No evidence UFOs are alien craft, unclassified US intelligence report to reveal(thetimes.co.uk)
thetimes.co.uk
No evidence UFOs are alien craft, unclassified US intelligence report to reveal
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-evidence-ufos-are-alien-spacecraft-unclassified-us-intelligence-report-to-reveal-qscqhkznh
227 comments
> but Can’t Rule It Out, Either
Can't prove a negative.
Can't prove a negative.
It's certainly possible to disprove they are alien. By not ruling it out, it's saying there is no present evidence to reject that hypothesis, which is a meaningful thing to say.
It would be trivially rejectable if we had any intel it was another country, for example.
It would be trivially rejectable if we had any intel it was another country, for example.
You have no evidence that Joe Biden is not a pod person. Is that a meaningful thing to say?
No, but if you assume the closure of explanations which includes "aliens" or "pod people" are interesting enough, failing to rule those out is meaningful, despite the fact it doesn't imply a specific conclusion is true (like aliens or pod people)
If we could disprove Joe Biden was a human, and couldn't disprove he was a pod person, alien, ghost, or leprechaun, that indeed would be an interesting set of conditions.
If we could disprove Joe Biden was a human, and couldn't disprove he was a pod person, alien, ghost, or leprechaun, that indeed would be an interesting set of conditions.
Maybe you should alert CNN to the fact that science hasn't yet ruled out the possibility that Joe Biden is a pod person.
Actually, I have evidence that Joe Biden is a pod person!
The statement "Joe Biden is a pod person" is logically equivalent to the statement "All things that are not pod persons are not Joe Biden".
I've examined tens of thousands of things that were not pod persons and none of them were Joe Biden, thus providing evidence for the second statement, and hence for the first statement.
(For those curious about this kind of evidence, it is called the Raven paradox [1]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
The statement "Joe Biden is a pod person" is logically equivalent to the statement "All things that are not pod persons are not Joe Biden".
I've examined tens of thousands of things that were not pod persons and none of them were Joe Biden, thus providing evidence for the second statement, and hence for the first statement.
(For those curious about this kind of evidence, it is called the Raven paradox [1]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
We absolutely have evidence that Joe Biden is not a pod person (just not absolutely "proof"). No one has ever demonstrated the existence of pod people (assuming that by "pod person" you mean 1950's-esque scifi comics pod people), and we've seen lots of evidence that Joe Biden is a human. Since we know humans exist, but we don't have any reason to believe that pod people exists, that does serve as evidence that Joe Biden is not a pod person.
I feel like you're purposefully conflating terms here.
I feel like you're purposefully conflating terms here.
> I feel like you're purposefully conflating terms here.
Not at all. But go ahead and believe those fuzzy blobs (pictures of UFOs are somehow always fuzzy blobs) are aliens if you like.
Do you know why the UFO pictures are always fuzzy blobs? Because if they were clear pictures, we'd recognize they are birds/balloons/drones/Venus/whatever.
Not at all. But go ahead and believe those fuzzy blobs (pictures of UFOs are somehow always fuzzy blobs) are aliens if you like.
Do you know why the UFO pictures are always fuzzy blobs? Because if they were clear pictures, we'd recognize they are birds/balloons/drones/Venus/whatever.
> But go ahead and believe those fuzzy blobs (pictures of UFOs are somehow always fuzzy blobs) are aliens if you like.
I think you might have gotten your usernames mixed up. I said I don't think they're aliens.
I don't disagree with you, I think every case of "alien" sightings are probably either camera artifacts or experimental aircrafts or people not knowing about how plane lights work.
I think you might have gotten your usernames mixed up. I said I don't think they're aliens.
I don't disagree with you, I think every case of "alien" sightings are probably either camera artifacts or experimental aircrafts or people not knowing about how plane lights work.
Do you think this merits credulous attention from "serious" news media? Maybe, if they put it in their "Today's Horoscope" section. After all, can't rule out astrology being true, either.
> After all, can't rule out astrology being true, either.
It can (and has) actually. Whenever astrology has been tested, it has failed to hold any predictive properties. As such, it can be ruled out. You know this, because if you didn't then you wouldn't have used astrology as an example.
> Do you think this merits credulous attention from "serious" news media?
"Merits" is a loaded term and I don't think either of us are qualified to know what that means, but I'll take a shot at it.
This was an officially requested report by government officials that was requested by congress and a sizable chunk of the public. The report was released. People are interested in what the report has to say. If the news is there to report on what people find interesting, it certainly has met that criteria.
Now, what differentiates this from something like "The Weekly World News"? I think mostly who requested and released the report. This wasn't just some quack on Joe Rogan or Twitter or something, this was the United States Military: the most powerful and most-funded military on the planet.
I really do not think this is hard to parse, but just to be clear, here's an example: If I broke my leg tomorrow, and CNN reported on it, I would think "jeez, must be a slow news day". If Joe Biden broke his leg tomorrow, it would not be weird at all for CNN to report on it.
It can (and has) actually. Whenever astrology has been tested, it has failed to hold any predictive properties. As such, it can be ruled out. You know this, because if you didn't then you wouldn't have used astrology as an example.
> Do you think this merits credulous attention from "serious" news media?
"Merits" is a loaded term and I don't think either of us are qualified to know what that means, but I'll take a shot at it.
This was an officially requested report by government officials that was requested by congress and a sizable chunk of the public. The report was released. People are interested in what the report has to say. If the news is there to report on what people find interesting, it certainly has met that criteria.
Now, what differentiates this from something like "The Weekly World News"? I think mostly who requested and released the report. This wasn't just some quack on Joe Rogan or Twitter or something, this was the United States Military: the most powerful and most-funded military on the planet.
I really do not think this is hard to parse, but just to be clear, here's an example: If I broke my leg tomorrow, and CNN reported on it, I would think "jeez, must be a slow news day". If Joe Biden broke his leg tomorrow, it would not be weird at all for CNN to report on it.
> it has failed to hold any predictive properties
And so has the UFOs are aliens theory.
CNN isn't just reporting it, they're reporting it as credible. In fact, a "sizable chunk of the public" being interested in this is precisely because CNN (and some others) are reporting it as credible.
Welcome to CNN creating news, not just reporting it.
And so has the UFOs are aliens theory.
CNN isn't just reporting it, they're reporting it as credible. In fact, a "sizable chunk of the public" being interested in this is precisely because CNN (and some others) are reporting it as credible.
Welcome to CNN creating news, not just reporting it.
You do realize that CNN has been ridiculing this stuff for its entire history, right? This isn't really a "fake news" type of situation, since arguably the fake news was the ridicule.
Not lately, they are not ridiculing it. They are treating it as a credible theory. CNN used to actually run news, too.
Again, and I don't mean to be patronizing but this really should not be confusing, it's the source of the data.
Is CNN irresponsible for presenting it as credible? I mean, I don't know, maybe, but the source isn't a quack from Twitter, it's congress and the military. What is CNN supposed to do, title their headline as "A bunch of bozos in the military think aliens are real LOLOLOL!!!!"?
Is CNN irresponsible for presenting it as credible? I mean, I don't know, maybe, but the source isn't a quack from Twitter, it's congress and the military. What is CNN supposed to do, title their headline as "A bunch of bozos in the military think aliens are real LOLOLOL!!!!"?
> Is CNN irresponsible for presenting it as credible?
Yes. Does CNN brag about following the science? Yes. Is CNN following the science here? Nope.
> What is CNN supposed to do, title their headline as "A bunch of bozos in the military think aliens are real LOLOLOL!!!!"?
For news that's not credible, yes. That is, if CNN itself wants to have any credibility.
For some perspective, CNN pretty much labeled everything the President of the United States said in the last 5 years as a lie. They're hardly afraid of doing that.
> I don't mean to be patronizing
You shouldn't believe everything authority figures tell you. UFOs are aliens should be pegging your bullshit detector.
Yes. Does CNN brag about following the science? Yes. Is CNN following the science here? Nope.
> What is CNN supposed to do, title their headline as "A bunch of bozos in the military think aliens are real LOLOLOL!!!!"?
For news that's not credible, yes. That is, if CNN itself wants to have any credibility.
For some perspective, CNN pretty much labeled everything the President of the United States said in the last 5 years as a lie. They're hardly afraid of doing that.
> I don't mean to be patronizing
You shouldn't believe everything authority figures tell you. UFOs are aliens should be pegging your bullshit detector.
To be clear, I don't think these are alien, BUT...
You might not be able to "prove a negative" in the purely scientific sense, but you can rule out most options to effectively "prove a negative".
If, for example, Russia came out and took credit for these things, and showed working prototypes of these crafts, would that "prove" (in the truest, mathematical sense of the word) that they aren't aliens? No, I suppose Russia could have intercepted alien technology and pass it off as their own, but for any kind of practical purpose that would "prove" they aren't aliens to most rational people, and thus "prove" a negative.
You might not be able to "prove a negative" in the purely scientific sense, but you can rule out most options to effectively "prove a negative".
If, for example, Russia came out and took credit for these things, and showed working prototypes of these crafts, would that "prove" (in the truest, mathematical sense of the word) that they aren't aliens? No, I suppose Russia could have intercepted alien technology and pass it off as their own, but for any kind of practical purpose that would "prove" they aren't aliens to most rational people, and thus "prove" a negative.
Can you "rule out" I'm an alien?
Again, not in the truest mathematical sense of the word, no, but I can reasonably rule it out in most practical senses:
a) You look like a human b) You write human language c) We have not seen any direct evidence for any kind of humanoid alien life, but we have seen lots of evidence for humans existing. d) If you were an alien spying on human culture, you wouldn't waste your time on Hacker News :).
Does this fully "rule out" the possibility of you being an alien? No, I suppose you could be an alien in a human skin suit who learned English, and maybe aliens are really interested in software engineering forums, but I can practically rule it out just playing the odds.
a) You look like a human b) You write human language c) We have not seen any direct evidence for any kind of humanoid alien life, but we have seen lots of evidence for humans existing. d) If you were an alien spying on human culture, you wouldn't waste your time on Hacker News :).
Does this fully "rule out" the possibility of you being an alien? No, I suppose you could be an alien in a human skin suit who learned English, and maybe aliens are really interested in software engineering forums, but I can practically rule it out just playing the odds.
You can just as safely "rule out" the possibility that these UFOs are aliens.
I don't disagree with that, hence why I made it clear from the get-go that I don't think they're aliens (I think it's probably most likely camera artifacts or experimental aircrafts or bad reporting, since we know all these things exists already).
I just feel like it's extremely reductive to say "can't prove a negative," for which I provided a counter example.
I just feel like it's extremely reductive to say "can't prove a negative," for which I provided a counter example.
"Those descriptions are a tectonic shift on the topic from the US government."
Feels like we are being primed for something new to be afraid of and give our treasure to in defense of. Aliens being non-peaceful fails so many logic tests though. I hope the script doesn't go that way.
My guess as to the reason for the shift.
1. Up until sometime in the last decade or so, the UFO sightings that were not successfully explained as natural phenomenon or optical effects that made something ordinary like an airliner appear as something else were all accidental sightings of government projects.
2. Then sightings started that the government recognized as the same technology, except not from the government. Whatever it is the government was experimenting with that occasionally led to an accidental sighting is now being experimented with by someone else, and the government does not know who that is.
When it was just the government projects getting accidentally sighted, they wanted to discourage reports and discussion to try maintain secrecy. Now that someone else is doing similar work, they want to know who and how they got the technology. They need people to report and discuss sightings so they can try to get past the secrecy of whoever is doing these new experiments.
1. Up until sometime in the last decade or so, the UFO sightings that were not successfully explained as natural phenomenon or optical effects that made something ordinary like an airliner appear as something else were all accidental sightings of government projects.
2. Then sightings started that the government recognized as the same technology, except not from the government. Whatever it is the government was experimenting with that occasionally led to an accidental sighting is now being experimented with by someone else, and the government does not know who that is.
When it was just the government projects getting accidentally sighted, they wanted to discourage reports and discussion to try maintain secrecy. Now that someone else is doing similar work, they want to know who and how they got the technology. They need people to report and discuss sightings so they can try to get past the secrecy of whoever is doing these new experiments.
Nah, it's much simpler: American's are tired of spending 10x more than all other nations combined on the Pentagon budget, solution: create an even bigger boogey-man than all other nations (what's bigger than aliens bent on world-domination), hell they don't even need to say that last bit, just insinuate aliens and they'll get twice as much $$.
That or it really IS aliens, and we're just used to not believing the Pentagon, or U.S. govt... cause they haven't always looked out for our best interests (NSA / Snowden ring's a bell).
That or it really IS aliens, and we're just used to not believing the Pentagon, or U.S. govt... cause they haven't always looked out for our best interests (NSA / Snowden ring's a bell).
was just thinking the same thing as I watched this video easily explaining one of the apparent objects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_bX9Hx1H0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_bX9Hx1H0
>Aliens being non-peaceful fails logic
Um, why?
Um, why?
Here's a fun answer: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/HowToInvad...
Just the "Motivation and Planning" category will reveal several reasons. My favorite is that there is almost no reason to go through the trouble of colonizing our planet, if you need any of our resources you can mine asteroids and no one will fight back. Unless of course the aliens are Evil.
Just the "Motivation and Planning" category will reveal several reasons. My favorite is that there is almost no reason to go through the trouble of colonizing our planet, if you need any of our resources you can mine asteroids and no one will fight back. Unless of course the aliens are Evil.
That sounds like ants reasoning "there's no reason for humans to mess with our ant hill. There's all that land right over there, and they won't have to fight us for it."
If the aliens are millions of years ahead of us, it's pretty optimistic to think they'll take us into account at all, unless maybe as a mildly interesting subject of nature documentaries.
If the aliens are millions of years ahead of us, it's pretty optimistic to think they'll take us into account at all, unless maybe as a mildly interesting subject of nature documentaries.
I guess beings so strong and powerful that they would destroy us without a second thought, like we do to ants, would fall into the "Evil" category in my comment above.
I agree with that and this is my thinking behind it.
(1) The number of filters they've passed through without destroying themselves suggests that they've overcome tribalism. The late-stage species most prone to violence are also the ones most prone to self destruction before they developed the tech to traverse space and get to Earth.
We don't have good predictions on the destructive potential of future tech, but suppose that tech advances in 1000 years means that every individual can easily make a weapon as destructive as a nuke. If such advances are possible, only the species predisposed to peace will survive.
(2) Resource abundance from technology removes the selective pressure towards tribal conflict, in the same way that it achieved that for the evolution of bonobos. They are genetic bonobos, not chimps, and violence is anathema to their genetic predisposition (assuming they're biological). Aliens may not have been that way in their ancestral past, but they would evolve in that direction post abundance.
(1) The number of filters they've passed through without destroying themselves suggests that they've overcome tribalism. The late-stage species most prone to violence are also the ones most prone to self destruction before they developed the tech to traverse space and get to Earth.
We don't have good predictions on the destructive potential of future tech, but suppose that tech advances in 1000 years means that every individual can easily make a weapon as destructive as a nuke. If such advances are possible, only the species predisposed to peace will survive.
(2) Resource abundance from technology removes the selective pressure towards tribal conflict, in the same way that it achieved that for the evolution of bonobos. They are genetic bonobos, not chimps, and violence is anathema to their genetic predisposition (assuming they're biological). Aliens may not have been that way in their ancestral past, but they would evolve in that direction post abundance.
While I think your points are certainly plausible, one way to overcome the filter could be removal of individuals or the concept of self which we experience. It's perhaps a bit of a lame TV trope, but something like a superintelligence could have a mind concept completely unimaginable to us.
It's all in the realm of speculation of course, with any proposal having quite a risk of anthropocentric (terracentric?) biases.
It's all in the realm of speculation of course, with any proposal having quite a risk of anthropocentric (terracentric?) biases.
It's an intriguing idea. There is something very civilizationally resilient (anti-fragile) about having heterogeneous agents upon which evolution can operate on, though. If there's only a single agent then it could plausibly get stuck in a pathological crevice in the fitness landscape which wouldn't happen in a multi-agent civilization. Although the flipside to that is a single agent won't have a tendency to exterminate itself through tribal conflict.
Agreed. Maybe there are ways to have a single agent and still have internal competition.
An organism (biological or otherwise) could have competing internal parts/models, and not be constrained by the mechanism by which natural selection operates now, i.e. biological reproduction.
So multiple subagents could compete within it, without posing an existential threat to the physical manifestation of the organism itself; somewhat analogous to redundant computers making decisions by consensus in e.g. spacecraft.
An organism (biological or otherwise) could have competing internal parts/models, and not be constrained by the mechanism by which natural selection operates now, i.e. biological reproduction.
So multiple subagents could compete within it, without posing an existential threat to the physical manifestation of the organism itself; somewhat analogous to redundant computers making decisions by consensus in e.g. spacecraft.
> The number of filters they've passed through without destroying themselves suggests that they've overcome tribalism.
We can't know that - once you can spread to multiple planets, even planet-killer tech isn't an extinction-level event.
> selective pressure towards tribal conflict
Over thousands, or millions of years; not only that, but you have to have selective pressure against tribalism to actually remove the instinct. Otherwise there's no pressure, and it can remain, just like any other vestigial organ.
We can't know that - once you can spread to multiple planets, even planet-killer tech isn't an extinction-level event.
> selective pressure towards tribal conflict
Over thousands, or millions of years; not only that, but you have to have selective pressure against tribalism to actually remove the instinct. Otherwise there's no pressure, and it can remain, just like any other vestigial organ.
"even planet-killer tech isn't an extinction-level event."
You're right that a civilization that has violent tendencies may not self-destruct since it may turn out that the destructive potential of future technology is confined to the capacity of city-scale destruction instead of solar-system-scale destruction. Or they may escape their host planet quickly and diversify before nukes or whatever comes after nukes wipes them out.
But it seems to me that the probability of extinction is non-trivially positively correlated with violent and tribal tendencies once that civilization reaches our stage of development. And so that nudges the odds towards an advanced alien civilization being peaceful.
"Over thousands, or millions of years"
I believe it won't end up as a vestigial organ and will be actively selected against. Tribal conflict has a positive reward to the victor in a resource constrained environment but is negative sum over both parties. Without the payoff to the victor then all we are left with is a negative sum outcome which should be selected against. The only thing I'm not sure of is tribal conflict over reproductive capital, although I can imagine that technology could make that abundant as well.
What is reproductive capital?
I mean competition between the gender that can have 100+ children with a 5-minute time investment (men) for the gender that can have at most 10 children with a 9-month time investment (women).
From the genetic perspective of a male, a female's ability to reproduce is a scarce, excludable resource that they need for their genetic fitness and other men stand as roadblocks to obtaining that resource. That makes violence and conflict a valid way to improve the competitive odds of male A over male B.
In a future where gestation occurs outside of the womb in some bioengineered setup, that genetic pressure to compete between men will be lessened, which will be a force for peace.
I don't mean to talk about groups of people as resources, but for this topic in particular, since we're talking from the perspective of unconscious genes, I think it offers the most clarity.
From the genetic perspective of a male, a female's ability to reproduce is a scarce, excludable resource that they need for their genetic fitness and other men stand as roadblocks to obtaining that resource. That makes violence and conflict a valid way to improve the competitive odds of male A over male B.
In a future where gestation occurs outside of the womb in some bioengineered setup, that genetic pressure to compete between men will be lessened, which will be a force for peace.
I don't mean to talk about groups of people as resources, but for this topic in particular, since we're talking from the perspective of unconscious genes, I think it offers the most clarity.
>Aliens being non-peaceful fails so many logic tests though
How so? Humans are capable of basic space travel already.
How so? Humans are capable of basic space travel already.
If an interstellar-capable species wanted to wipe out humanity, then they could easily bomb us with relativistic projectiles by throwing their trash at Earth.
If they still wanted the biosphere intact afterwards, then they could alternatively deploy a targeted anti-human bioweapon.
If they still wanted the biosphere intact afterwards, then they could alternatively deploy a targeted anti-human bioweapon.
Why would they have to be peaceful? Maybe they want a new vacation home and they're doing recon and prepping the battlefield.
On Earth, every time an advanced civilization encountered a primitive one, it didn't go well for the primitive one.
Ah, but it's different at the stage of development required to organize interstellar travel:
https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/flying-saucers-th...
https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/flying-saucers-th...
This isn’t universally true. Modern civilization has decided to not disturb many of the so-called “Uncontacted peoples”. Not in every case, but many have been left alone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
> Feels like we are being primed for something new to be afraid of and give our treasure to in defense of. Aliens being non-peaceful fails so many logic tests though.
Heh. Are you really suggesting that after decades of disinterest, the US government is releasing this in order to...make people afraid of aliens? In order to increase taxse?
Or do I misunderstand what you mean?
Heh. Are you really suggesting that after decades of disinterest, the US government is releasing this in order to...make people afraid of aliens? In order to increase taxse?
Or do I misunderstand what you mean?
Pretty sure that's been an explicit motivation for past wars carried on by the US - an external enemy builds cohesion, prevents conflict at home. Not agreeing or disagreeing, just noting that it's not an outlandish theory.
I'm not disputing that intelligence agencies would lie to justify a foreign war. It's happened multiple times before.
I'm disputing that lying about aliens would be an effective or preferred strategy for doing so.
Like, a war against...whom? Is the voting public going to buy it? Cut me a break!
I'm disputing that lying about aliens would be an effective or preferred strategy for doing so.
Like, a war against...whom? Is the voting public going to buy it? Cut me a break!
Not necessarily a war. It may be useful to justify increased research budget(s) and a general shift to something else substantiated by the new fears.
It'll keep the MIC funded and justify the further weoponization of space.
That is not what he is suggesting, as far as my understanding goes. Rather, that this is yet another iteration of "we have always been at war with Eurasia". And, do not conflate your perception of disinterest from the government with whatever classified research took place during this time, especially post WW2.
There's a whole culture in the defense industry and associated bureaucracies that pushes the idea of scaring the public. They justify it with a firm internal narrative that there are huge threats out there that only the defense industry/officials really understand, and anything they can do to increase readiness is therefore justified. It just so happens that these interests align with the monetary interests in that industry, and there's a big revolving door between industry/lobbyists/officials.
I had a Political Science professor in college who came from that school of IR thought who evangelized it, and then a couple of others who explicitly called it out and attacked it, which was shocking to me as a student. It feels like par for the course as a more jaded adult.
I had a Political Science professor in college who came from that school of IR thought who evangelized it, and then a couple of others who explicitly called it out and attacked it, which was shocking to me as a student. It feels like par for the course as a more jaded adult.
> Aliens being non-peaceful fails so many logic tests though.
I've seen this sentiment expressed before, but it's never seemed persuasive. Seems to me that the only inherently peaceful alien race would be the one that never had the evolutionary pressure to compete for resources - and that seems like an impossible occurrence.
I've seen this sentiment expressed before, but it's never seemed persuasive. Seems to me that the only inherently peaceful alien race would be the one that never had the evolutionary pressure to compete for resources - and that seems like an impossible occurrence.
What resource could we have they could possibly want? I mean there's a HUGE universe out there and resources are EVERYWHERE, every element. All over the place. Seems our only use is the same as we'd have: Zoo.
> Seems to me that the only inherently peaceful alien race would be the one that never had the evolutionary pressure to compete for resources - and that seems like an impossible occurrence.
Not only that, but the moment that peaceful species encounters a non-peaceful species it would be wiped out, as evidenced by numerous extinct, or in the verge of being extinct, species on planet Earth. So peaceful species are going to be short lived and may not last much, in Universe times, to have too much contact with other species.
Not only that, but the moment that peaceful species encounters a non-peaceful species it would be wiped out, as evidenced by numerous extinct, or in the verge of being extinct, species on planet Earth. So peaceful species are going to be short lived and may not last much, in Universe times, to have too much contact with other species.
The history in this case may not be the best teacher. The previous instances of wiped species happened when self control was not part of the setting. Space travel has a high bar to enter and is forcing any contender to achieve a high degree of self control. Any further action from someone like that will have to have either deliberate or unnoticed consequences.
Some resources are more scarce than others. If you have effectively infinite matter and energy, the scarce resources shift to things like conscious attention, low-entropy regions, and time-co-locality. Almost none of which are attained by invading and destroying another civilization. On the contrary, doing so actually would arguably evaporate resources you care about.
Maybe it's a Great Filter kind of thing. Most civilizations probably continually decimate themselves in a never-ending series of self-inflicted cataclysms every time they build up their energy capability.
If you've mastered enough energy to arrive at another solar system in force, you already had to figure out how to live peacefully with many billions of individuals.
If you've mastered enough energy to arrive at another solar system in force, you already had to figure out how to live peacefully with many billions of individuals.
Billions of individuals of their own species.
There's no reason to assume they would feel empathy towards other intelligent species. We coexist with intelligent animal species on Earth, and at best we consider their intelligence a novelty. If other apes began to speak and reason as we do, do you think we'd grant them property rights and a vote? No, we'd probably just slaughter them.
It seems more likely to me that an advanced alien species would see us the way we see animals, rather than as like themselves.
There's no reason to assume they would feel empathy towards other intelligent species. We coexist with intelligent animal species on Earth, and at best we consider their intelligence a novelty. If other apes began to speak and reason as we do, do you think we'd grant them property rights and a vote? No, we'd probably just slaughter them.
It seems more likely to me that an advanced alien species would see us the way we see animals, rather than as like themselves.
Yes, we are resource hungry, and yes we inadvertently wiped out species, but as resource pressured as we are, we also managed to intentionally allocate some to prevent that undesired effect in the future. We did some bad stuff when we were younger (as a species), but we grew since then. We're more considerative now (or at least that's what we'd like to convince ourselves of). Maybe, in the same line of thought, we'll get the same benefit from others even more mature than us?
If a species can master interstellar travel, then they can probably harness enough energy to change elements at the atomic level - alchemy. They won't need us for our resources or even earth. And if they did, they would have taken us already.
>If a species can master interstellar travel, then they can probably harness enough energy to change elements at the atomic level - alchemy
Not even advanced aliens can get around the laws of thermodynamics - that would take far more energy than any resource it creates could possibly be worth.
But, they wouldn't even need to, because they can find abundant supplies of whatever resources they wanted anywhere. Even in our own solar system, they would be far better off mining our asteroid belt and Jovian planets and not even acknowledging our existence.
Not even advanced aliens can get around the laws of thermodynamics - that would take far more energy than any resource it creates could possibly be worth.
But, they wouldn't even need to, because they can find abundant supplies of whatever resources they wanted anywhere. Even in our own solar system, they would be far better off mining our asteroid belt and Jovian planets and not even acknowledging our existence.
> Aliens being non-peaceful fails so many logic tests though.
Actually aliens being peaceful fails the logic test as evidenced by our experience with the only intelligent species we have encountered so far, humans.
Actually aliens being peaceful fails the logic test as evidenced by our experience with the only intelligent species we have encountered so far, humans.
My theories for why the clear ramp up for disclosure starting in 2017ish:
- The US government has been studying this phenomenon for years and has recently managed to reverse engineer the technology to the degree it has real-world applications. To actually explain how we achieved those feats, it will be necessary for the public to understand where it originated from, since a lie would be obvious.
- There's some really (REALLY) bad news to share, and this is part of a rollout plan needed to be able to deliver that news in the way that would minimize it's net effect on our society. (For example, we're in a zoo. And we've hit some tripwires and are now no longer allowed to develop technology X, Y, or Z.)
- The US government has been studying this phenomenon for years and has recently managed to reverse engineer the technology to the degree it has real-world applications. To actually explain how we achieved those feats, it will be necessary for the public to understand where it originated from, since a lie would be obvious.
- There's some really (REALLY) bad news to share, and this is part of a rollout plan needed to be able to deliver that news in the way that would minimize it's net effect on our society. (For example, we're in a zoo. And we've hit some tripwires and are now no longer allowed to develop technology X, Y, or Z.)
These both strike me as fun but unlikely explanations if applying an occam's razor lens
I'm specifically referring to the explanation for why, all of a sudden, these disclosures are happening in a way they didn't for decades. Conditional on the fact they are actual disclosures and not a complex conspiratorial psyop/lies/etc.
It may be as simple as the old guard retiring. The timing lines up with the most resistant people in authority leaving or dying off. Many recent leaks are also from people who kept their mouths shut most of their career and then decided to spill once they reached enough security in their retirement.
[deleted]
The US government might be responding to weaponization of conspiracy theories in the Internet age by starting to increase transparency.
This may be more of a reaction to Qanon and troll farms.
(Or I guess conversely they might be trying to distract people)
This may be more of a reaction to Qanon and troll farms.
(Or I guess conversely they might be trying to distract people)
You can say the same thing about a strange noise I heard in my house last night. I can't say it was a ghost, but I also can't say it wasn't a ghost. Whoever wrote that report would agree with me.
> a tectonic shift on the topic from the US government
I haven't been following this closely. Why?
I haven't been following this closely. Why?
The US government was always pretty tight-lipped about UFOs until recently. FTA:
> In an unprecedented move, the US government is preparing to issue an unclassified report detailing what it knows about a series mysterious encounters with unidentified flying objects.
> In an unprecedented move, the US government is preparing to issue an unclassified report detailing what it knows about a series mysterious encounters with unidentified flying objects.
Did Trump steal Occam’s Razor when he left the White House?
The purpose of the report is not to conclude whether any of this unexplained behaviour is due to alien craft. The purpose is to get the information out, stop pretending it doesn't exist, and provide a platform to move forward without the lies and the coverups. At least, that's what I gathered. Whether they actually manage to do that remains to be seen. It's already been a shocking past few years in terms of what has been admitted to and reported.
We already have the navy on record validating the authenticity of some of the footage, combined with multi-sensor data and eye witness reports indicating something very strange is going on. We also have several government officials who are on record that they are genuinely concerned. What we need now is transparency so that a multiple discipline, open investigation can be carried out publicly without stonewalling and obfuscation.
We already have the navy on record validating the authenticity of some of the footage, combined with multi-sensor data and eye witness reports indicating something very strange is going on. We also have several government officials who are on record that they are genuinely concerned. What we need now is transparency so that a multiple discipline, open investigation can be carried out publicly without stonewalling and obfuscation.
They exist. They are real. They aren't ours. They aren't an adversary's, because a) the military would never admit it if that were possible and b) if it were the case the adversary would have already taken over the world.
There's no evidence they were made by aliens, leprechauns, or ghosts. But there's evidence they were made. Not that they are swamp gas or funny clouds. So lets get past that, and realize there's something seriously insane going on, and it implies there is, or was, a capacity for non-natural creation + engineering by non-humans.
My 2c is extra-terrestrial civ is less likely than co-terrestrial civ (subterrainean/ocean) - but lets stop talking about this like they are hallucinations or possible atmospheric phenomenon.
There's no evidence they were made by aliens, leprechauns, or ghosts. But there's evidence they were made. Not that they are swamp gas or funny clouds. So lets get past that, and realize there's something seriously insane going on, and it implies there is, or was, a capacity for non-natural creation + engineering by non-humans.
My 2c is extra-terrestrial civ is less likely than co-terrestrial civ (subterrainean/ocean) - but lets stop talking about this like they are hallucinations or possible atmospheric phenomenon.
> My 2c is extra-terrestrial civ is less likely than co-terrestrial civ (subterrainean/ocean) - but lets stop talking about this like they are hallucinations or possible atmospheric phenomenon.
Why?
This whole thing reminds me a bit of the "Havana Syndrome", in that:
- It's an extraordinary claim, presented with limited evidence.
- It defies obvious logical explanation (i.e., a motive).
- The phenomenon lacks a clear definition, leaving the door open for multiple disparate phenomena with different causes to be lumped together.
I believe the third aspect is really underemphasized as a causal factor in "hard to explain" phenomena: because this may in fact be multiple different phenomena, with different causes, it's likely that any single mundane explanation does not explain all observations, and thus appears to be a weaker explanation than it is.
This is sort of a "defender's dilemma" of strange phenomena: if you can't explain all of them, you appear to be unable to explain them. But because of the aforementioned definitional problem, that's not necessarily a surprising or meaningful thing.
To your specific point: the idea of a co-terrestrial civilization is extraordinary. I struggle to imagine the only evidence would be a few spurious radar signatures and odd videos.
Why?
This whole thing reminds me a bit of the "Havana Syndrome", in that:
- It's an extraordinary claim, presented with limited evidence.
- It defies obvious logical explanation (i.e., a motive).
- The phenomenon lacks a clear definition, leaving the door open for multiple disparate phenomena with different causes to be lumped together.
I believe the third aspect is really underemphasized as a causal factor in "hard to explain" phenomena: because this may in fact be multiple different phenomena, with different causes, it's likely that any single mundane explanation does not explain all observations, and thus appears to be a weaker explanation than it is.
This is sort of a "defender's dilemma" of strange phenomena: if you can't explain all of them, you appear to be unable to explain them. But because of the aforementioned definitional problem, that's not necessarily a surprising or meaningful thing.
To your specific point: the idea of a co-terrestrial civilization is extraordinary. I struggle to imagine the only evidence would be a few spurious radar signatures and odd videos.
I agree with the concerns, however as someone who has been kept up a bit with the phenomenon, the main body of stuff to look at are the set of reports which involve:
- Multiple expert witnesses, usually pilots or radar operators, getting visual and sensor confirmation from multiple vantage points
- Air and ground tracking
- High cohesion and consistency (in terms of object size, cardinality, dynamics, and timing) between the witness reports
Taken together, these reports form a closure over the set of plausible explanations that should approximately explain all or none of them. My 2c is that any plausible explanations are by and large "big" and non-trivial ones like shared delusions.
- Multiple expert witnesses, usually pilots or radar operators, getting visual and sensor confirmation from multiple vantage points
- Air and ground tracking
- High cohesion and consistency (in terms of object size, cardinality, dynamics, and timing) between the witness reports
Taken together, these reports form a closure over the set of plausible explanations that should approximately explain all or none of them. My 2c is that any plausible explanations are by and large "big" and non-trivial ones like shared delusions.
Don't get me wrong: I am baffled by some of the reports (especially, as you note, those that have multiple witnesses or multiple independent pieces of evidence).
But of course alien civilizations—or (non-human?) co-terrestrial civilizations—are such an extraordinary hypothesis that I do not see why they should be treated as more plausible than (as you note) something like shared delusions.
Let me expand upon that a bit. My (tongue in cheek) explanation is this:
Humans have an undiscovered facility for shared perceptual delusions and (seemingly deliberate) confabulation. That is to say, individuals with shared cultural contexts may respond to the same environmental triggers (weird reflections, social stressors, I don't know!) by hallucinating the same things. Moreover, upon experiencing such a hallucination, some subjects will confabulate corroboratory evidence, perhaps even (unconsciously) going so far as to tamper with radar recordings or (unconsciously) colluding with other "witnesses"—and individuals who engage in this confabulation have no memory or recollection of it later.
This is a totally wild explanation, and I don't actually believe it. But is it as plausible as alien civilizations? I sorta think so!
But of course alien civilizations—or (non-human?) co-terrestrial civilizations—are such an extraordinary hypothesis that I do not see why they should be treated as more plausible than (as you note) something like shared delusions.
Let me expand upon that a bit. My (tongue in cheek) explanation is this:
Humans have an undiscovered facility for shared perceptual delusions and (seemingly deliberate) confabulation. That is to say, individuals with shared cultural contexts may respond to the same environmental triggers (weird reflections, social stressors, I don't know!) by hallucinating the same things. Moreover, upon experiencing such a hallucination, some subjects will confabulate corroboratory evidence, perhaps even (unconsciously) going so far as to tamper with radar recordings or (unconsciously) colluding with other "witnesses"—and individuals who engage in this confabulation have no memory or recollection of it later.
This is a totally wild explanation, and I don't actually believe it. But is it as plausible as alien civilizations? I sorta think so!
I wouldn't even go that far. We have to remember where this information is coming from. This is the U.S. Military. We don't have "pilot confirmation", we have files, transcripts, and audio that are allegedly pilot confirmation.
Given the amount of evidence released so far, which seems more likely?
- Alien civilization
- Some other form of hyper-advanced technology
- The U.S. Military and/or various U.S. intelligence agencies are perpetrating a hoax in order to further some kind of strategic goal
I know which one I'm picking, barring much more widely acknowledged and damning evidence.
Given the amount of evidence released so far, which seems more likely?
- Alien civilization
- Some other form of hyper-advanced technology
- The U.S. Military and/or various U.S. intelligence agencies are perpetrating a hoax in order to further some kind of strategic goal
I know which one I'm picking, barring much more widely acknowledged and damning evidence.
Well, you've gotta dig but these reports now by the US military are highly similar to other reports that have leaked out over the decades from on-the-record military officers from the US and other states. The reason this is a noteworthy topic now all of a sudden is precisely because the US military is making these claims - the material claims are not new but have been brushed off for the usual reasons.
I definitely can't claim to know anything, but I would have a very hard time believing that other claims that are similar to these aren't part of a wider agenda.
To be clear, I'm fairly conspiracy-friendly. I am just very skeptical of this new tech angle.
More reports from states that have obviously opposed the US would definitely make me think more about the veracity of the leaked "evidence".
To be clear, I'm fairly conspiracy-friendly. I am just very skeptical of this new tech angle.
More reports from states that have obviously opposed the US would definitely make me think more about the veracity of the leaked "evidence".
Most of conspiracy theories narrative was being controlled by Russia in recent years and now USA wants some of that.
Probably with nothing to gain but conspiracy theories is all i hear from boomers these days.
I love the way you are thinking about this, and you're a really solid skeptic! I hope we get more people questioning this the way you have, instead of saying it's clouds :)
Any of them is... terrifing. damn. i hope it's just nothing.
It's not nothing - time for us to grow up a little :)
(No pain no gain)
(No pain no gain)
> They exist. They are real. They aren't ours. They aren't an adversary's, because a) the military would never admit it if that were possible and b) if it were the case the adversary would have already taken over the world.
can't speak to a), but as for b), it is possible that what they are and what they appear to be are very different things. Imagine, say, a drone swarm with a very flat profile that could turn their surfaces towards a target and tighten up to present a radar cross section and become highly visible, but could flip to an edge-on position and disperse to disappear to both eyes and instruments. Two such swarms could easily mimic an instantaneous movement over a large distance, among other effects.
In other words, they might be moderately more advanced technology masquerading as ludicrously more advanced technology, presenting the appearance of a threat far greater than their inventors can actually produce.
can't speak to a), but as for b), it is possible that what they are and what they appear to be are very different things. Imagine, say, a drone swarm with a very flat profile that could turn their surfaces towards a target and tighten up to present a radar cross section and become highly visible, but could flip to an edge-on position and disperse to disappear to both eyes and instruments. Two such swarms could easily mimic an instantaneous movement over a large distance, among other effects.
In other words, they might be moderately more advanced technology masquerading as ludicrously more advanced technology, presenting the appearance of a threat far greater than their inventors can actually produce.
> it is possible that what they are and what they appear to be are very different things
Could also be a novel stealth mechanism screwing with our sensors.
Could also be a novel stealth mechanism screwing with our sensors.
Imagine if there was some sort of exotic mechanism to "hack" radar.
this isn't a radar-only phenomenon. such a hack would need to involve fooling human senses, visual, and radar.
this is a genuinely interesting theory but it does seem like the kind of theory that the military would also imagine and, with the data they have, be able to falsify.
[deleted]
"Self-replicating probes could exhaustively explore a galaxy the size of the Milky Way in as little as a million years" - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox]
The possibility of these things being extraterrestrial in origin does not seem that farfetched, honestly. If you assume something like a Von Neumann probe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Vo...] to be possible (and I totally think one day we would make those), then the idea that someone else has already made one an that they are sitting around watching us, is not something that should be so easily dismissed.
No telling what these are, but I think the people assuming that some how human visual confirmation, video confirmation, multiple radar confirmation (on ship and in air), as well as Infrared confirmation of the same should shut up the "it's a camera artifact" or "sailor spinning tales" folks. Anyone care to do the math on how such a byzantine fault tolerant system could fail in so many different distinct cases over the last decade?
The possibility of these things being extraterrestrial in origin does not seem that farfetched, honestly. If you assume something like a Von Neumann probe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft#Vo...] to be possible (and I totally think one day we would make those), then the idea that someone else has already made one an that they are sitting around watching us, is not something that should be so easily dismissed.
No telling what these are, but I think the people assuming that some how human visual confirmation, video confirmation, multiple radar confirmation (on ship and in air), as well as Infrared confirmation of the same should shut up the "it's a camera artifact" or "sailor spinning tales" folks. Anyone care to do the math on how such a byzantine fault tolerant system could fail in so many different distinct cases over the last decade?
If you assume a civilization (or AI singularity) eventually stops worrying about destroying itself, and the bulk of the risk to it stems from external civilizations unleashing galaxy destroying technologies (perhaps unintentionally), it seems logical that if a) such probes are technologically feasible and b) life can originate in places beyond Earth with some meaningful probability that you should expect to find a galaxy-wide network of autonomous probes specifically engineered to cut down the blast radius of these kinds of existentially risky technologies. Odds are, if that's what these are, they are old, autonomous, and should present evidence they are here to primarily prevent our mistakes from leaking across the galaxy, and secondarily perhaps to help preserve our civilization in those scenarios insofar as it is not in conflict with the primary objective.
Perhaps are afraid that making themselves known would increase the chances of others developing galaxy-destroying technologies.
Co-terrestrial civilization is interesting, but it's difficult to understand how there would be no physical evidence.
The ocean would be most likely (subterranean would be much more visible for any access points, by satellite and land-mapping LIDAR, or seismographs detecting underground industrial activity). But we get detritus washing up all the time on shores; for example, Japanese debris from the earthquake landed on western North American shores.
How does an aquatic super-civilization exist for hundreds (presumably thousands) of years with absolutely zero debris arriving on shores, or any evidence of mining or other industrial activity that would be required?
Interstellar seems more likely but of course we have the challenges of time and distance to explain.
The ocean would be most likely (subterranean would be much more visible for any access points, by satellite and land-mapping LIDAR, or seismographs detecting underground industrial activity). But we get detritus washing up all the time on shores; for example, Japanese debris from the earthquake landed on western North American shores.
How does an aquatic super-civilization exist for hundreds (presumably thousands) of years with absolutely zero debris arriving on shores, or any evidence of mining or other industrial activity that would be required?
Interstellar seems more likely but of course we have the challenges of time and distance to explain.
It's debatable if we'd know. The Earth is really old.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-e...
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/are-we-e...
Maybe they are wary of the fact that we are dangerous and they take sufficient precautions to avoid debris. But.. letting their craft get seen repeatedly doesn't mesh with that. It would be funny to see a dolphin in the cockpit of one of these things pull up next to a fighter jet and wave to him tho.
A terrestrial adversary could be prepping the battlefield. They supposedly submerge under water, so maybe they are just carry supplies close to our coasts or they are building something. They could also just be prepping a contingency plan that they don't plan to enact unless a war starts between the US and them.
[deleted]
> the adversary would have already taken over the world.
Maybe they're happy with the status quo. Or maybe it's a benevolant group (not anyone's adversary).
Or maybe it's ours (the U.S.) and it's being released this way as to pretend it's not ours.
Maybe they're happy with the status quo. Or maybe it's a benevolant group (not anyone's adversary).
Or maybe it's ours (the U.S.) and it's being released this way as to pretend it's not ours.
>there's evidence they were made
Is there? Everyone is overlooking the possibility that these 'crafts' are the aliens. They need not even be intelligent. If something evolved to overcome gravitation it would make sense that it did so in an environment where this was necessary for survival. What we think of as advanced technology might, in the context of living near a black hole, simply be the equivalent of evolving a first primitive method of propulsion, like a fin.
Is there? Everyone is overlooking the possibility that these 'crafts' are the aliens. They need not even be intelligent. If something evolved to overcome gravitation it would make sense that it did so in an environment where this was necessary for survival. What we think of as advanced technology might, in the context of living near a black hole, simply be the equivalent of evolving a first primitive method of propulsion, like a fin.
They exist. They are real. They aren't ours.
Strong words for what’s essentially a blurry black dot on a grainy black and white video.
It’s 2021, until we see a clear video of an actual vehicle that looks like something other than a blurry smudge I’m not believing anything.
Strong words for what’s essentially a blurry black dot on a grainy black and white video.
It’s 2021, until we see a clear video of an actual vehicle that looks like something other than a blurry smudge I’m not believing anything.
>Senior US administration officials briefed on the findings of the report said that the majority of more than 120 incidents over the past 20 years did not derive from any US military or other advanced US government technology, according to The New York Times.
So they have no evidence that it's aliens, no evidence that it's US military technology, and no evidence that it's foreign technology. In other words nothing new has been discovered and we're still at square 1. Not really news, but I guess it's good to keep us updated.
So they have no evidence that it's aliens, no evidence that it's US military technology, and no evidence that it's foreign technology. In other words nothing new has been discovered and we're still at square 1. Not really news, but I guess it's good to keep us updated.
> nothing new has been discovered and we're still at square 1
If there is even a shred of evidence these are not sensor artefacts, that's square 2. It means we are contending with real objects. Maybe not flying ones, but objects nonetheless. That merits attention. (And funding, which I imagine is the point of all this.)
If there is even a shred of evidence these are not sensor artefacts, that's square 2. It means we are contending with real objects. Maybe not flying ones, but objects nonetheless. That merits attention. (And funding, which I imagine is the point of all this.)
The pilots in the tic tac video visually confirmed the physical objects, even talked about shape and color. That's certainly more than a shred of evidence.
> pilots in the tic tac video visually confirmed the physical objects, even talked about shape and color
Visual confirmation is helpful. It doesn't rule out atmospheric effects. Radar is the missing piece. If we have a radar hit, something interesting is going on.
Visual confirmation is helpful. It doesn't rule out atmospheric effects. Radar is the missing piece. If we have a radar hit, something interesting is going on.
There's been (according to them) loads of radar hits.
Multiple radar confirmations of the tic tac did exist. That’s why they went out there (and ended up seeing it visually, about 50 feet above the surface of the ocean, with the ocean churning beneath it).
That’s extremely interesting and frankly I cannot think of anything except for maybe sophon-level technology (fictional concept from the Three Body Problem trilogy) that could spoof both visual human sight while concurrently spoofing multiple sensors.
I’m skeptical as hell about stuff like this, but I’m really struggling to see how this could be anything that could have been produced/faked by human-level technology.
That’s extremely interesting and frankly I cannot think of anything except for maybe sophon-level technology (fictional concept from the Three Body Problem trilogy) that could spoof both visual human sight while concurrently spoofing multiple sensors.
I’m skeptical as hell about stuff like this, but I’m really struggling to see how this could be anything that could have been produced/faked by human-level technology.
The NYT article on the same topic includes this bit as well:
> In one encounter, strange objects — one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind — appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast.
I don't place a lot of trust into reports from a single pilot out at sea because of how widespread and wacky some visual phenomenon can look to the naked eye (and even to some sensory systems). Even two pilots in separate crafts might see the same illusion. In many ways these are similar to the old fuzzy images of UFOs from fifty years ago - irreproducible results inhibit real science.
But with something this consistently observable, this close to a major metropolitan area, I'm genuinely surprised that more military or research crafts weren't sent to observe. With the full weight of the intelligence and scientific community on this - we could at least rule out some of the hypotheses.
> In one encounter, strange objects — one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind — appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast.
I don't place a lot of trust into reports from a single pilot out at sea because of how widespread and wacky some visual phenomenon can look to the naked eye (and even to some sensory systems). Even two pilots in separate crafts might see the same illusion. In many ways these are similar to the old fuzzy images of UFOs from fifty years ago - irreproducible results inhibit real science.
But with something this consistently observable, this close to a major metropolitan area, I'm genuinely surprised that more military or research crafts weren't sent to observe. With the full weight of the intelligence and scientific community on this - we could at least rule out some of the hypotheses.
Not all the observations are explainable. However, if you take away one observation -- the claims about high-g acceleration and supersonic flight -- the following seems to fit: battery powered drones with regular (possibly quad) rotors, sea-launched (possibly from vessels disguised as merchant vessels) by a foreign power to observe US military.
This would explain: FLIR footage and close range radar, but no contact on long range radar. Would also explain why primarily Navy pilots have observed these objects while commercial pilots don't, and why they seem to be seldom seen over land. Also explains why all the sightings seem to be around the continental US. Also explains the lack of exhaust plumes. Also explains the lack of sonic booms (I know of no way a solid object could cross the sound barrier without a boom). Multiple such drones might also explain why they appear to travel faster than the fighters -- perhaps they are observing two identical craft.
All one has to do is discount the high-g claims as embellishment by pilots. I could be wrong, but I know of no way to account for all the observations.
This would explain: FLIR footage and close range radar, but no contact on long range radar. Would also explain why primarily Navy pilots have observed these objects while commercial pilots don't, and why they seem to be seldom seen over land. Also explains why all the sightings seem to be around the continental US. Also explains the lack of exhaust plumes. Also explains the lack of sonic booms (I know of no way a solid object could cross the sound barrier without a boom). Multiple such drones might also explain why they appear to travel faster than the fighters -- perhaps they are observing two identical craft.
All one has to do is discount the high-g claims as embellishment by pilots. I could be wrong, but I know of no way to account for all the observations.
Were the high-g claims verified with sensor or radar data?
It is hard for me to believe that modern radar systems would have any problems with tracking such drones. And one of the bizarre features of those UAP is that they appear and disappear from radar system suddenly so it is impossible to track their origin or final destination.
They seem associated with the ocean as well, many reports of the craft originating or disappearing into the ocean ("transmedium" vehicles).
Is it possible that there's some form of life that originates in the ocean, has evolved intelligence that is in a totally different paradigm than us, and this is their equivalent of going to "space"?
It makes sense in the macro-sense as well as we're very lucky to not be a water world in the habitable zone. Life evolved in the oceans far earlier than on land and we know very little about the ocean due to it's large size.
Is it possible that there's some form of life that originates in the ocean, has evolved intelligence that is in a totally different paradigm than us, and this is their equivalent of going to "space"?
It makes sense in the macro-sense as well as we're very lucky to not be a water world in the habitable zone. Life evolved in the oceans far earlier than on land and we know very little about the ocean due to it's large size.
It's camera artefacts, dude.
Including their radar signatures?
What evidence do you have of anything having any radar signature?
Video released this week shows radar contact.
It also shows basically nothing else whatsoever. I could be literally anything.
I agree about that. Basically at this moment there are two ways to interpret these releases: US government / military is trolling everybody for whatever reason (cover-up, FUD), OR you trust them and there is something very interesting out there, whether it's earthly or not. In any case though, this goes beyond just some optical illusion or camera artifact.
Some of the confirmed cases from the pentagon include the fact that they were detected on radar.
> It's camera artefacts, dude
Does the U.S. report take a view on this? I'm not particularly swung by the extraterrestrial hypothesis. But I am curious if this is a classified project, domestic or foreign, or just a series of similar artefacts.
Does the U.S. report take a view on this? I'm not particularly swung by the extraterrestrial hypothesis. But I am curious if this is a classified project, domestic or foreign, or just a series of similar artefacts.
It doesn't need to. It's easy enough to view the videos and confirm that this is, in fact, what they are.
> It doesn't need to. It's easy enough to view the videos and confirm
So the U.S. government is going through the trouble of declassification to reveal the limits of its sensors to adversaries?
From what we can tell, the reports categorise them as UFOs. That implies a non-artefact theory.
So the U.S. government is going through the trouble of declassification to reveal the limits of its sensors to adversaries?
From what we can tell, the reports categorise them as UFOs. That implies a non-artefact theory.
This could all be a feint to claim their sensors are weaker than they really are.
Doesn’t really pass the smell test. 80+ years of advancements in US gov’t radar tech, and these systems get fooled this easily? Hard to buy that IMO.
That’s a pretty bold statement to make, especially when these objects were observed with multiple independent radar systems and multiple humans’ visual sight.
Amazing what camera artifacts can do, isn’t it?
Amazing what camera artifacts can do, isn’t it?
Ah yes, camera artifacts make perfect sense - they totally explain visual sightings (tic tac) combined with multiple, independent radar system sightings of said tic tac.
Just amazing that camera artifacts can mess with human vision that much.
Oh wait, our eyes (and radar systems) aren’t cameras? Darn. There goes that idea.
Just amazing that camera artifacts can mess with human vision that much.
Oh wait, our eyes (and radar systems) aren’t cameras? Darn. There goes that idea.
We may not know all there is to know about the oceans (or much else really), but I highly doubt we'd have missed an entire advanced civilization of the type you're implying.
I would argue against that as there are very sophisticated aquatic life documented living at depths very hard for us to get to.
Like imagine beings that can live at the very bottom of the ocean where the pressure is so high that it would just be too difficult for our devices to reach, but are themselves evolved enough to handle it :| IDK it's at least an interesting thought.
[EDIT]: We've only reached the "Challenger Depth" (bottom) a few times throughout history and they weren't huge mapping-type missions. It could also stand to reason they would build under the surface to avoid predators and such. It's a fun thought nevertheless. Much more fun to think about than just artifacts on a lens.
Like imagine beings that can live at the very bottom of the ocean where the pressure is so high that it would just be too difficult for our devices to reach, but are themselves evolved enough to handle it :| IDK it's at least an interesting thought.
[EDIT]: We've only reached the "Challenger Depth" (bottom) a few times throughout history and they weren't huge mapping-type missions. It could also stand to reason they would build under the surface to avoid predators and such. It's a fun thought nevertheless. Much more fun to think about than just artifacts on a lens.
Can't imagine those water aliens would be too pleased with all the plastic we've been dumping down there.
I would imagine if they live at the deepest depths of the ocean it wouldn't even phase them. I feel like the analogy of us and space is pretty accurate. Satellites and space trash don't bother us much as they are so far above.
Nah there is trash tons of trash at the bottom of the ocean. When James Cameron went to challenger deep they found plastic bags at the bottom.
Not all of our debris floats. Trash has been found on the ocean floor.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-pollution-idU...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-pollution-idU...
Or they go over the horizon. It would look like going into ocean
What if it's a Pacific Rim situation where the transidmensional rift just happens to be located in the deep sea
I really like this reasoning. It's fun to think of a whole civilization evolving in an alternate way to us having a total different set of problems to solve.
Electricity generation, vehicle transport, dwellings, etc.
Probably completely ridiculous but would make a good movie.
Electricity generation, vehicle transport, dwellings, etc.
Probably completely ridiculous but would make a good movie.
All the mealy UFO chatter (months of it!) makes me wonder if its just a big PR campaign to convince military people to actually report oddities. Maybe they [military] don't want to be seen as dumb for seeing something they can't explain, so they don't report possible foreign spy drones enough. So now the gov has to literally to psyop everyone into caring so the troops finally report sightings they can't explain.
Imagine the latest US military drone tech testing their drones by sending them over other US bases and doing weird stuff, flashing lights, making crazy patterns, etc, hoping for a funny report. But then: The base never reports anything. So the drone team has to go "oh crap, what else don't they notice?"
So to save face the gov launches a huge PR campaign saying "GUYS UFOS ARE REAL AND WE TAKE THEM VERY SERIOUSLY [so if you're in the air force please report when you see a weird light, thanks]"
(I have absolutely no evidence that this is remotely true)
Imagine the latest US military drone tech testing their drones by sending them over other US bases and doing weird stuff, flashing lights, making crazy patterns, etc, hoping for a funny report. But then: The base never reports anything. So the drone team has to go "oh crap, what else don't they notice?"
So to save face the gov launches a huge PR campaign saying "GUYS UFOS ARE REAL AND WE TAKE THEM VERY SERIOUSLY [so if you're in the air force please report when you see a weird light, thanks]"
(I have absolutely no evidence that this is remotely true)
Is this really a surprise to anybody? UFO means "unidentified flying object", not "alien".
I've heard a lot of credulous people describing these reports as proof of aliens. To me the idea that aliens exist is unsurprising, but aliens being here would imply FTL is possible, and that would be a huge discovery!
I don't think aliens being here implies FTL travel. If we're assuming that there's such a huge thing we don't know, it seems equally likely (or even more likely) to be a surprising surprise. We're assuming that they got here in a way we didn't anticipate, so why assume that it's via FTL travel?
> aliens being here would imply FTL is possible
Why? There are plenty of stars within a sub-light-speed radius since events that could've announced us to the galaxy: advent of radio, first nuclear tests, etc.
Why? There are plenty of stars within a sub-light-speed radius since events that could've announced us to the galaxy: advent of radio, first nuclear tests, etc.
The sheer timescales and energy levels involved with all known methods of transportation is what makes it unlikely - at least for life on the timescales we live on.
The odds someone is interested enough to spend truly mind boggling amounts of energy (literally moving hundreds of mountains worth) and hundred of years to check us out after one of those events - and not even say hi - is low. That they are also so close - also low. If they have some sort of magic drive tech (implied by the behavior of these drive sightings), then that changes the math a lot.
Most people mean ‘magic drive tech’ when they say FTL.
The odds someone is interested enough to spend truly mind boggling amounts of energy (literally moving hundreds of mountains worth) and hundred of years to check us out after one of those events - and not even say hi - is low. That they are also so close - also low. If they have some sort of magic drive tech (implied by the behavior of these drive sightings), then that changes the math a lot.
Most people mean ‘magic drive tech’ when they say FTL.
"The odds someone is interested enough to spend truly mind boggling amounts of energy (literally moving hundreds of mountains worth) and hundred of years to check us out after one of those events - and not even say hi - is low. That they are also so close - also low."
How could one even begin to make that kind of reasoning? Then the conclusion estimating the low probability is based on what? If I'd have to guess, I'd say otherwise - once a reasonably developed civilization (Kardashev type II and above) gets access to colossal amount of energy, there aren't that many things worth spending it (and attention in general) for. Life may or may not be plentiful around in the universe (it occured relatively shortly after Earth formation), but I'd bet sentient life is orders of magnitude more scarce, considering that it took billions for it to develop on Earth. That alone would make potential cradles for sentient life to be very interesting destinations to check once in a while. To provide here a relatable example, let's imagine a mostly desert continent, with a community living somewhere on its coast. At one point they develop enough capabilities to safely venture out in the desert and to make long journeys. How interested would they be in revisiting some oasis where they encountered some earthworms and small plants, and how interested would they be in revisiting a place (even across the continent, if that is what takes) with apes which happened to also exhibit some signs of primitive engineering?
P.S.: With all that, I still hope we're alone within a large enough vicinity, so we won't have to deal with anyone else for as long as our species exists.
How could one even begin to make that kind of reasoning? Then the conclusion estimating the low probability is based on what? If I'd have to guess, I'd say otherwise - once a reasonably developed civilization (Kardashev type II and above) gets access to colossal amount of energy, there aren't that many things worth spending it (and attention in general) for. Life may or may not be plentiful around in the universe (it occured relatively shortly after Earth formation), but I'd bet sentient life is orders of magnitude more scarce, considering that it took billions for it to develop on Earth. That alone would make potential cradles for sentient life to be very interesting destinations to check once in a while. To provide here a relatable example, let's imagine a mostly desert continent, with a community living somewhere on its coast. At one point they develop enough capabilities to safely venture out in the desert and to make long journeys. How interested would they be in revisiting some oasis where they encountered some earthworms and small plants, and how interested would they be in revisiting a place (even across the continent, if that is what takes) with apes which happened to also exhibit some signs of primitive engineering?
P.S.: With all that, I still hope we're alone within a large enough vicinity, so we won't have to deal with anyone else for as long as our species exists.
It’s pretty simple math? We’ve only had meaningful ‘not background event’ radio transmissions for about 115 years [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_radio]. Assuming no faster than light travel or similar magic (to the earlier point), but some near light speed magic drive, even if our potential visitors had the ability (and interest) to accelerate to light speed the moment they picked up Marconi’s initial broadcast, they would have to be within about 57-58 light years or less radius of us.
There are roughly 1400 star systems within 50 light years of us [http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html]
Which sounds like a lot. But there is estimated to be about 10 to 100 billion star systems in the Milky Way alone. So the odds that any of those stars are occupied by any excitijg neighbors is pretty low, unless the number of alien species+occupied star systems is mind bogglingly large. If there are 100 occupied star systems randomly dispersed in the galaxy meeting all these requirements, it would be one in 70,000 to 1 in 700,000 odds for instance.
Not great. And that is assuming a lot about how much energy they would be willing to expend. We’ve seen no evidence of anything resembling a Kardashev type civilization in the neighborhood.
If there is magic FTL tech, obviously everything is different. Also, who knows maybe we grew up next door to an equivalent to a intergalactic bus depot. That would also change things.
At least based on what we know now though, the tyranny of the rocket equation is rather complete, the distances involved in traveling between star systems so vast, and the energy requirements of even approaching C are so high that it is not a realistic thing to consider for life that works the way we do any time soon.
There are roughly 1400 star systems within 50 light years of us [http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html]
Which sounds like a lot. But there is estimated to be about 10 to 100 billion star systems in the Milky Way alone. So the odds that any of those stars are occupied by any excitijg neighbors is pretty low, unless the number of alien species+occupied star systems is mind bogglingly large. If there are 100 occupied star systems randomly dispersed in the galaxy meeting all these requirements, it would be one in 70,000 to 1 in 700,000 odds for instance.
Not great. And that is assuming a lot about how much energy they would be willing to expend. We’ve seen no evidence of anything resembling a Kardashev type civilization in the neighborhood.
If there is magic FTL tech, obviously everything is different. Also, who knows maybe we grew up next door to an equivalent to a intergalactic bus depot. That would also change things.
At least based on what we know now though, the tyranny of the rocket equation is rather complete, the distances involved in traveling between star systems so vast, and the energy requirements of even approaching C are so high that it is not a realistic thing to consider for life that works the way we do any time soon.
Your math is sound, but I don't agree with all your data inputs. Specifically, that only (the engineered) radio signals would pick the attention of an alien civilization. (In fact, I think that Marconi's or most of the subsequent man generated signals, maybe with exception of nuclear detonations and such, were to faint to be picked up even from within the limits of our own planetary system.) The most obvious clue for presence of life, visible from far away, started with the Great Oxygenation Event. That enough should put Earth on anyone's map, and that happened 2 billions years ago. Achieving 100% of light speed is not possible within our current knowledge, but I assume that 20% should be for non life-carrier spacecraft, which at our galaxy's 200ly diameter gives us a cap of around 1'000 years of travel between most of the intra-galactic destinations. Even with a 10'000 technological head-start, a given civilization can devise a system to achieve galactic oversight. If there's indeed someone out there, with such a head-start, we should assume they're already watched our planet closely and maybe even getting a continuous track of our evolution.
As for "we’ve seen no evidence of anything resembling a Kardashev type civilization in the neighborhood", although you're right, it's hardly useful to think in this frame. The available means that we had so far for observing anything in far away space were and still are pretty limited, for even inert phenomena. I'd say that counting on that to spot something sentient, where things are actively engineered, which may as well include engineering for the appearance itself, is overly optimistic.
As for "we’ve seen no evidence of anything resembling a Kardashev type civilization in the neighborhood", although you're right, it's hardly useful to think in this frame. The available means that we had so far for observing anything in far away space were and still are pretty limited, for even inert phenomena. I'd say that counting on that to spot something sentient, where things are actively engineered, which may as well include engineering for the appearance itself, is overly optimistic.
We’re just getting more and more hypothetical in a complete vacuum of real information though right?
If we’re trying to get something even somewhat defensible, there has to be some grounding on SOMETHING, or it’s all just fantasy.
If they spent 10k ly getting here, and the ungodly amount of energy and time it would take to do 20% of light speed over that distance, and they had since the great oxygenation event to notice us and get here (and have such a technological and energy advantage over us they were able to do it) - then why are they being seen randomly checking out military aircraft (not very smart or subtle it seems?) but never talk to anyone else? And show no other signs of existing?
Not impossible, but seems like a truly massive amount of energy and commitment of time over what far exceeds the timescales life as we know it works on to check out what could just be a puddle full of gooey algae for all they knew. And then potentially just sitting and watching for 100 million or a billion years.
At least seeing radio signals or a double flash from a nuke test means there is something like intelligent life?
If we’re trying to get something even somewhat defensible, there has to be some grounding on SOMETHING, or it’s all just fantasy.
If they spent 10k ly getting here, and the ungodly amount of energy and time it would take to do 20% of light speed over that distance, and they had since the great oxygenation event to notice us and get here (and have such a technological and energy advantage over us they were able to do it) - then why are they being seen randomly checking out military aircraft (not very smart or subtle it seems?) but never talk to anyone else? And show no other signs of existing?
Not impossible, but seems like a truly massive amount of energy and commitment of time over what far exceeds the timescales life as we know it works on to check out what could just be a puddle full of gooey algae for all they knew. And then potentially just sitting and watching for 100 million or a billion years.
At least seeing radio signals or a double flash from a nuke test means there is something like intelligent life?
"We’re just getting more and more hypothetical in a complete vacuum of real information though right?"
Not really. Both of us were counting on current human knowledge, that our galaxy is this (light years) large, that the maximum speed is that of light and that an exponential amounts of energy is needed for each logarithmic increment of relativistic speed, that there is a working model for life based on what we call organic chemistry, that an atmosphere rich in a highly reactant element that is oxygen can not exist without something continuously producing it and what that could mean for an alien observer, all because, in the slim chance that we are the ones with technological head-start, that should serve as base ingredients for thinking about our long-term future external policy. I'm thinking if we are to become Kardashev type II (and above) civilization, what ought to be the best approach in dealing with an evolving galaxy? But yes, there are also aspects which are hard to think of now in more than hypothetical terms, like what would mean in practical terms to have access to (at least) a star's amount of energy and what it would be worth spending it on. To me, "to check out what could just be a puddle full of gooey algae" looks like a very important objective, and finding something underwhelming should be the desired result, safety wise.
Not really. Both of us were counting on current human knowledge, that our galaxy is this (light years) large, that the maximum speed is that of light and that an exponential amounts of energy is needed for each logarithmic increment of relativistic speed, that there is a working model for life based on what we call organic chemistry, that an atmosphere rich in a highly reactant element that is oxygen can not exist without something continuously producing it and what that could mean for an alien observer, all because, in the slim chance that we are the ones with technological head-start, that should serve as base ingredients for thinking about our long-term future external policy. I'm thinking if we are to become Kardashev type II (and above) civilization, what ought to be the best approach in dealing with an evolving galaxy? But yes, there are also aspects which are hard to think of now in more than hypothetical terms, like what would mean in practical terms to have access to (at least) a star's amount of energy and what it would be worth spending it on. To me, "to check out what could just be a puddle full of gooey algae" looks like a very important objective, and finding something underwhelming should be the desired result, safety wise.
My favorite back of the napkin math about the practical reality of interstellar space travel, from cstross:
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_hig...
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_hig...
Even near-lightspeed travel (say, >0.2C) would be leaps and bounds beyond what we know how to do at this point.
> aliens being here would imply FTL is possible
No, aliens (or alien-made un-aliened probes) being here wouldn't mean FTL is possible. It would imply very advanced societies are capable of diverting energy into projects with very long payoff windows, but not the existence of FTL travel.
No, aliens (or alien-made un-aliened probes) being here wouldn't mean FTL is possible. It would imply very advanced societies are capable of diverting energy into projects with very long payoff windows, but not the existence of FTL travel.
> aliens being here would imply FTL is possible, and that would be a huge discovery!
"Huge discovery" is understanding that - FTL would imply that either causality doesn't hold, or that we've fundamentally misunderstood relativity.
"Huge discovery" is understanding that - FTL would imply that either causality doesn't hold, or that we've fundamentally misunderstood relativity.
Not necessarily. These could very well be a fleet of self-replicating “unmanned” drones that were sent on a mission to explore the galaxy millions of years ago. Heck, our own civilization likely isn’t all that far off (relatively speaking) from being able to do the same thing
That's the strict definition, but to most people "UFOs" are still associated with "aliens".
For some reason all the news reporting I’ve seen about it breathlessly insinuates aliens without actually saying that because they’d be legitimately ridiculed. Alluding to it though brings in more viewers. Kind of disgusting.
It feels a bit like the lab-virus theory felt last year. If you entertain the notion of it you're supposed to be ridiculed and possibly kicked out of polite society, but does it really deserve to be set alongside flat earth theory and intelligent design? I'm not so sure we won't look differently at it years from now.
No, it’s not science violating like flat earth or unscientific like intelligent design. So from that perspective, it obviously shouldn’t be dismissed out-of-hand. It’s still so far out there in terms of an actual possibility that there’s no point speculating. Mundane reasons are far more likely, especially since extraterrestrials on our planet would imply extraterrestrials with a significant technological advantage - likely extrasolar (implying FTL) & able to evade all sorts of detection methods. Even if you think there’s a massive government conspiracy to conceal their detection, you’d be claiming this conspiracy is effective at hiding it from all sorts of academic telescopes/satellites/radars (these are extraterrestrials so they’d have to live off-earth).
In essence, the claim of “aliens” (particularly intelligent ones) is outlandish given our current understanding of the universe. Of course that could change in the future but speculating wildly about it now & reporting on it similarly is irresponsible.
And as for the lab virus theory, that’s a bad analogy. The zoonotic origin is more plausible but it’s probably like 2:1 or 10:1 odds against it being a lab escape. For aliens you’re looking at like 1000000:1 odds against.
Heck, humans from parallel dimensions seem more likely at the point where we’re wildly speculating without any evidence. Why is aliens the dominant theory?
In essence, the claim of “aliens” (particularly intelligent ones) is outlandish given our current understanding of the universe. Of course that could change in the future but speculating wildly about it now & reporting on it similarly is irresponsible.
And as for the lab virus theory, that’s a bad analogy. The zoonotic origin is more plausible but it’s probably like 2:1 or 10:1 odds against it being a lab escape. For aliens you’re looking at like 1000000:1 odds against.
Heck, humans from parallel dimensions seem more likely at the point where we’re wildly speculating without any evidence. Why is aliens the dominant theory?
There are literally millions of people who expected this to be the big reveal about aliens. It's crazy how the US military has been teasing the UFO community during the last few years.
That’s how I interpret it. But I guess other people choose to interpret it as ‘little green men’. That makes it hard to investigate without ridicule. So maybe the name change is all about being able to do that?
Aliens are demons, they don’t need special machines to fly through the air and probe people’s butts in the middle of the night.
You say that like it's a statement of fact, yet present no evidence. This isn't helpful.
It’s as helpful as speculating on their nature in any other way. People get wide eyed and excited at the concept of intergalactic or ultra-dimensional “aliens” yet scoff at the simple idea that they’re just demons. Both require a mountain of unproven assumptions, why’s one worse than the other?
I happen to know, of course.
I happen to know, of course.
In terms of hollywood and pop culture, UFO 100% means alien. It's a great example of a piece of niche jargon getting a non-niche meaning, which ends up kinda taking over the word.
UFO means "unidentified flying object". A spinning top UFO 12 hours a day, every day for 2 years means aliens.
Why does it feel like this report has been teased for weeks, almost akin to the release of a new blockbuster movie or similar cultural product?
Because the UFO fanatics have been hyping it as it might have lent them some legitimacy.
Because it is an outstanding topic, coming from the highest government places. That is indeed interesting. No reason to bring your negative vibes in here.
Someone who is hoping to get a government contract to track UFOs is probably paying a lot of money for publicity.
It's really bizarre coming from such a (historically) no-nonsense organization
Maybe this is just so unavoidable as a marketing/PR strategy these days that even the military feels compelled to participate?
Maybe this is just so unavoidable as a marketing/PR strategy these days that even the military feels compelled to participate?
UFOs make for sexy, apolitical news. Perfect for hitting a broad audience, and the more sensational you are the longer you can keep them tuning in.
So, basically they are saying they don't know what the hell they are.
or they do and they don't want to say.
yeah I think it's more likely that it's some kind of experimental propulsion test that is sometimes being noticed. Like they wandered into a room above their clearance level or something.
Someone on earth made these.
Someone on earth made these.
Can you provide an example of a past technology that was unimagined by mainstream physicists and that was sucessfully implemented in secret and kept secret for decades?
I can't think of anything.
Fission bombs were widely believed to be physically possible, were developed in secret but used publicly within several years.
I do not beleive the military has some secret antigravity, inertia modifying technology or warp drive of whatever.
These things always start with basic physics. There is no known basic physics to support such things. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that the military simply developed them from theory to implementation in secret.
I can't think of anything.
Fission bombs were widely believed to be physically possible, were developed in secret but used publicly within several years.
I do not beleive the military has some secret antigravity, inertia modifying technology or warp drive of whatever.
These things always start with basic physics. There is no known basic physics to support such things. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that the military simply developed them from theory to implementation in secret.
The ability to break the Enigma code might qualify. German scientists, I think, considered it unbreakable.
it could be some kind of new tech, or maybe an illusion.
I really don't know enough about military history to answer the question but if a research lab had some kind of groundbreaking tech like this it would make sense to me for them to try to keep it under wraps.
It does seem unlikely that they'd be able to keep the secret this well though. I'll give you that.
I really don't know enough about military history to answer the question but if a research lab had some kind of groundbreaking tech like this it would make sense to me for them to try to keep it under wraps.
It does seem unlikely that they'd be able to keep the secret this well though. I'll give you that.
Sometimes? Over 120 times according to the report.
[deleted]
That's just the numerator. We'll likely never know the denominator, so if this was a real thing, let alone a new classified technology, we can't say how successful it is.
“Unidentified”, if you will.
Different teams within government often don't know what each other are doing. If there's a relative difference in both security clearance AND organization goals, there are very likely to be projects that will never be connected to phenomena. eg Drone Mesh network testing over naval ships or Stealth-Treaty-breaking experimental craft that are being developed nonetheless.
That's the idea with 'Unidentified Flying Object'. But I guess we didn't need this report to tell us this.
Yes hence the unidentified.
Someone on reddit a while back asked how come UFO pics and video are always so shaky and blurry. The answer of course is that if it was high res and steady cam we'd quickly be able to identify what it was so it stops being a UFO.
It's kinda like asking how come all the cars in the scrap yard have been in accidents.
Someone on reddit a while back asked how come UFO pics and video are always so shaky and blurry. The answer of course is that if it was high res and steady cam we'd quickly be able to identify what it was so it stops being a UFO.
It's kinda like asking how come all the cars in the scrap yard have been in accidents.
A lot of these videos have already been debunked as being visual artifacts from the cameras or parallax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8
As far as I can tell, this is confirming at least 120 sightings as UFOs in the literal sense – rather than visual artefacts.
I watched the first part of this link, where he covers the 'tic tac' FLIR video, saying that it's probably a commercial aircraft far away.
As others have stated, what makes this particular case so compelling isn't the video, it's the testimony of the people who were there, people who have a lot of credibility.
As others have stated, what makes this particular case so compelling isn't the video, it's the testimony of the people who were there, people who have a lot of credibility.
NASA literally spends Billions annually trying to find poop of single celled organism which might have existed eons ago in another plant, That's why it's hard for me to buy the U.S. Govt. covering up 'alien' story.
Someone posted this video here then deleted it. (I'm pretty sure he was an alien)
It's just bokeh:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2oaQWmqkk
It's just bokeh:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2oaQWmqkk
This video is easily debunked and it's weird that it is in the mix because its the Nimitz report that is interesting.
I wonder if we get good data in the report. The flybys of U.S. Navy ships had to have produced lots of sensor data. In particular, synchronized radar data, or electro-optical data if we're really lucky, from several ships in a task group would resolve many ambiguities. Most positional illusions break down when seen from multiple viewpoints.
Some of this stuff suggests someone fooling around with drones. But whose drones?
Some of this stuff suggests someone fooling around with drones. But whose drones?
Everyone seems to point to nation states, but there are literally thousands of billionaires in the world. Maybe an individual with really deep pockets is having a laugh.
Probably not even that expensive.
Skymagic [1], the drone show company, could create many of the effects seen.
[1] https://vimeo.com/skymagicshow
Skymagic [1], the drone show company, could create many of the effects seen.
[1] https://vimeo.com/skymagicshow
Assuming the flight characteristics of the tic tac are as they've actually been reported by visuals (which is a big assumption), there is no way a random billionaire built these. Literally zero.
Once it is granted that the objects and their detectable properties are real, and not illusions, there are really only a few possibilities.
1) Advanced and highly secretive technology developed by some government. 2) The same, but by a group within our own government, but off-budget and highly secret (think NSA in the bad old days when it didn't officially exist). 3) The same, but by a non-governmental group of industrialists or similar, but still terrestrial. 4) Aliens
Given the occurrence of these phenomena around military deployments, bases, and nuclear facilities, my money's on #1.
Defaulting to aliens seems attractive to those who presume the technology is too advanced, seemingly violating the laws of physics, and thus an exotic explanation is required. This is illogical.
If the objects are real, and (big) if they are violating the laws of physics as we know them, that means that our understanding of physics needs to be revised. Physics is physics. Explaining it as "aliens" doesn't explain anything. If the physics is wrong (or rather, incomplete, which we already know is the case), then there is no reason to presume that some terrestrial group would be incapable of making and leveraging discoveries that would enable it to create these craft/drones.
We are not lacking in historical examples of tremendous technical advances far outpacing the current understanding. Germany, during WWII, made tremendous advances with the jet engine and in rocketry, even in robotic analog guidance systems, that shocked the scientists in the US. To this day, much of what we acquired with Operation Paperclip is still classified. Why? I'm not going to speculate, but there must be a reason we still don't know what all was acquired from the Germans by the US and Russia.
The same thing could happen again. If new physical principles were, at some point, discovered, leveraged, and developed by some group (governmental or otherwise), they have had quite a few decades to improve on it. Think about how far technology and materials science has come in the public arena in the last 50 years. Add in some exotic discoveries, and some group with the resources to leverage them, and a terrestrial explanation becomes quite plausible. No aliens required.
1) Advanced and highly secretive technology developed by some government. 2) The same, but by a group within our own government, but off-budget and highly secret (think NSA in the bad old days when it didn't officially exist). 3) The same, but by a non-governmental group of industrialists or similar, but still terrestrial. 4) Aliens
Given the occurrence of these phenomena around military deployments, bases, and nuclear facilities, my money's on #1.
Defaulting to aliens seems attractive to those who presume the technology is too advanced, seemingly violating the laws of physics, and thus an exotic explanation is required. This is illogical.
If the objects are real, and (big) if they are violating the laws of physics as we know them, that means that our understanding of physics needs to be revised. Physics is physics. Explaining it as "aliens" doesn't explain anything. If the physics is wrong (or rather, incomplete, which we already know is the case), then there is no reason to presume that some terrestrial group would be incapable of making and leveraging discoveries that would enable it to create these craft/drones.
We are not lacking in historical examples of tremendous technical advances far outpacing the current understanding. Germany, during WWII, made tremendous advances with the jet engine and in rocketry, even in robotic analog guidance systems, that shocked the scientists in the US. To this day, much of what we acquired with Operation Paperclip is still classified. Why? I'm not going to speculate, but there must be a reason we still don't know what all was acquired from the Germans by the US and Russia.
The same thing could happen again. If new physical principles were, at some point, discovered, leveraged, and developed by some group (governmental or otherwise), they have had quite a few decades to improve on it. Think about how far technology and materials science has come in the public arena in the last 50 years. Add in some exotic discoveries, and some group with the resources to leverage them, and a terrestrial explanation becomes quite plausible. No aliens required.
"If the objects are real, and (big) if they are violating the laws of physics as we know them, that means that our understanding of physics needs to be revised. Physics is physics."
One little issue here though. The current understanding of physics is the result of study performed on inert systems, under total (or big enough degree of) scientists' control. Areas which aren't easy to be subjected to experiments are avoided. (Among other things, choosing something like that would pose a high risk of loose speculation on the limited data sets at hand, and an even higher risk of results staying unverifiable by independent parties, both reflecting badly on the scientists involved.) When confronted with something hardly explainable like UFO reports, the easy way out is denial or questioning the source and information veracity.
One little issue here though. The current understanding of physics is the result of study performed on inert systems, under total (or big enough degree of) scientists' control. Areas which aren't easy to be subjected to experiments are avoided. (Among other things, choosing something like that would pose a high risk of loose speculation on the limited data sets at hand, and an even higher risk of results staying unverifiable by independent parties, both reflecting badly on the scientists involved.) When confronted with something hardly explainable like UFO reports, the easy way out is denial or questioning the source and information veracity.
Did anyone seriously expect the report to say that those things are "aliens"?
The fact that it says that (at least some) encounters did actually occur and that they cannot be explained is already some news.
The fact that it says that (at least some) encounters did actually occur and that they cannot be explained is already some news.
Weird how aliens always show up around USG locations and vehicles. All the land mass in the world and some how it's always around the super militarized North America.
> Weird how aliens always show up around USG locations and vehicles. All the land mass in the world and some how it's always around the super militarized North America.
Let's ignore the alien-origin hypothesis and assume the report says that these were not camera artefacts. If that were the case, if these are, in fact, objects, then yes--it makes sense that they are observed most frequently (and credibly) by the military.
Let's ignore the alien-origin hypothesis and assume the report says that these were not camera artefacts. If that were the case, if these are, in fact, objects, then yes--it makes sense that they are observed most frequently (and credibly) by the military.
My biggest question when I see statements about these UFOs being aliens is “Where is the mother ship”?
The constraints on something built to operate in the Earth’s atmosphere are much different than a ship that can actually cross interstellar distances.
So if we are seeing the equivalent of alien fighters (small, fast, highly maneuverable) there should also be the equivalent of an aircraft carrier which provides the long distance transport and logistics for these fighters.
The constraints on something built to operate in the Earth’s atmosphere are much different than a ship that can actually cross interstellar distances.
So if we are seeing the equivalent of alien fighters (small, fast, highly maneuverable) there should also be the equivalent of an aircraft carrier which provides the long distance transport and logistics for these fighters.
Have they ruled out software bugs, and literal bugs crawling on the camera lens?
If so, what the heck are they seeing out there?
Have other country’s militaries reported seeing anything?
If so, what the heck are they seeing out there?
Have other country’s militaries reported seeing anything?
It's the weirdest thing I have ever seen.
(I would like to know the placement of the camera on the jet. Is it exposed to the elements, or protected inside the skin of the craft?)
(I would like to know the placement of the camera on the jet. Is it exposed to the elements, or protected inside the skin of the craft?)
This has occurred already in a different area of paranormal activity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(optical_phenomenon)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(optical_phenomenon)
NY Times article on the same topic:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/p...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/p...
I can't read past the paywall, but regarding the first photo (and the one I've seen the most), Kyle Hill makes a very thorough and compelling case for jet engine exhaust in IR, here: https://youtu.be/I_n1xpKBBcs?t=1074
The public has a right to know certain things, like if there is any evidence of aliens visiting Earth. The right should probably be an explicit constitutional amendment:
The people, being free citizens of the universe, shall never be denied access to any information that may pertain to the existence of alien life.
The people, being free citizens of the universe, shall never be denied access to any information that may pertain to the existence of alien life.
[deleted]
4 year old spherical drone. Have the leds emit light to confuse.
https://www.livescience.com/58928-spherical-drone-display.ht...
I imagine the tech has improved some since
https://www.livescience.com/58928-spherical-drone-display.ht...
I imagine the tech has improved some since
[deleted]
I wonder if a swarm of drones can move faster than a single drone, using the technique like the catepillars who crawl over each other in a leap-frogging fashion to move at roughly 2x the speed of an individual.
Is there a formal link to the report?
It is currently slated to be released on June 25th. This article is based on early details reported on by interviews with people who have seen early versions of the report.
Well, duh.
Breakaway civ.
Nazis. From the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Sky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Sky
Hey DanG - Looks like people think moon Nazis are more absurd than space aliens traveling across the universe to harass the US military. How about if the unknown advanced aircraft turn out to be Nazis, I get +3 karma for each downvote and I get to pick the site topcolor for a day? Time traveling Nazis (from past or future) and aliens that self-identify as Nazis would count.
There is a guy on YouTube, who is a PhD physicist, called Thunderf00t (sp?). He thinks it might be a duck in the Cmd. Frasier (sp?) video. Some species of duck do crazy kamikaze dives into the water. Flapping wings might not show up due to camera shutter speeds. Given wind speed variation at differ altitudes and the relative velocities of the plane and bird it might appear to be going much faster than it is from the birds frame of reference. It’s a much more sane theory. Speed of light and distance between planets and all that. Or it could be the dirty commies messing with the US with some drones.
I think we need to be a bit more imaginative rather than just jumping to "aliens" every time. There are other possible explanations that are just as fun! An animal species we've never seen before, for example. Or time travelling humans. Or maybe one guy happened across faster-than-light travel in his garage and is hoarding it from everyone else.
> Or maybe one guy happened across faster-than-light travel in his garage and is hoarding it from everyone else.
Uh oh. Vulcans incoming.
Uh oh. Vulcans incoming.
Well, assuming this isn't a psyop, this is incredibly exciting. These things are doing maneuvers that simply aren't possible with the technology we have currently. This means that the scifi future of our dreams is nearly upon us.
These things aren't "things". They are mostly camera artefacts. They're not doing anything.
I would include that in the psyop contingency. It seems pretty stupid to go through all this ado just for camera artifacts.
A number of the recent reports include visual contact with the UFOs. Camera artefacts would not explain such observations from sober-minded and sharp-eyed fighter pilots.
It's hilarious watching CNN reporters pushing this UFO speculation. Don't they realize this even further besmirches any credibility they have left on other topics, like all their conspiracy theories?
I remember when UFO sightings were relegated to the tabloids like The National Enquire. CNN has sunk to tabloid level.
I remember when UFO sightings were relegated to the tabloids like The National Enquire. CNN has sunk to tabloid level.
Every outlet was reporting on this, at least when it was big news a year ago.
Every one that did should be ashamed of itself. And using that as an excuse for other outlets doesn't fly.
Yesterday, CNN was flogging the UFO tabloid crap. What do you think that says about CNN's credibility about other topics? Don't you want to laugh when they unctuously say "follow the science"?
Note that personally I believe we should follow the science. But I laugh when CNN says it. Their pundits have no idea what science actually is.
Yesterday, CNN was flogging the UFO tabloid crap. What do you think that says about CNN's credibility about other topics? Don't you want to laugh when they unctuously say "follow the science"?
Note that personally I believe we should follow the science. But I laugh when CNN says it. Their pundits have no idea what science actually is.
> U.S. Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects, but Can’t Rule It Out, Either
Sub header:
> A new report concedes that much about the observed phenomena remains difficult to explain, including their acceleration, as well as ability to change direction and submerge.
Those descriptions are a tectonic shift on the topic from the US government.