level of understanding of various phenomena.
Most sightings can be easily explained with misinterpretations and mistakes just like Mick West shows.
Recent number of videos (gimbal, tic tac, ...) are probably released to muddy the waters and the Navy knows what they are showing.
Most sightings can be easily explained with misinterpretations and mistakes just like Mick West shows.
Recent number of videos (gimbal, tic tac, ...) are probably released to muddy the waters and the Navy knows what they are showing.
Because the government presumably has access to large numbers of highly competent individuals, some at least as smart as Mick West, who should have been able to conclude that all of these sightings amount to nothing, if that is indeed the case. They also presumably have access to far more data on the subject than West or anyone else.
My suggestion is that they did conclude that. Best proof is that there is no widespread research into UFOs funded by the government or the military.
Military even released couple of videos captures by their own aircraft, if it was anything sensitive or secretive they wouldn't release these videos to the public (and to the adversaries).
Military even released couple of videos captures by their own aircraft, if it was anything sensitive or secretive they wouldn't release these videos to the public (and to the adversaries).
> My suggestion is that they did conclude that.
Then why haven't they said so instead of telling the American people and Congress that the objects shown in the videos are considered unidentified, to the extent that Congress has ordered a report on UAP's and that an investigation by the DoD Inspector General has been initiated ?
Then why haven't they said so instead of telling the American people and Congress that the objects shown in the videos are considered unidentified, to the extent that Congress has ordered a report on UAP's and that an investigation by the DoD Inspector General has been initiated ?
Because funding? We need better equipment, better sensors, and more data due to the investigation. That requires more funding.
Call me cynical, but I legitimately believe anytime a government agency releases information like this, it is just a cash grab.
Call me cynical, but I legitimately believe anytime a government agency releases information like this, it is just a cash grab.
I for one look forward to the hacker news posts titled "How did we get it so wrong for so long?" analyzing the systemic and sociological failures that lead to the "taboo" which blocked progress/investigation for so long.
The comments of course will be how it was obvious, documented for decades, and how they knew all along.
The comments of course will be how it was obvious, documented for decades, and how they knew all along.
Didn't the CIA admit that UFO's were a disinformation campaign for the soviets? https://www.deseret.com/1997/8/3/19327002/government-lied-to...
Edit: added a public link
Edit: added a public link
See, this is why it is always so hard to take these rationalist arguments seriously. They assume their own competence, at the same time as pretending not to.
The most likely alternative is obviously E: something we (personally) don't know. That doesn't depend on time travel, extra dimensions, or aliens.
It's not a clear majority, > 0.5. But to fail to mention it amounts to a big hole in the argument.
The most likely alternative is obviously E: something we (personally) don't know. That doesn't depend on time travel, extra dimensions, or aliens.
It's not a clear majority, > 0.5. But to fail to mention it amounts to a big hole in the argument.
Why wouldn't that count as A?
Government competence is either surprisingly high or low? I'm going with the latter on principle.
Words fail to describe how skeptical I am of this, but let's focus on the particular point that the author is making. They correctly assert that if you look at the totality of UFO sightings, then A -- "Honest mistakes: This includes misunderstandings of familiar phenomena, delusions and mental illness, and natural phenomena that we now poorly understand" -- is by far the dominant conclusion.
If we just look at the hardest to explain ones, the author asserts, then that option disappears because that is what makes them tricky; we've ruled out (via multiple witnesses, or very reliable witnesses) that option.
So let's just get to the nitty gritty -- what are some examples of the top 10 hardest to explain ones? I ask because I've never seen one that I would consider "hard to explain" in that sense.
If we just look at the hardest to explain ones, the author asserts, then that option disappears because that is what makes them tricky; we've ruled out (via multiple witnesses, or very reliable witnesses) that option.
So let's just get to the nitty gritty -- what are some examples of the top 10 hardest to explain ones? I ask because I've never seen one that I would consider "hard to explain" in that sense.
> what are some examples of the top 10 hardest to explain ones?
The Nimitz 2004 incident taken as a whole seems to be in a category by itself in terms of how difficult it is to explain.
The Nimitz 2004 incident taken as a whole seems to be in a category by itself in terms of how difficult it is to explain.
Call me skeptical, but why all of a sudden would a government go from “swamp gas” and “weather balloons” to “we don’t know what the hell it is”. Seems awfully contrived.
Sane, rational people see things that aren’t really there all the time. I want proof, or else I’m positive that the answer is a) honest mistakes.
I mean, there are how many cell phones in the world now? And how many unambiguous pictures of aliens or ufo’s?
I mean, there are how many cell phones in the world now? And how many unambiguous pictures of aliens or ufo’s?
The author doesn't present a single logical argument that I could follow. The entire piece is just hand waving with a self proclamation of logic. I'm confused how this could reach the front page of hn. My best guess is people just want to discuss their own theories on UFOs and it presented a forum for that, but it feels like we are collectively giving this piece credibility.
The first line sets up the entire charade:
Sometimes I pride myself on my taking an intellectual strategy of tackling neglected important questions.
The first line sets up the entire charade:
Sometimes I pride myself on my taking an intellectual strategy of tackling neglected important questions.
A lot of people hold the Rationalists, of whom Robin Hanson is a leading light, in high regard. So, even if a particular post is not very good, it will be received positively because of its authorship.
This is an unfortunately common phenomenon. People vote for headlines not for articles. Not new though.
That essay completely misses the simple quantum truth of the matter which is that it's all of the above.
It's all clearly just the universe acknowledging that, with all of our ramped up observational capabilities and all of our beaming radio waves into space, it's becoming more and more likely that we should have had some encounters with advanced spacefaring civilizations by now.
The logical conclusion is that any given Schroedinger's Spock is more or less likely to be a mistake, some new government tech, a hoax, AND traveling aliens whose DNA both is and isn't a branch off some human ancestor's...until the autopsy.
'Cause when you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do!
Forget it, Marge, it's Chinatown.
It's all clearly just the universe acknowledging that, with all of our ramped up observational capabilities and all of our beaming radio waves into space, it's becoming more and more likely that we should have had some encounters with advanced spacefaring civilizations by now.
The logical conclusion is that any given Schroedinger's Spock is more or less likely to be a mistake, some new government tech, a hoax, AND traveling aliens whose DNA both is and isn't a branch off some human ancestor's...until the autopsy.
'Cause when you reach over and put your hand into a pile of goo that was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do!
Forget it, Marge, it's Chinatown.
It seems to me that aliens as an explanation for UFO sightings is inherently contradictory.
If you assume they came and are attempting stealth, then they've done a terrible job of what should have been a trivial task. Assuming they have the technology to detect intelligent life on our planet from many light-years away, one would think they could safely observe us from inside our solar system but outside the atmosphere, where they would be virtually impossible to detect. If they do need to enter our atmosphere, it should be easy to set some rules on movement (acceleration limits, etc) such that, at the very least, they do not immediately strike a casual observer as an unusual phenomenon. Instead, they have managed to be seen and recorded so many times that they have not only been sporadically observed, but have actually inserted themselves into our cultural zeitgeist.
On the other hand, if you assume they are here but do not care about being observed, one would expect much better documentation of them. For that matter, if they do not mind being observed one would expect they would hover or land near objects of interest: cities, planes, near world leaders, etc. Instead, UFOs always seem to have almost a furtiveness to them, quickly accelerating away when they realize they are being seen.
If you assume they came and are attempting stealth, then they've done a terrible job of what should have been a trivial task. Assuming they have the technology to detect intelligent life on our planet from many light-years away, one would think they could safely observe us from inside our solar system but outside the atmosphere, where they would be virtually impossible to detect. If they do need to enter our atmosphere, it should be easy to set some rules on movement (acceleration limits, etc) such that, at the very least, they do not immediately strike a casual observer as an unusual phenomenon. Instead, they have managed to be seen and recorded so many times that they have not only been sporadically observed, but have actually inserted themselves into our cultural zeitgeist.
On the other hand, if you assume they are here but do not care about being observed, one would expect much better documentation of them. For that matter, if they do not mind being observed one would expect they would hover or land near objects of interest: cities, planes, near world leaders, etc. Instead, UFOs always seem to have almost a furtiveness to them, quickly accelerating away when they realize they are being seen.
That's a lot of assumptions about alien psychology and behavior. We barely understand animal psychology and language. There's literally zero ground to begin to understand an intelligent alien species capable of interstellar travel.
Why did this get so highly upvoted when it is just a mashmash of nonsense?
Rise in UFO reports is due to stealthy drone ubiquity.
I feel somewhat bad for sharing life stories on a technical forum, but here it goes. As a young boy, 5-ish, I was sleeping with my mother and father in the room, and my grandmother rushes in, all pale, shouting something which directly translates to "Flying body! Flying body!". I distinctly remember having nightmares afterward with flying torsos of humans, because my mind interpreted the "Flying body" statement as literal.
My parents take me with them and the four of us go outside. Sure enough, super close to the top of the buildings is a huge incandescent ... circle. It felt like it had no height, just a 2D circle, just moving somewhat slowly, soundless, above the buildings. Now, this went on for a total of 5 minutes until we lost all visibility, to the other buildings (again, this thing was very very very close to the building tops).
Add two more decades to my life, and I remember this incident. I look online and sure enough, I find an old phpBB forum where people talk about 'the incident'. Apparently, several people tracked it that evening and wrote about it. Unfortunately, I can't find the forum anymore, and going to the library to look for newspaper clippings yielded nothing, so this is always going to be a story that I'll believe, but probably no one else.
My parents still remember the incident, my grandmother is no longer with us. I've thought about what it might have been, trying to come up with a somewhat reasonable explanation, but I have yet to find any.