NASA clears the air: No evidence that UFOs are aliens(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
NASA clears the air: No evidence that UFOs are aliens
https://theconversation.com/nasa-report-finds-no-evidence-that-ufos-are-extraterrestrial-213528
212 comments
I found the train of thought of
"unfalsible == unscientific == can be dismissed"
worrying. There are so much knowledge unfalsible yet we relied on. This overestimate our ability to reason, or gathering evidence.
worrying. There are so much knowledge unfalsible yet we relied on. This overestimate our ability to reason, or gathering evidence.
> so much knowledge unfalsible yet we relied on
Like what?
Like what?
It’s impossible to falsify patient reports of pain, yet the medical field takes them quite seriously.
That's not true. For example, if someone suddenly stops acting like they are in pain when they think they are not being observed that's a pretty good indication that they are faking it.
The medical field will often ignore out of hand any reports of pain as drug seeking and do nothing about it.
I have first hand experience with this.
I have first hand experience with this.
Well, to go recursive on you: like "we can only be sure of things we can empirically verify". But we can't empirically verify that statement, because it's a statement of epistemology. (This is one of the fundamental flaws of logical positivism, though not the one that killed it.)
Or the opposite: Our observations reflect actual reality.
Or that induction actually leads us to truth.
Or that our logical processes arrive at things that are actually true, not just that seem true.
That's probably enough for a start...
Or the opposite: Our observations reflect actual reality.
Or that induction actually leads us to truth.
Or that our logical processes arrive at things that are actually true, not just that seem true.
That's probably enough for a start...
> we can only be sure of things we can empirically verify
That's a straw man. I never said anything about being sure. We can never be sure about anything. Type 2 conspiracy theories might be true. So could last-thursday-ism.
The reason these things can be rejected is not because there is evidence against them. Last-thursday-ism might be right. But so could last-wenesday-ism or last-tuesday-ism or last-monday-ism or... Each of these is an instance of a large family of hypotheses, none of which are falsifiable. Only one of them can possibly be right, so even if one of them is right the odds that you've picked the right one are indistinguishable from zero. That is why all unfalsifiable hypotheses can be rejected.
That's a straw man. I never said anything about being sure. We can never be sure about anything. Type 2 conspiracy theories might be true. So could last-thursday-ism.
The reason these things can be rejected is not because there is evidence against them. Last-thursday-ism might be right. But so could last-wenesday-ism or last-tuesday-ism or last-monday-ism or... Each of these is an instance of a large family of hypotheses, none of which are falsifiable. Only one of them can possibly be right, so even if one of them is right the odds that you've picked the right one are indistinguishable from zero. That is why all unfalsifiable hypotheses can be rejected.
I never said that you said that.
I never said you said that I said it.
See, I can play that game too.
See, I can play that game too.
I was not attempting to play games. But since you seem to be, I'm out.
this is too simplistic.
There are LOTS of conspiracy theories where the 'conspiracy' is not at all hidden, but out in the open and it's an open question of whether it's a coincidence or actually coordinated action. Based on common sense discernment, some of these range from "almost certainly true" to "probably nonsense".
There are also conspiracy theories where there is no longer evidence of conspiracy, but lots of evidence of deliberate data destruction. One can only infer the motive behind the data destruction, but I wouldn't call this type 1 or type 2. It's not inherently unfalsifiable by design, but extremely hard to falsify. If you mark such a conspiracy theory with the label, you risk discouraging people from trying to uncover what actually happened, and converting a "maybe successful conspiracy" to an "actually successful conspiracy" (if indeed it is a conspiracy).
There are LOTS of conspiracy theories where the 'conspiracy' is not at all hidden, but out in the open and it's an open question of whether it's a coincidence or actually coordinated action. Based on common sense discernment, some of these range from "almost certainly true" to "probably nonsense".
There are also conspiracy theories where there is no longer evidence of conspiracy, but lots of evidence of deliberate data destruction. One can only infer the motive behind the data destruction, but I wouldn't call this type 1 or type 2. It's not inherently unfalsifiable by design, but extremely hard to falsify. If you mark such a conspiracy theory with the label, you risk discouraging people from trying to uncover what actually happened, and converting a "maybe successful conspiracy" to an "actually successful conspiracy" (if indeed it is a conspiracy).
> lots of evidence of deliberate data destruction
But evidence of deliberate data destruction is evidence. It might be an open question of what it is evidence of -- for example, maybe someone is just clearing out old records. But if someone is trying to destroy -- oh, I dunno, just spitballing here -- surveillance footage of someone moving boxes of classified materials after a subpoena has been issued for those materials, it's hard to explain that as anything other than a cover-up.
But evidence of deliberate data destruction is evidence. It might be an open question of what it is evidence of -- for example, maybe someone is just clearing out old records. But if someone is trying to destroy -- oh, I dunno, just spitballing here -- surveillance footage of someone moving boxes of classified materials after a subpoena has been issued for those materials, it's hard to explain that as anything other than a cover-up.
They might be trying to cover up something else that isn't the conspiracy theory.
Suppose there's a theory that some person got suicided in jail. And a lot of security footage got deleted. It could be that the prison guards were torturing the person in the cell for information that they could use to blackmail important people, and covering that up and there was not (yet) a higher level call for the person to be suicided.
Not saying that's the case in any particular incident, just conjuring a hypothetical example.
Suppose there's a theory that some person got suicided in jail. And a lot of security footage got deleted. It could be that the prison guards were torturing the person in the cell for information that they could use to blackmail important people, and covering that up and there was not (yet) a higher level call for the person to be suicided.
Not saying that's the case in any particular incident, just conjuring a hypothetical example.
I miss this brand of kooky theories. It’s sad how the conspiracy space has been monopolized by partisan politics in the past decade. I’d welcome the return of Area 51 and Bigfoot theories into the “mainstream” conspiracy theory arena…
As fun and “harmless” as those old conspiracy theories are, there’s a line of thought that it was exactly those that primed many to fall down the numerous politically-charged conspiracy rabbitholes that exist today, which sounds believable. Those who jumped straight to political conspiracy theories were likely always vulnerable to this sort of thinking, but a significant portion were likely people who weren’t predisposed but had their mental safeguards and sanity checks eroded by Area 51 and Bigfoot sorts of stuff.
If we're going to consider "propensity to believe in things without evidence" to be problematic, I have bad news for you: Religions involving supernatural beliefs have existed for millennia, placing most people on Earth in that bucket.
You’re not wrong but what’s your point? Those people often create terrible policy. So… we are supposed to let conspiracists slide too because there’s this other group that also has problematic beliefs?
[deleted]
The absence of evidence is not conclusive proof of non-existence; rather, it may highlight our limitations in comprehending or addressing the topic. Just because there's no evidence currently suggesting an extraterrestrial origin doesn't rule out the possibility.
Testimonies and indications of concealed information suggest that any existing evidence might be hidden or suppressed. Such revelations should intensify scrutiny on NASA's handling of the matter.
There are accounts, and possibly some tangible evidence, of encounters with non-human entities, with some testimonies claiming that these beings identified themselves as extraterrestrial.
While numerous skyward sightings exist—some dubious or misidentified—there remains a portion that defies explanation.
NASA's commitment to empirical research is commendable. However, in light of the allegations, it would be prudent for them to conduct an internal review to ensure there have been no cover-ups or destruction of evidence in the past.
Testimonies and indications of concealed information suggest that any existing evidence might be hidden or suppressed. Such revelations should intensify scrutiny on NASA's handling of the matter.
There are accounts, and possibly some tangible evidence, of encounters with non-human entities, with some testimonies claiming that these beings identified themselves as extraterrestrial.
While numerous skyward sightings exist—some dubious or misidentified—there remains a portion that defies explanation.
NASA's commitment to empirical research is commendable. However, in light of the allegations, it would be prudent for them to conduct an internal review to ensure there have been no cover-ups or destruction of evidence in the past.
The burden of proof is on something's existence, not on its non-existence. Non-existence is the default assumption, unless we're ready to by default assume mermaids, unicorns, and Bigfoot exists.
I think it’s a little different when we’re talking about classified documents and national security. I’m ready to assume Israel has nuclear weapons. It’s a shame NASA’s independent study team did not review classified reports.
What interest does NASA have in cover-ups or destruction of evidence?
I can't imagine any reason for them to be dishonest about not finding evidence of aliens which is based in reality as opposed to paranoid nonsense.
I can't imagine any reason for them to be dishonest about not finding evidence of aliens which is based in reality as opposed to paranoid nonsense.
GP is suggesting that NASA was not given all of the evidence, ensuring that they would reach the conclusion they did.
[deleted]
Not extraterrestrial, but how about… Extradimensional? Seems easier to live in a higher dimension than to break the speed of light anyway.
Does it seem easier? We have no indication that higher dimensions are a place you could "travel" to.
This is the kind of ad-hoc hypothesis Occam cautioned against - multiplying entities unnecessarily. "UFOs are spycraft, hoaxes, and surprising atmospheric phenomena" is a perfectly serviceable alternative to the hypothesis "UFOs are alien spacecraft." Why are we introducing a new entity (extradimenional travel) which we have no other evidence for, when we don't need to?
This is the kind of ad-hoc hypothesis Occam cautioned against - multiplying entities unnecessarily. "UFOs are spycraft, hoaxes, and surprising atmospheric phenomena" is a perfectly serviceable alternative to the hypothesis "UFOs are alien spacecraft." Why are we introducing a new entity (extradimenional travel) which we have no other evidence for, when we don't need to?
Extra dimensions are just scifi stuff. Physics would break appart if there were any "big enough" dimensions. Gravity & electromagnetism would not behave the way they behave (inverse square laws).
It is also possible that everything humans understand is simply a vignette into a much larger reality, and all of those things would fall apart because they aren't true, they're merely the laws we've discovered with the limited information we have available to us.
Maybe. Is that a good explanation for some grainy footage? Is it a better explanation than, "the drone technology most of us are familiar with is a vignette of a much larger space of technological possibility; without the need to accommodate human frailty, strange and wonderful configurations of aircraft are possible, so much so that they may baffle even experienced airman? And like any strange and wonderful technology in this world, it's first used to spy, and in a decade will be used to serve ads."
Please cote the spot where I suggested anything that even remotely looks like I took a position.
All I mean to say is that circular logic based on upholding one's views of reality do not bring any clarity to the situation.
The same situation seems to happen countless times in the history of empirical science and mathematics. There are incontrovertible facts, until some new information controverts them.
All I mean to say is that circular logic based on upholding one's views of reality do not bring any clarity to the situation.
The same situation seems to happen countless times in the history of empirical science and mathematics. There are incontrovertible facts, until some new information controverts them.
That's fine, but you asked a question and I responded to it. Whether you hold a position, that's not really my business, I believe you when you say you don't.
I'm seeing now that it was a proposition not a question (I read it as "Is it" rather than "It is"), my mistake there. But I would've responded in the same way regardless, so substitute this with, "you proposed something and I responded to it."
Then a "dimension" would not be a dimension as defined by math and physics.
Throw-away comment: that's essentially the point.
Is there any way to falsify this idea?
I don't think that there is.
An obvious comparison is religious thought. Unlike most religious thought, you do actually learn when the consensus has been utterly wrong. What you don't know is when that will happen.
An obvious comparison is religious thought. Unlike most religious thought, you do actually learn when the consensus has been utterly wrong. What you don't know is when that will happen.
or maybe it might takes as few hundred more years to understand them? Our understanding of things evolve very slowly compared to age of universe.
Speaking as a former theoretical high energy physicist who has studied string theory and other BSM theories (including “extra dimensions”) quite extensively and black hole information theory to a reasonable extent, the higher dimensions talked about in any close-to-mainstream physics really has nothing to do with sci-fi “inter-dimensional travel”.
It’s quite amusing to read the sentence “Seems easier to live in a higher dimension than to break the speed of light”. The latter is well established, very precise physics, the former is a very vague, so far fictional concept with little to do with our current understanding of physics (and actually very much goes against it), yet somehow one is “easier” than another.
Of course we can’t rule anything out, including “extra dimensions” in some scifi-esque sense that’s not currently understood, but these two don’t belong in the same sentence.
(Btw, I enjoy sci-fi about traveling between alternate universes.)
It’s quite amusing to read the sentence “Seems easier to live in a higher dimension than to break the speed of light”. The latter is well established, very precise physics, the former is a very vague, so far fictional concept with little to do with our current understanding of physics (and actually very much goes against it), yet somehow one is “easier” than another.
Of course we can’t rule anything out, including “extra dimensions” in some scifi-esque sense that’s not currently understood, but these two don’t belong in the same sentence.
(Btw, I enjoy sci-fi about traveling between alternate universes.)
The way I understand the extra "dimension" here is like me viewing a bacteria on a cover slide. To the bacteria, that 2D flat plane is all that matters. Sure, technically it is 3D, but the 3rd dimension is compressed so much it is basically nonexistent and the bacteria can't really be bothered anyway. They can't even comprehend the concept of dimensions.
But to me, I am fully in 3D. I am literally an extradimensional being to the bacteria. And I am so far above it (no pun intended) I am incomprehensible to anything that lives on that 2D slide.
Even if I assume the bacteria has some really good teachers and can build stuff (they actually do, they make biofilms that are pretty complex "superstructures"), the kind of thing they can do in their limited plane of existence is nothing compared to what a human can.
So while I don't believe anything that was released so far points conclusively to real aliens, I don't find the concept of extradimensional beings too far fetch.
But to me, I am fully in 3D. I am literally an extradimensional being to the bacteria. And I am so far above it (no pun intended) I am incomprehensible to anything that lives on that 2D slide.
Even if I assume the bacteria has some really good teachers and can build stuff (they actually do, they make biofilms that are pretty complex "superstructures"), the kind of thing they can do in their limited plane of existence is nothing compared to what a human can.
So while I don't believe anything that was released so far points conclusively to real aliens, I don't find the concept of extradimensional beings too far fetch.
I don't think your bacteria on a slide analogy makes much sense. A thin 3D space is still not 2D. A bacterium also doesn't have any comprehension or concept of anything, so of course it doesn't have a concept of 3D space.
Undetectable beings living in another part of reality we're unaware of are, of course, unfalsifiable.
Undetectable beings living in another part of reality we're unaware of are, of course, unfalsifiable.
From what I remembered, string theory proposed that the extra dimensions beyond the spatial and chronological ones we experience are also compactified and technically hidden from our perception. In another word, they exist just not on a scale we can appreciate. If you accept that then the 2D plane with the 3rd dimension minimized to the point of irrelevance is not so different.
And I don't really care about what the bacteria "think". The point being there exists an extradimensional relationship between me and the bacteria right here in front of me. So at least to me, it isn't so outlandish that there can be something above this 3D plane and I am simply too primitive to understand it.
Of course, there is no sufficient proof right now so I do not accept it as a real answer. It is simply analogical reasoning. Also, I would not say it is unfalsifiable. Like mentioned earlier, the extra dimensions are simply tucked away and not easy to detect. They still exist and with sufficient technology, they can be probed.
And I don't really care about what the bacteria "think". The point being there exists an extradimensional relationship between me and the bacteria right here in front of me. So at least to me, it isn't so outlandish that there can be something above this 3D plane and I am simply too primitive to understand it.
Of course, there is no sufficient proof right now so I do not accept it as a real answer. It is simply analogical reasoning. Also, I would not say it is unfalsifiable. Like mentioned earlier, the extra dimensions are simply tucked away and not easy to detect. They still exist and with sufficient technology, they can be probed.
Dimensions have a strict definition. Under those strict definitions we can draw conclusions that are 100% true. Math tell us things that can't be invalidated in the future.
If it turns out there is "something else", it would not be a dimension as defined by math and physics.
If it turns out there is "something else", it would not be a dimension as defined by math and physics.
Now you're talking like David Grusch; if you just include the Vatican in your theory, you'll be on the same page as him.
Has cammikebrown held a high position within the intelligence community? Has he been tasked as part of his official duties with finding any possible legacy reverse-engineering projects? Did he interview forty witnesses, including people who report being part of these programs currently? Did he collect evidence of wrongdoing and report it to the ICIG through the officially-sanctioned whistleblower process? Did the ICIG interview other witnesses and find his claims significant enough to forward them to Congress? Did cammikebrown eventually testify under oath in front of Congress, in both classified and non-classifief sessions?
Well, if all that is true then I think we should pay a little attention to what cammikebrown is saying and demand that his claims are investigated, because either cammikebrown is full of shit and needs to end with his bones in jail, or he is not and there is some serious corruption that needs to be addressed within the DoD.
Well, if all that is true then I think we should pay a little attention to what cammikebrown is saying and demand that his claims are investigated, because either cammikebrown is full of shit and needs to end with his bones in jail, or he is not and there is some serious corruption that needs to be addressed within the DoD.
We have not even a single person directly involved in these supposed programs who is willing to testify.
We have not even a single video that isn't uselessly low-quality, clearly fake, or of something ordinary.
We have not even a single shred of physical evidence.
We just have the same thing we've always had: a bunch of people telling stories which cannot be verified, imply the existence of evidence they cannot produce, and which—purely coincidentally, I'm sure—make them famous. None of these stories has ever led to hard evidence.
Wake me up when you have something to show me. I will take any evidence beyond tall tales.
We have not even a single video that isn't uselessly low-quality, clearly fake, or of something ordinary.
We have not even a single shred of physical evidence.
We just have the same thing we've always had: a bunch of people telling stories which cannot be verified, imply the existence of evidence they cannot produce, and which—purely coincidentally, I'm sure—make them famous. None of these stories has ever led to hard evidence.
Wake me up when you have something to show me. I will take any evidence beyond tall tales.
> We have not even a single person directly involved in these supposed programs who is willing to testify.
Multiple first-hand witnesses have testified to several congressional committees, in classified sessions. At the same time, nobody from these legacy programs testified in the single open session we've had so far.
> We have not even a single video that isn't uselessly low-quality, clearly fake, or of something ordinary
The four videos of UAPs released in the past few years by the DoD are ambiguous blurry messes, indeed.
Anything from an anonymous source is automatically suspect, regardless of how clear it might look.
Academia in general appears wary of surveying our atmosphere in search for UAPs, so no such projects have been funded so far, with the very recent exception of Avi Loeb's Galileo project. Loeb's project so far only has a single surveying station around Harvard since the beginning of this year, to my knowledge. Nothing has come out of it so far.
> We have not even a single shred of physical evidence.
Completely agreed. Grusch has provided the ICIG and some congressional committees information regarding the location, people, project names, funding mechanism, etc. of legacy UAP reverse-engineering programs, but that information is classified and has not been made public. I hope it will be investigated, but so far nothing has come out of it.
> We just have the same thing we've always had: a bunch of people telling stories which cannot be verified, imply the existence of evidence they cannot produce, and which—purely coincidentally, I'm sure—make them famous. None of these stories has ever led to hard evidence
I completely understand your skepticism. At the same time, I think there are some indications that there may be something to it.
In particular, the people with the best access to classified information, such as the Gang of Eight, appear to be the most in favor of transparency and investigating the subject. See for example the "UAP Disclosure Act" that is included in the 2024 NDAA.
> Wake me up when you have something to show me. I will take any evidence beyond tall tales
Evidence will not be forthcoming if we don't pressure our elected representatives to release the information they have already gathered, and/or start funding academia to survey our atmosphere for UAPs.
Galileo didn't find the rings of Saturn without first building a telescope.
Multiple first-hand witnesses have testified to several congressional committees, in classified sessions. At the same time, nobody from these legacy programs testified in the single open session we've had so far.
> We have not even a single video that isn't uselessly low-quality, clearly fake, or of something ordinary
The four videos of UAPs released in the past few years by the DoD are ambiguous blurry messes, indeed.
Anything from an anonymous source is automatically suspect, regardless of how clear it might look.
Academia in general appears wary of surveying our atmosphere in search for UAPs, so no such projects have been funded so far, with the very recent exception of Avi Loeb's Galileo project. Loeb's project so far only has a single surveying station around Harvard since the beginning of this year, to my knowledge. Nothing has come out of it so far.
> We have not even a single shred of physical evidence.
Completely agreed. Grusch has provided the ICIG and some congressional committees information regarding the location, people, project names, funding mechanism, etc. of legacy UAP reverse-engineering programs, but that information is classified and has not been made public. I hope it will be investigated, but so far nothing has come out of it.
> We just have the same thing we've always had: a bunch of people telling stories which cannot be verified, imply the existence of evidence they cannot produce, and which—purely coincidentally, I'm sure—make them famous. None of these stories has ever led to hard evidence
I completely understand your skepticism. At the same time, I think there are some indications that there may be something to it.
In particular, the people with the best access to classified information, such as the Gang of Eight, appear to be the most in favor of transparency and investigating the subject. See for example the "UAP Disclosure Act" that is included in the 2024 NDAA.
> Wake me up when you have something to show me. I will take any evidence beyond tall tales
Evidence will not be forthcoming if we don't pressure our elected representatives to release the information they have already gathered, and/or start funding academia to survey our atmosphere for UAPs.
Galileo didn't find the rings of Saturn without first building a telescope.
How do any of us know that info about "cammikebrown"?
I think you're describing specifics of David Grusch.
I'm a little surprised at how retributive you want to get if he's exaggerating. (he is)
I think you're describing specifics of David Grusch.
I'm a little surprised at how retributive you want to get if he's exaggerating. (he is)
Virtually none of this is true of Grusch.
What david-gpu wrote matches my understanding, based on his testimony (and his being vouched for by other DoD folks). I'm curious if there are reasons to doubt these parts of his story that I'm not aware of?
So far as I'm aware, there are no firsthand witnesses that corroborate Grusch's claims that have been identified, let alone testifying to Congress. The lack of identified firsthand sources is an obvious gaping flaw in Grusch's story. The bigger flaw, of course, is the fact that he's telling it at all; if it were true, it would be one of the most important military secrets in the history of human civilization. The DoD seems to care not one whit about what he has to say.
You'll see a lot of arguments that take the form "x, y, and z numbers of DoD people agree with Grusch". When you read things like that, I'd encourage you to keep in mind that there are over 950,000 employees of the DoD on the civilian side alone, and far more than that if we include former DoD people. It would be weird if you didn't have DoD and former DoD people believing that the Vatican has orchestrated a coverup of extradimensional beings whose bodies and equipment are hidden in a crypt in St. Peter's. At some point the law of large numbers takes over; you should be able to get any belief out of the DoD, even if it manages to be weirder than that one.
You'll see a lot of arguments that take the form "x, y, and z numbers of DoD people agree with Grusch". When you read things like that, I'd encourage you to keep in mind that there are over 950,000 employees of the DoD on the civilian side alone, and far more than that if we include former DoD people. It would be weird if you didn't have DoD and former DoD people believing that the Vatican has orchestrated a coverup of extradimensional beings whose bodies and equipment are hidden in a crypt in St. Peter's. At some point the law of large numbers takes over; you should be able to get any belief out of the DoD, even if it manages to be weirder than that one.
> So far as I'm aware, there are no firsthand witnesses that corroborate Grusch's claims that have been identified, let alone testifying to Congress
Not in public sessions. According to journalist Ross Coulthart and Sen. Marco Rubio [0], several first-hand witnesses were called to testify in front of the ICIG. It was on this basis that the ICIG directed Grusch's whistleblower complaints to Congress, where he presented further supporting documentation and deposed in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and others.
> The bigger flaw, of course, is the fact that he's telling it at all; if it were true, it would be one of the most important military secrets in the history of human civilization. The DoD seems to care not one whit about what he has to say
His central argument is that the nature of these programs is only known to a handful of people. In order for his DOPSR [1] to prevent him from talking, two conditions must be met:
1- The people performing his DOPSR must know about the existence of these programs; and
2- By law they would have to indicate which specific agencies deny him the right to state specific things, which in turn he would have been able to fight in court.
Regarding first-hand witnesses of these legacy programs, would their testimony sincerely change your opinion on the subject, or would you dismiss anything they claim as well? What is the basis for that difference?
Ultimately we must all ask ourselves what sort of evidence would be sufficient for us to change our mind, then follow that up by wondering what would it take for that evidence to be available to us, and what would it take for that evidence to be hidden from us. Only then we can have reasonable shot at understanding where things are.
So far I haven't seen convincing evidence, but at the same time I can see how such convincing evidence would be very difficult to obtain even if the NHI phenomenon was true.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hmaflNoKU
[1] https://www.esd.whs.mil/DOPSR/
Not in public sessions. According to journalist Ross Coulthart and Sen. Marco Rubio [0], several first-hand witnesses were called to testify in front of the ICIG. It was on this basis that the ICIG directed Grusch's whistleblower complaints to Congress, where he presented further supporting documentation and deposed in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and others.
> The bigger flaw, of course, is the fact that he's telling it at all; if it were true, it would be one of the most important military secrets in the history of human civilization. The DoD seems to care not one whit about what he has to say
His central argument is that the nature of these programs is only known to a handful of people. In order for his DOPSR [1] to prevent him from talking, two conditions must be met:
1- The people performing his DOPSR must know about the existence of these programs; and
2- By law they would have to indicate which specific agencies deny him the right to state specific things, which in turn he would have been able to fight in court.
Regarding first-hand witnesses of these legacy programs, would their testimony sincerely change your opinion on the subject, or would you dismiss anything they claim as well? What is the basis for that difference?
Ultimately we must all ask ourselves what sort of evidence would be sufficient for us to change our mind, then follow that up by wondering what would it take for that evidence to be available to us, and what would it take for that evidence to be hidden from us. Only then we can have reasonable shot at understanding where things are.
So far I haven't seen convincing evidence, but at the same time I can see how such convincing evidence would be very difficult to obtain even if the NHI phenomenon was true.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hmaflNoKU
[1] https://www.esd.whs.mil/DOPSR/
So far as I'm aware, Ross Coulthart's source is David Grusch, and David Grusch does not say he's witnessed anything firsthand; he says rather that he knows other people who have. But he can't identify any of them. Neither person is credible.
This bit about the legal loophole Grusch is sneaking through here is similar to an argument Leslie Kean tried to make with Ezra Klein; in fact, that argument is the point the interview starts to fall apart, because none of this is how military classification works. If any of this is real, there is no possible way Grusch could be talking about it.
The DOPSR is simply the department in the DoD that performs pre-publication review. It's not a special instrument Grusch signed. Classification is classification, we can just use the normal words.
This bit about the legal loophole Grusch is sneaking through here is similar to an argument Leslie Kean tried to make with Ezra Klein; in fact, that argument is the point the interview starts to fall apart, because none of this is how military classification works. If any of this is real, there is no possible way Grusch could be talking about it.
The DOPSR is simply the department in the DoD that performs pre-publication review. It's not a special instrument Grusch signed. Classification is classification, we can just use the normal words.
> So far as I'm aware, Ross Coulthart's source is David Grusch, and David Grusch does not say he's witnessed anything firsthand; he says rather that he knows other people who have
And multiple such people have already testified in front of several congressional committees. I have already provided two sources. There are more sources if you look for them.
> But he can't identify any of them.
He is not legally allowed to disclose classified information to the public. He has already provided that information to the ICIG and congressional committees.
> Neither person is credible
What specifically makes then non-credible? Because if the reason you don't find them credible is the fact that they are making statements you find implausible then that suggests that you will not accept any information that clashes with your preexisting beliefs.
> because none of this is how military classification works
Please inform us of how the DOPSR works. Be as specific as you feel may be necessary.
> The DOPSR is simply the department in the DoD that performs pre-publication review. It's not a special instrument Grusch signed.
Did I say he signed anything? I said he submitted a list of subjects he wanted to discuss in public and sent that list to the DOPSR for review, which was granted to him and currently establishes the boundaries of what he is allowed to disclose in public. If your understanding is different, please elaborate.
And multiple such people have already testified in front of several congressional committees. I have already provided two sources. There are more sources if you look for them.
> But he can't identify any of them.
He is not legally allowed to disclose classified information to the public. He has already provided that information to the ICIG and congressional committees.
> Neither person is credible
What specifically makes then non-credible? Because if the reason you don't find them credible is the fact that they are making statements you find implausible then that suggests that you will not accept any information that clashes with your preexisting beliefs.
> because none of this is how military classification works
Please inform us of how the DOPSR works. Be as specific as you feel may be necessary.
> The DOPSR is simply the department in the DoD that performs pre-publication review. It's not a special instrument Grusch signed.
Did I say he signed anything? I said he submitted a list of subjects he wanted to discuss in public and sent that list to the DOPSR for review, which was granted to him and currently establishes the boundaries of what he is allowed to disclose in public. If your understanding is different, please elaborate.
I was asked upthread if there were reasons to doubt Grusch. I've provided some. We could add his Vatican conspiracy to the mix, I guess, but I feel like what's on the table is already pretty damning.
Please be specific. I'm on mobile, but at least you can start here [0].
[0] https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-re...
[0] https://thedebrief.org/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-re...
You should listen to Ezra Klein's interview with Leslie Kean, the author of that story. It's pretty comical.
I have listened to it [0] and didn't find any comedy in it. On the contrary, I found both Klein and Kean approached the subject fairly and treated each other with mutual respect. I wish I could say the same here.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/podcasts/ezra-klein-podca...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/podcasts/ezra-klein-podca...
Thanks for linking that. I think it's a good interview. I take it as extremely damning of Grusch's claims. You might take it otherwise. People can make up their own minds, and we can leave it at that.
[deleted]
I'd suggest calling it the big foot dimension.
How about .. just terrestrial?
In other words, we are not the most technologically advanced species on the planet. Merely bystanders to other, older, perhaps far more advanced civilizations that merely tolerate our presence on their planets surface.
I mean, this tracks.
In other words, we are not the most technologically advanced species on the planet. Merely bystanders to other, older, perhaps far more advanced civilizations that merely tolerate our presence on their planets surface.
I mean, this tracks.
"Higher dimensions" sounds kind of appealing but what does it really mean?
There R&D in this field is very early but yes there's already tons of literature on this topic to process/consider in the physics field(s).
No there isn't (beyond occasional papers badly misinterpreted by mainstream press)
There's tons of literature on this topic to process/consider in science fiction.
There's tons of literature on this topic to process/consider in science fiction.
Thanks for pointing out this often-overlooked aspect of the conversation.
Look into Donald Hoffmann. Space time is not fundamental.
Every generation just needs to go through its UFO phase, it seems. And just like the last time, it'll end with nothing to show for as far as extraterrestrials are concerned.
What evidence do they have so far about these objects? NASA's head Bill Nelson said there are only a few high-resolution videos of these objects, but so far none of it has been released to my knowledge.
The best way to stop conspiracies would be publicly releasing the radar and video data they do have of anomalous objects, whatever they might be. Anything else is patronizing and feeds distrust, deservedly or not.
The best way to stop conspiracies would be publicly releasing the radar and video data they do have of anomalous objects, whatever they might be. Anything else is patronizing and feeds distrust, deservedly or not.
The best way to spot a conspiracy theory (in the pejorative sense) is that a lack of evidence and evidence against the theory are treated as affirmative.
We have gotten to the point where they admit to the presence of UAPs, now they need to release data of those sightings so that third parties can analyze it and the academic peer review process can begin.
Anything else is speculation, one way or another, and that won't lead to a broad consensus.
Anything else is speculation, one way or another, and that won't lead to a broad consensus.
Nothing except "yep it's definitely aliens" will lead to "broad consensus" because no analysis will be considered evidence against aliens by the people who already believe it's aliens.
I think flat earthers and alike are always excempt, when someone speaks of a broad consensus.
There is nothing to lose by declassifying and releasing the "high definition videos" that NASA's head and AARO's director talk about. Are you opposed to that? If you are, can you elaborate?
I'm not opposed, broadly speaking I don't really support the idea of classified or secret information at all (in like a government context, I'm not going to tell you my birthday and social#)
It just won't do anything. And it's really obvious that it won't do anything.
It just won't do anything. And it's really obvious that it won't do anything.
They're usually classified because they reveal information on sensor capabilities, NASA's director talked about that at the press conference.
And yet they are able to declassify some of them. Why only declassify three blurry dots in 2017 and one blurry sphere in 2022 when according to AARO they have about a thousand reports, including fifty sightings showing "anomalous" characteristics? The rather mundane-looking blurry stuff released in 2017 was captured using military equipment and it didn't stop them.
Didn't GOFAST/GIMBAL and the Nimitz tic-tac video leak? That could have given them convenient choices to look like they were cooperating.
Could they be covering something up? I can't say it's impossible.
I'm just saying that between the tendency towards overclassification, the UFO stigma, and seemingly legimitate counterintel concerns, it doesn't seem like this refusal is evidence of a cover-up in and of itself.
Could they be covering something up? I can't say it's impossible.
I'm just saying that between the tendency towards overclassification, the UFO stigma, and seemingly legimitate counterintel concerns, it doesn't seem like this refusal is evidence of a cover-up in and of itself.
I agree 100%
[deleted]
> We have gotten to the point where they admit to the presence of UAPs
They have always "admitted to the existence of" things they can't identify in some videos, blurry photographs, radar tracks, etc. UAP doesn't mean aliens, it just means "I can't tell what this is." Most of these UAPs turn out to be shit like commercial airliners far away on the horizon, and they remain "unidentified" because nobody cares enough to actually figure out what they are.
And you take this to be suggestive of aliens? Please!
They have always "admitted to the existence of" things they can't identify in some videos, blurry photographs, radar tracks, etc. UAP doesn't mean aliens, it just means "I can't tell what this is." Most of these UAPs turn out to be shit like commercial airliners far away on the horizon, and they remain "unidentified" because nobody cares enough to actually figure out what they are.
And you take this to be suggestive of aliens? Please!
Humans are wired to spot patterns. Many humans aren’t capable of overcoming that trait at the appropriate times.
It becomes far too trivial for someone to ignore a thousand points against and obsess over three points for, because it validates that pattern-seeking behaviour.
It’s why I don’t really hold any disdain for the conspiracy theorists: they’re functioning as nature intended.
It becomes far too trivial for someone to ignore a thousand points against and obsess over three points for, because it validates that pattern-seeking behaviour.
It’s why I don’t really hold any disdain for the conspiracy theorists: they’re functioning as nature intended.
We're also strongly social animals and there is therefore a strong reward for positioning yourself with the prevailing consensus/status quo for safety. It’s why I don’t really hold any disdain for those that don't think critically for themselves: they’re functioning as nature intended.
If you don't believe lions are dangerous because a few people weren't attacked, but then are eaten by lions, that's also nature functioning as intended.
Full disclosure: there is no amount of people being eaten by lions that will stop me from trying give one skritches.
The one conspiratorial belief I hold is that all animals are my friend and someone is trying to keep them away from me.
The one conspiratorial belief I hold is that all animals are my friend and someone is trying to keep them away from me.
Somewhere, at some point in time, some zoologist got his heart broken by a hippo and decided to convince humanity to stay the hell away from them. I, for one, am not going to fall for that conspiracy. Hippos just want hugs.
There was a show with Betty White where she was feeding a whole watermelon to a hippo she'd been friends with for over 20 years.
It loved her and came right up to her.
Possibly the Pet Set but I couldn't find the video all I could find was her feeding an alligator in Lake Placid (which I don't remember ever having watched).
Maybe I'm remembering everything wrong, but if not maybe someone else has that video or show in their back pocket and can help out.
It loved her and came right up to her.
Possibly the Pet Set but I couldn't find the video all I could find was her feeding an alligator in Lake Placid (which I don't remember ever having watched).
Maybe I'm remembering everything wrong, but if not maybe someone else has that video or show in their back pocket and can help out.
It's not Betty White but here's Fiona and family getting watermelons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWflUf6l9hc
and here is the best hippo video on the internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SSnQBtaq4
and here is the best hippo video on the internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SSnQBtaq4
Appreciate you, those were both new to me and worth the watch!
I mean they always start running towards me when they see me!
Right. For something so ho-hum, there's too many signs of suspicion-inducing secrecy showing, such as the fact that they didn't announce the guy's name who was going to lead it, then probably realized that that would just further any conspiracy theories around it (justifiably), then they DID announce his name... When I learned this yesterday I said aloud "FFS" because it's such a dumb human foible.
If this was in fact a coverup, the only reason it's worked so long (despite humans being unable to keep secrets) is due to two things:
1) the implausibility of the premise
2) the ridicule of the claimants
3) the compartmentalization of the information, and possibly
4) the threat of unknown agents
The thing is, the truth eventually always comes out. How do you think this is going to look, once it does?
If this was in fact a coverup, the only reason it's worked so long (despite humans being unable to keep secrets) is due to two things:
1) the implausibility of the premise
2) the ridicule of the claimants
3) the compartmentalization of the information, and possibly
4) the threat of unknown agents
The thing is, the truth eventually always comes out. How do you think this is going to look, once it does?
NASA and Pentagon employees have been harassed and threatened by fanatical UFO people.
Some of these individuals are connected to Lue Elizondo. Elizondo and the elders of the UFO Core Story team create “secret” groups and have been trying for 40-years to get their own UFO program. They intimidate anyone who challenges their narrative.
They first described it as the Secret Onion around 1988 in Jacques Vallee’s diaries. These are intelligence affiliated people and former “psychic spies” who are pawns of counterintelligence and victims of their own delusions and greed.
You can read below how Elizondo claimed to be a 33rd degree Freemason. They have groups like the Invisibles, the Cosmic Club and all these other fake elite scientist groups where they network.
There’s a Stanford professor who lies about “working with the CIA” when in reality, none of these people have security clearances. The professor works with an ex-CIA employee from 40-years ago on privately funded cases. They repeat rumors that ex-CIA or ex-DoD people repeat. These rumors, lies and sophisticated hoaxes originate from multiple unrelated sources.
There is definitely an illegal aspect and unknown actors involved in sophisticated hoaxes for decades. All of this related to war and geopolitical tactics but it is impossible to uncover because it is outside the government and obfuscated behind legitimate counterintelligence and the real national security risk of advance UAS.
Lue Elizondo claims to be 33rd degree Freemason- https://medium.com/@osirisuap/my-search-for-the-truth-about-...
Some of these individuals are connected to Lue Elizondo. Elizondo and the elders of the UFO Core Story team create “secret” groups and have been trying for 40-years to get their own UFO program. They intimidate anyone who challenges their narrative.
They first described it as the Secret Onion around 1988 in Jacques Vallee’s diaries. These are intelligence affiliated people and former “psychic spies” who are pawns of counterintelligence and victims of their own delusions and greed.
You can read below how Elizondo claimed to be a 33rd degree Freemason. They have groups like the Invisibles, the Cosmic Club and all these other fake elite scientist groups where they network.
There’s a Stanford professor who lies about “working with the CIA” when in reality, none of these people have security clearances. The professor works with an ex-CIA employee from 40-years ago on privately funded cases. They repeat rumors that ex-CIA or ex-DoD people repeat. These rumors, lies and sophisticated hoaxes originate from multiple unrelated sources.
There is definitely an illegal aspect and unknown actors involved in sophisticated hoaxes for decades. All of this related to war and geopolitical tactics but it is impossible to uncover because it is outside the government and obfuscated behind legitimate counterintelligence and the real national security risk of advance UAS.
Lue Elizondo claims to be 33rd degree Freemason- https://medium.com/@osirisuap/my-search-for-the-truth-about-...
To be fair, at least the Freemasons exist. It's mostly just a drinking club for men who want a reprieve from their wives. Claiming to be a Freemason might be a lie, but it's a mundane sort of claim to make.
[deleted]
You said "right" at the beginning then got reproachful at the end.
In between there's a lot of material and references that won't be obvious to other people.
So I'm confused.
But I'm pretty sure they'll be just fine, as long as the reptilians continue suppressing the truth.*
* my understanding of why people get drawn into these nothing-burgers is you see new info, you think somethings around the corner where all those skeptics are proven wrong. years pass, and people either acknowledge it was a nothing burger or escalate claims to explain away why there's all these aliens bouncing around, everyone would want to hear that, Congress is demanding anyone who claims such be given a wide bearth and credence and yet....still nothing.
In between there's a lot of material and references that won't be obvious to other people.
So I'm confused.
But I'm pretty sure they'll be just fine, as long as the reptilians continue suppressing the truth.*
* my understanding of why people get drawn into these nothing-burgers is you see new info, you think somethings around the corner where all those skeptics are proven wrong. years pass, and people either acknowledge it was a nothing burger or escalate claims to explain away why there's all these aliens bouncing around, everyone would want to hear that, Congress is demanding anyone who claims such be given a wide bearth and credence and yet....still nothing.
> But I'm pretty sure they'll be just fine, as long as the reptilians continue suppressing the truth
If you can't resist ridiculing people who are trying to maintain a respectful friendly conversation with you online, you are reinforcing their conviction that stigma and ridicule are preventing the subject from being studied earnestly.
Are you in the habit of sneering at people in other subjects as well?
If you can't resist ridiculing people who are trying to maintain a respectful friendly conversation with you online, you are reinforcing their conviction that stigma and ridicule are preventing the subject from being studied earnestly.
Are you in the habit of sneering at people in other subjects as well?
I took the end of your comment as in good humor and not a sneer. Then, as always in communication, I tried to meet you where you were, seemingly in good humor on the subject and self-aware. If I knew it'd hurt you I wouldn't have said it. My deepest apologies. You didn't deserve that, at all.
[deleted]
Paraphrasing here, perhaps the best way to maintain a conspiracy, in the non-pejorative sense, may be to classify the evidence and run a systematic campaign of ridicule and misinformation so that whenever a whistleblower comes out they can be rapidly labeled as a kook regardless of their bona fides.
I'm on the fence on this subject, finding both some merits and demerits to the arguments of both detractors and supporters of the NHI hypothesis. Until we have publicly available concrete data to analyze, all we are doing is speculating and slinging mud at each other.
The difference being that the proponents of the NHI hypothesis are all for obtaining and releasing such data, while the critics appear to be very comfortable with the status quo of secrecy.
I'm on the fence on this subject, finding both some merits and demerits to the arguments of both detractors and supporters of the NHI hypothesis. Until we have publicly available concrete data to analyze, all we are doing is speculating and slinging mud at each other.
The difference being that the proponents of the NHI hypothesis are all for obtaining and releasing such data, while the critics appear to be very comfortable with the status quo of secrecy.
[deleted]
I'd like to think that. But the crackpots will sieze on any evidence and debate endlessly that it either in fact reinforces the alien origin, or it's been tampered with, or I don't know, it's been tampered with by aliens.
Trusting in evidence and objective reasoning mark us as old people. Today the only 'facts' are social media posts.
Trusting in evidence and objective reasoning mark us as old people. Today the only 'facts' are social media posts.
Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy (for instance, pointing out Grusch's claims about Mussolini capturing an alien spacecraft in the 30's and the Vatican helping the U.S. take it), these "neutral" individuals rush to defend the conspiracy theory.
> Crackpots true believers also usually claim to be neutral on the subject and say that they're only interested in transparency. Then when you point out the glaring issues with the conspiracy
Have you considered that when you feel neutral about a subject your arguments will naturally align against both extremes of the discourse?
In HN where the majority of the sentiment is ridicule against the NHI hypothesis you will find me offering arguments in favor of releasing data and investigating the claims made by high-ranking officials.
In other websites when somebody defends that a blurry dot in the sky cannot possibly have mundane explanations you will find me defending a more prosaic interpretation.
My viewpoint is the same in both cases, but in one of them you will label me as a "crackpot" and in the other one you may see me as the voice of reason.
I hope this helps you understand the more nuanced takes on the UAP issue.
Have you considered that when you feel neutral about a subject your arguments will naturally align against both extremes of the discourse?
In HN where the majority of the sentiment is ridicule against the NHI hypothesis you will find me offering arguments in favor of releasing data and investigating the claims made by high-ranking officials.
In other websites when somebody defends that a blurry dot in the sky cannot possibly have mundane explanations you will find me defending a more prosaic interpretation.
My viewpoint is the same in both cases, but in one of them you will label me as a "crackpot" and in the other one you may see me as the voice of reason.
I hope this helps you understand the more nuanced takes on the UAP issue.
> I'd like to think that. But the crackpots will sieze [sic] on any evidence
A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
>the people we are talking to are not crackpots
I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
> I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
This is the third person on this thread you’ve attacked personally when you got frustrated that they didn’t agree with you. You may be right about the futility of debating UAPs on HN, in which case, you should probably stop.
In this case, you might say you were provoked. But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier. It’s just a mess, and it’s not working out for you.
In this case, you might say you were provoked. But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier. It’s just a mess, and it’s not working out for you.
> This is the third person on this thread you’ve attacked personally when you got frustrated that they didn’t agree with you
The vast majority of the comments in this post disagree with me and yet we are able to maintain a friendly curious conversation in the spirit of the HN guidelines.
A handful of people were actively derisive or insulting and I respectfully called them out for it.
> But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier
Please elaborate. I have made a conscious effort to remain civil and respectful, even when faced with direct insults.
In this particular instance, this is is what I said, and this is the reply I got:
>>> [Me] A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
>> [Reply] I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
> [Me] Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
If you have any specific suggestions of how I should have worded my replies I will be happy to read them.
The vast majority of the comments in this post disagree with me and yet we are able to maintain a friendly curious conversation in the spirit of the HN guidelines.
A handful of people were actively derisive or insulting and I respectfully called them out for it.
> But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier
Please elaborate. I have made a conscious effort to remain civil and respectful, even when faced with direct insults.
In this particular instance, this is is what I said, and this is the reply I got:
>>> [Me] A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
>> [Reply] I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
> [Me] Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
If you have any specific suggestions of how I should have worded my replies I will be happy to read them.
I do. Stop talking about how disappointed you are in particular commenters on the thread, and confine your expression to disappointment in particular comments. If you don't even have to be as performatively "polite" as you've tried to be; you can just come out and directly say what you don't like about the arguments you're responding to.
Thank you for your feedback.
If you feel any of my comments violate HN commenting guidelines [0] feel free to quote them and/or reach out to dang.
Here are some examples; I wasn't able to find any references to "performative politeness":
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
If you feel any of my comments violate HN commenting guidelines [0] feel free to quote them and/or reach out to dang.
Here are some examples; I wasn't able to find any references to "performative politeness":
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Oh, I wrote that last comment because you asked me to.
[deleted]
99% of all this is legitimate counterintelligence. Different parts of the government benefit in various ways, like justifying a domestic counterintelligence program. Or getting access to emerging technologies, building information networks, shielding classified aerospace technology, foreign disinformation and longterm geopolitical tactics.
It will never be explained because it is both fake and necessary. The government can’t stop its employees from believing in pseudoscience and the supernatural thus making them targets of foreign spies.
Overall, some people involved in this do seem to want it to end. Even if you’re an influential actor within the Intelligence Community, you are up against say 20 other agencies/departments that benefit from the UFO enigma.
Check out this article from 2012 about “Spherical Aircraft” from Aerospherical Systems. Whatever the real UAP are, they are definitely not intergalactic. It would be impossible to keep it a secret.
https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2012/05/aerospheri...
It will never be explained because it is both fake and necessary. The government can’t stop its employees from believing in pseudoscience and the supernatural thus making them targets of foreign spies.
Overall, some people involved in this do seem to want it to end. Even if you’re an influential actor within the Intelligence Community, you are up against say 20 other agencies/departments that benefit from the UFO enigma.
Check out this article from 2012 about “Spherical Aircraft” from Aerospherical Systems. Whatever the real UAP are, they are definitely not intergalactic. It would be impossible to keep it a secret.
https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2012/05/aerospheri...
I agree, the UFO narrative is a psyop. They are shifting the Overton window on us and the questions are to what extent and what purpose.
The worst and best conspiracy theory I have heard about this is that there has been a plan to stage an alien invasion. 100% fake invasion with real explosions. You just need to get the population into the right mindset such that they will suspend their disbelief when the bombs drop and the media is showing fake aliens. Add a sprinkle of NASA magic and their new satellites will 'confirm' everything. Once you believe aliens are real, the theory states you will abandon all religion and either worship the new overlords or trust your government.
The theory sounded ridiculous to me until we had all these government sponsored psyops pushing us closer towards it.
Aliens are not real.
The worst and best conspiracy theory I have heard about this is that there has been a plan to stage an alien invasion. 100% fake invasion with real explosions. You just need to get the population into the right mindset such that they will suspend their disbelief when the bombs drop and the media is showing fake aliens. Add a sprinkle of NASA magic and their new satellites will 'confirm' everything. Once you believe aliens are real, the theory states you will abandon all religion and either worship the new overlords or trust your government.
The theory sounded ridiculous to me until we had all these government sponsored psyops pushing us closer towards it.
Aliens are not real.
Yup, we need more data, and it appears the ball is somewhat rolling on this.
And meanwhile we need to try to not jump to conclusions, even though it is so very tempting for believers and sceptics alike.
But interesting is the field or subject of ufology (though I hate that word). It is so mixed with crazy people, very reasonable people, grifters, those who are maybe grifters, disinformation (maybe or just the crazy people or grifters again?) and maybe some real interesting stuff among it all.
And meanwhile we need to try to not jump to conclusions, even though it is so very tempting for believers and sceptics alike.
But interesting is the field or subject of ufology (though I hate that word). It is so mixed with crazy people, very reasonable people, grifters, those who are maybe grifters, disinformation (maybe or just the crazy people or grifters again?) and maybe some real interesting stuff among it all.
If the issues we're talking about stem from claims David Grusch (or people in that circle) made, then enough has been disclosed already to draw some conclusions: when your key witnesses discredit themselves, that is itself a form of evidence.
[deleted]
Aliens are the kind of thing that:
1. Wouldn't suddenly appear recently. On the human timeline, I'd say if they were around, we'd be neighbors.
2. If they did suddenly appear, it would be as obvious as the earth is round.
1. Wouldn't suddenly appear recently. On the human timeline, I'd say if they were around, we'd be neighbors.
2. If they did suddenly appear, it would be as obvious as the earth is round.
I’m a big fan of this Substack post.
The UFO craze was created by government nepotism and incompetent journalism
https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-ufo-craze-was-...
> To sum up the story as far as I understand its convoluted depths: diehard paranormal believers scored 22 million in Defense spending via what looks like nepotism from Harry Reid by submitting a grant to do bland general “aerospace research” and being the “sole bidder” for the contract. They then reportedly used that grant, according to Lacatski himself, the head of the program, to study a myriad of paranormal phenomenon at Skinwalker Ranch including—you may have guessed it by now—dino-beavers. Viola! That’s how there was a “government-funded program to study UFOs.”
The UFO craze was created by government nepotism and incompetent journalism
https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/the-ufo-craze-was-...
> To sum up the story as far as I understand its convoluted depths: diehard paranormal believers scored 22 million in Defense spending via what looks like nepotism from Harry Reid by submitting a grant to do bland general “aerospace research” and being the “sole bidder” for the contract. They then reportedly used that grant, according to Lacatski himself, the head of the program, to study a myriad of paranormal phenomenon at Skinwalker Ranch including—you may have guessed it by now—dino-beavers. Viola! That’s how there was a “government-funded program to study UFOs.”
Charitably, in government terms that's not a lot of money, and given congress gets a new set of bumpkins and rubes every four years, having current rigorous data and evidence relating to the beliefs they might be bringing into the job seems like a wise use of funds.
The UAP thing is also mostly a lever for narrative control, where whenever the news gets a little too close for comfort, you can release some alien files and knock something out of the news cycle. $22-million gets you a whole bunch of dry powder for less than the cost of a crisis management firm on a political campaign. People will believe anything, and while you can rarely convince them otherwise, you absolutely can become the source for confirmations, and they'll follow whatever confirms their beliefs. Who cares what they actually believe so long as they're dependent on facts you control to believe it. That's just the game.
The UAP thing is also mostly a lever for narrative control, where whenever the news gets a little too close for comfort, you can release some alien files and knock something out of the news cycle. $22-million gets you a whole bunch of dry powder for less than the cost of a crisis management firm on a political campaign. People will believe anything, and while you can rarely convince them otherwise, you absolutely can become the source for confirmations, and they'll follow whatever confirms their beliefs. Who cares what they actually believe so long as they're dependent on facts you control to believe it. That's just the game.
I wonder how much of our skyline is due to (gay) archtitects being pissed off.
Oh did they manage to clear out all the evidence this time?
Area 51 must be getting really full by now. /jk
Area 51 must be getting really full by now. /jk
> Area 51
Maybe you should read up on the radar tests of the A12 prorotype, SR71 and skunkworks in general.
'Murica has an education problem if they think that this [1] was a space ship more than 65 years later.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Lockheed...
Maybe you should read up on the radar tests of the A12 prorotype, SR71 and skunkworks in general.
'Murica has an education problem if they think that this [1] was a space ship more than 65 years later.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Lockheed...
I know, it was a joke hence the /jk :P
I know that post goes into the ground but the mental image of them driving that around with that jeep for radar tests is delightful.
That would be a nice idea for halloween :D
"Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."
Patterns tell stories.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ;p
Absence of evidence is most is definitely evidence of absence, even if it isn't absolute proof. Or rather, failing to find evidence that a hypothesis would predict to exist is evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect. You can't absolutely prove a negative, but every time you fail to substantiate evidence for the positive counter claim, your certainty of the negative claim should asymptotically approach 1. And eventually you should be satisfied with the body of evidence and move on to ask different questions.
For that matter, I suppose you can't absolutely prove a positive either, for the reasons Descartes described; you can't prove the nonexistence of an omnipresent demon who adjusts your sensory information at just the right time and in just the right ways to make you believe something other than the truth. Still we hazard coming to conclusions and change our minds when the time comes.
For that matter, I suppose you can't absolutely prove a positive either, for the reasons Descartes described; you can't prove the nonexistence of an omnipresent demon who adjusts your sensory information at just the right time and in just the right ways to make you believe something other than the truth. Still we hazard coming to conclusions and change our minds when the time comes.
You can prove a negative. People always make that mistake but that's not true that you can't prove a negative.
In any case, I was being tongue-in-cheek hence the smiley.
My statement is still true. That we have no evidence of the existence of aliens doesn't mean they don't exist. We just don't have proofs.
I don't know why people are getting so worked up by my little comment. :)
In any case, I was being tongue-in-cheek hence the smiley.
My statement is still true. That we have no evidence of the existence of aliens doesn't mean they don't exist. We just don't have proofs.
I don't know why people are getting so worked up by my little comment. :)
> You can prove a negative.
I'd be interested to hear more.
> In any case, I was being tongue-in-cheek hence the smiley.
> I don't know why people are getting so worked up by my little comment. :)
I'm certainly not getting worked up. You said something and I responded to it, because I thought the topic was interesting and worth responding to. If you're suggesting the egg is on my face for taking you seriously, well okay, but I think that's being disrespectful to yourself.
I'd be interested to hear more.
> In any case, I was being tongue-in-cheek hence the smiley.
> I don't know why people are getting so worked up by my little comment. :)
I'm certainly not getting worked up. You said something and I responded to it, because I thought the topic was interesting and worth responding to. If you're suggesting the egg is on my face for taking you seriously, well okay, but I think that's being disrespectful to yourself.
So we agree there’s an absence of evidence then? The onus is on those claiming existence to present evidence.
That's the headline... :)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
I'm always amused that whenever HN talks about UFO/UAP there are actually grown adults here vehemently defending the idea that aliens are trolling us having taken the millions of LY trips...
I'm always amused that whenever HN talks about UFO/UAP there are actually grown adults here vehemently defending the idea that aliens are trolling us having taken the millions of LY trips...
[deleted]
Here are 11 things more plausible than UAPs being aliens:
1) It was a reflection
2) It was an insect
3) It was a bird
4) It was a balloon
5) It was a meteor
6) It was a secret new kind of aircraft from a department the pilot didn't know about
7) It was a secret new kind of aircraft from a foreign country
8) The image/video was fake, for money
9) The image/video was fake, for lulz
10) The pilot was confused
11) The pilot was lying
(one for each season of The X-Files)
1) It was a reflection
2) It was an insect
3) It was a bird
4) It was a balloon
5) It was a meteor
6) It was a secret new kind of aircraft from a department the pilot didn't know about
7) It was a secret new kind of aircraft from a foreign country
8) The image/video was fake, for money
9) The image/video was fake, for lulz
10) The pilot was confused
11) The pilot was lying
(one for each season of The X-Files)
You missed satellite. So many of them are just satellites.
One of the three witnesses at the Congressional hearing was touting getting a bunch of observations from commercial pilots, and when he finally posted his first video it was... satellites. Starlink, to be precise.
Starlink is probably singlehandedly responsible for more sightings than any other source right now.
One of the three witnesses at the Congressional hearing was touting getting a bunch of observations from commercial pilots, and when he finally posted his first video it was... satellites. Starlink, to be precise.
Starlink is probably singlehandedly responsible for more sightings than any other source right now.
Can confirm. Was at a large night time gathering on LI over Labor Day when Starlink passed overhead. Of the 100+ people there, not one single person knew what it was, and everyone was running around going omg aliens.
I saw that constellation the same weekend. It was stupendous, one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.
If I hadn't heard it described to me before, I might've worried it was a train of ICBMs or something. I've seen more satellites than I can count, I saw two of them that night before I spotted Starlink, but it was unlike anything I'd ever seen. There were so many of them, at first I thought it was a contrail.
A thought I had shortly after was, "if there ever is an alien invasion, it will look exactly like that."
If I hadn't heard it described to me before, I might've worried it was a train of ICBMs or something. I've seen more satellites than I can count, I saw two of them that night before I spotted Starlink, but it was unlike anything I'd ever seen. There were so many of them, at first I thought it was a contrail.
A thought I had shortly after was, "if there ever is an alien invasion, it will look exactly like that."
Great points to consider.
Now consider viewing the Tic-Tac video footage (released by the Pentagon) along with with interview of the radar operator during that same mission and then the GIMBAL/GOFAST video footage (released by the Pentagon).
Finally, there is a CSPAN video where two former-fighter pilots and a former DoD intelligence director testified in front of Congress about these topics.
Then go down your list and see which of those 11 options fit the best.
Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos
Now consider viewing the Tic-Tac video footage (released by the Pentagon) along with with interview of the radar operator during that same mission and then the GIMBAL/GOFAST video footage (released by the Pentagon).
Finally, there is a CSPAN video where two former-fighter pilots and a former DoD intelligence director testified in front of Congress about these topics.
Then go down your list and see which of those 11 options fit the best.
Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos
> GIMBAL/GOFAST video footage
Regardless of whatever Navy personnel think or say, neither of these videos shows an object moving in an abnormal way. The objects in these videos have mundane trajectories which are easily explained by extant earth technology (balloon or drone n the case of GOFAST, and another airplane in the case of GIMBAL.)
There is NO evidence of aliens, alien technology or even advanced human technology in these videos.
Regardless of whatever Navy personnel think or say, neither of these videos shows an object moving in an abnormal way. The objects in these videos have mundane trajectories which are easily explained by extant earth technology (balloon or drone n the case of GOFAST, and another airplane in the case of GIMBAL.)
There is NO evidence of aliens, alien technology or even advanced human technology in these videos.
The thing is the base rate probability that interstellar travelers got here from elsewhere in the galaxy, can either survive on our planet or brought enough with them to survive in space, have been here for decades and managed to never be concretely detected, exist at all as a form of life seemingly capable of understanding and communicating with us, building structures and traveling vessels similar to what we would use, even with roughly humanoid body morphology, is so low that virtually any other possible explanation, no matter how unlikely, is still more likely.
Any interstellar travel of biological life forms is extremely unlikely. I think it’s so unlikely it may not ever happen even once in our Galaxy, even though it is possible, it just doesn’t make sense. If we go to the stars it will be as uploads. The idea that gray skinned humanoids would come here to play peek-a-boo with pilots and never make global contact is so far beyond unlikely it boggles my mind.
Did you read your link? There's many mundane explanations of what was observed, most on the list.
It is good to see the Pentagon releasing evidence even when it makes the government look silly.
It is good to see the Pentagon releasing evidence even when it makes the government look silly.
> It is good to see the Pentagon releasing evidence even when it makes the government look silly.
NASA isn't the Pentagon fyi. The Pentagon is the headquarters of the Department of Defense, the US military. NASA is a civilian agency, they aren't in that.
NASA isn't the Pentagon fyi. The Pentagon is the headquarters of the Department of Defense, the US military. NASA is a civilian agency, they aren't in that.
The Pentagon released the Tic-Tac video
Indeed, I did.
NASA's report backs up previous debunks stating that GOFAST was only going maybe 40 mph, which isn't out of line for windspeed at that altitude. It might have been a balloon. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/uap_ind... Page 28
1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and combinations thereof? Other malfunctions and misinterpretations?
1) it was seen by thermal imagine on the jet and radar on Aegis Cruiser
4) The speed of movement is inconsistent with balloon
6,7) is possible but would require some fundamental physics breakthrough kept in secret
10) There were multiple jet pilots at the scene including top gun instructor. Their account is confirmed by video and radar from the ship.
4) The speed of movement is inconsistent with balloon
6,7) is possible but would require some fundamental physics breakthrough kept in secret
10) There were multiple jet pilots at the scene including top gun instructor. Their account is confirmed by video and radar from the ship.
It's suns and shadows on sea surface. IIRC some of videos show target ranging, which is around the altitude the aircraft were flying, in miles. Aircraft altimeters are almost always in feet so pilots generally don't immediately notice that.
you realise the thing was tracked by AEGIS Cruiser radar and observed from multiple jet fighters at various altitudes visually and using IR sensors.
Parallax effect? Echos? Misinterpreted sensor readings... endless list of possibilities and combinations. Have a lot of sensors, see a lot of odd things - nothing new.
It was seen visually, with IR, and via RADAR, each from multiple observers.
So what? Something caused that observation, but it wasn't something extraterrestrial. You also have to allow for one of the sensors to be wrong/noisy etc. and then being interpreted through the lens of observation via another.
None claiming it is extraterrestrial but there is no evidence to the contrary either. You have too many diverse independent sensors that lined up.
Doesn't work that way: there is always an infinite list of possibilities without evidence to the contrary if you allow for a wide enough "solution space" (even if you have already an explanation).
What you're saying is unfalsifiable.
Isn't it highly falsible? Show that sometimes there is only a finite set of possibilities no matter the solution space.
No, that's not really how that works.
You appear to be claiming that there's an infinite amount of explanations and we can't really know, while also claiming that more data points don't create greater certainty of correlation.
That's contrary to the basis of how science works.
You appear to be claiming that there's an infinite amount of explanations and we can't really know, while also claiming that more data points don't create greater certainty of correlation.
That's contrary to the basis of how science works.
I dunno. The GIMBAL one looks a lot like 2.
I didn’t watch the cspan video but did they mention SOP? Did he try to communicate the the ufo/uap?
Otherwise it makes me think it is a hoax.
We test aircraft and technology against other countries, why not test our own country unprepared for how they respond.
The vice article is decent for skeptical people. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wjzg/the-skeptics-guide-to...
Otherwise it makes me think it is a hoax.
We test aircraft and technology against other countries, why not test our own country unprepared for how they respond.
The vice article is decent for skeptical people. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wjzg/the-skeptics-guide-to...
GIMBAL looks just like a jet aircraft on thermal camera.
GOFAST has been conclusively shown to be a slow-moving object at about 13,000 feet. It's simple geometry. We don't know what it is, exactly, but it's probably a balloon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
So GOFAST is probably a 3 or 4, while GIMBAL probably is a 6 or 7 but even more pedestrian.
GOFAST has been conclusively shown to be a slow-moving object at about 13,000 feet. It's simple geometry. We don't know what it is, exactly, but it's probably a balloon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
So GOFAST is probably a 3 or 4, while GIMBAL probably is a 6 or 7 but even more pedestrian.
That's a fair assessment.
However, I'd add that the two figter pilots who testified in front of Congress would NOT agree with the balloon assessment. So, if you accept their opninions as SME and thus leaning towards legitimate then that leaves "a slow-moving object" before you add in the details about the acceleration patterns that also occurred.
However, I'd add that the two figter pilots who testified in front of Congress would NOT agree with the balloon assessment. So, if you accept their opninions as SME and thus leaning towards legitimate then that leaves "a slow-moving object" before you add in the details about the acceleration patterns that also occurred.
[deleted]
Somewhere between 4) and 5): it was a camera artefact.
Those 600x480px cameras are the best at capturing UFOs.
Try filming an airplane from the ground. Most cameras used by people can only do proper 1x zoom. Everything more becomes a blurry video.
The point is that no matter how better imaging technology gets, sightings have been always been at the edge of the resolution
When the images are clear we dismiss them as fake.
The root of the problem is one of trust. Ask yourself: which person or institution do you trust enough that you would accept an image from them as proof of the NHI hypothesis?
Because I've been called a crackpot multiple times in this HN post and yet I don't trust any source enough to accept any image they could provide as proof of NHIs.
The root of the problem is one of trust. Ask yourself: which person or institution do you trust enough that you would accept an image from them as proof of the NHI hypothesis?
Because I've been called a crackpot multiple times in this HN post and yet I don't trust any source enough to accept any image they could provide as proof of NHIs.
Can you point to some images that you think may be real but have been dismissed as fakes because they were too detailed?
Is there consistency in the models of those objects or each detailed sighting is a different "model" of the vehicle (which may suggest that each may have been designed by a different artist)?
Is there consistency in the models of those objects or each detailed sighting is a different "model" of the vehicle (which may suggest that each may have been designed by a different artist)?
> Can you point to some images that you think may be real but have been dismissed as fakes because they were too detailed?
I can't, for several reasons.
First, if NHI UAPs did exist, we have no idea what they would look like. I may be able to tell you with some certainty whether a picture of an airplane is fake because I've seen many airplanes; no such luck with UAPs. We don't know what we don't know.
Second, there is the problem of trust. There are many people who claim having witnesseed UAPs in the sky over the decades, and among those sightings there are some shapes that appear frequently, such as dark equilateral triangles one whitish light on each corner and a fourth light (often red/amber) in the middle; no blinking lights like an airplane. But are these witnesses lying? Did they misidentify some ordinary phenomenon? Did they dream or hallucinate it? All plausible options.
But even when you are presented with an image of an object that matches this rather common description you have no way of knowing whether it is fake unless you really trust the source of that image, so much so that it overcomes your general disbelief of the nature of UAPs.
That hasn't remotely happened to me yet, so I remain neutral on the subject of UAPs.
I can't, for several reasons.
First, if NHI UAPs did exist, we have no idea what they would look like. I may be able to tell you with some certainty whether a picture of an airplane is fake because I've seen many airplanes; no such luck with UAPs. We don't know what we don't know.
Second, there is the problem of trust. There are many people who claim having witnesseed UAPs in the sky over the decades, and among those sightings there are some shapes that appear frequently, such as dark equilateral triangles one whitish light on each corner and a fourth light (often red/amber) in the middle; no blinking lights like an airplane. But are these witnesses lying? Did they misidentify some ordinary phenomenon? Did they dream or hallucinate it? All plausible options.
But even when you are presented with an image of an object that matches this rather common description you have no way of knowing whether it is fake unless you really trust the source of that image, so much so that it overcomes your general disbelief of the nature of UAPs.
That hasn't remotely happened to me yet, so I remain neutral on the subject of UAPs.
camera artefact - that matches thermal imaging, that matches radar data from AEGIS cruiser, that matches sighting by multiple highly trained fighter jet pilots
Here are some boring and obvious thought ending dismissals.
Grabby Aliens concept by Robin Hanson is an interesting new take on UFOs. Start with “if they are UFOs, what could we reason about them from their behaviour?”.
See https://youtube.com/watch?v=cQq2pKNDgIs
“It might be unlikely but it’s not crazy unlikely”.
Grabby Aliens concept by Robin Hanson is an interesting new take on UFOs. Start with “if they are UFOs, what could we reason about them from their behaviour?”.
See https://youtube.com/watch?v=cQq2pKNDgIs
“It might be unlikely but it’s not crazy unlikely”.
His basic take is that they're partially showing themselves to avoid spooking everyone, but have no intention of letting humanity off a very short leash with a series of unknown red lines.
Like it.
Like it.
He should write hard sci-fi. I would read it. I am fine with any hypothesis but doesn't mean we have tangible evidence.
Also very likely: Software glitch / hardware artifact.
But what about that black ooze?
[deleted]
This days there must be at least a few million more cameras then a few decades backa nd the alien or super natural images did not increased proportionally to the camera number as you would expect.
I think the capitalistic "greed" caused all those old reports, it was so popular at that time so people produced the content that was in demand.
i remember some TV show that was presented some old temple and claiming something like "only aliens would have had tools to cut this rocks at such perfect angles" - then when I had Internet access and check that temple I see it was made from sandstone (a very soft materials) and the freaking angles were not precise by a mile... so makes you wonder should there be consequences for this kind of intentional lying for cache ? (I mean in general and I understand that USA is super special).
I think the capitalistic "greed" caused all those old reports, it was so popular at that time so people produced the content that was in demand.
i remember some TV show that was presented some old temple and claiming something like "only aliens would have had tools to cut this rocks at such perfect angles" - then when I had Internet access and check that temple I see it was made from sandstone (a very soft materials) and the freaking angles were not precise by a mile... so makes you wonder should there be consequences for this kind of intentional lying for cache ? (I mean in general and I understand that USA is super special).
Hey, aliens aren't stupid! They know that we've got more cameras nowadays and are more careful because of it.
> I think the capitalistic "greed" caused all those old reports, it was so popular at that time so people produced the content that was in demand.
Rather than greed, I think it was just a meme. People got it in their minds that aliens in flying saucers were scooting around abducting cows, so they were psychologically primed to perpetuate the idea.
Rather than greed, I think it was just a meme. People got it in their minds that aliens in flying saucers were scooting around abducting cows, so they were psychologically primed to perpetuate the idea.
Well how else are they supposed to make their hamburgers? They don't have cows up there.
Ps more seriously, I wonder where the whole flying saucer concept comes from. Was it the SR71 with its rounded shapes? Or does it predate that?
Ps more seriously, I wonder where the whole flying saucer concept comes from. Was it the SR71 with its rounded shapes? Or does it predate that?
>I wonder where the whole flying saucer concept comes from.
Kenneth Arnold, an Air Force pilot in 1947 who reported seeing craft shaped like "saucers" or "pie plates" flying past Mount Ranier[0]. He never called them "flying saucers" specifically but after the press picked up the story, the term and the concept became popular. After that, flying saucers became a trope in sci-fi movies.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sighting
Kenneth Arnold, an Air Force pilot in 1947 who reported seeing craft shaped like "saucers" or "pie plates" flying past Mount Ranier[0]. He never called them "flying saucers" specifically but after the press picked up the story, the term and the concept became popular. After that, flying saucers became a trope in sci-fi movies.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold_UFO_sighting
It predates that. One of the first sightings to use the word saucer was in 1878.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120819213938/http://www.americ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20120819213938/http://www.americ...
Its called Attention Theft.
> I think the capitalistic "greed" caused all those old reports
Speaking as a USAF Veteran, they are very strict about honesty, and there's actually a whole set of meta-laws (the UCMJ, https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-...) which are stricter than civilian laws, that all members of the US military must adhere to. (Let's just say I got one personal taste of this during a "white lie" incident I was a part of.)
The pilots who reported "foo fighters" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/what-were-... in WW2 were under the same rules.
I would therefore consider any reports by active military to be head and shoulders above others, at least on the assumption of dishonesty. (That still leaves the possibility of misperception, mis-recall, etc.... but if you consider each person an imperfect detector of information, then the more people reporting a thing, the more accurate the picture becomes thanks to sensor fusion/the Kalman filter: https://medium.com/@cotra.marko/wtf-is-sensor-fusion-part-1-... )
Speaking as a USAF Veteran, they are very strict about honesty, and there's actually a whole set of meta-laws (the UCMJ, https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-uniform-code-...) which are stricter than civilian laws, that all members of the US military must adhere to. (Let's just say I got one personal taste of this during a "white lie" incident I was a part of.)
The pilots who reported "foo fighters" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/what-were-... in WW2 were under the same rules.
I would therefore consider any reports by active military to be head and shoulders above others, at least on the assumption of dishonesty. (That still leaves the possibility of misperception, mis-recall, etc.... but if you consider each person an imperfect detector of information, then the more people reporting a thing, the more accurate the picture becomes thanks to sensor fusion/the Kalman filter: https://medium.com/@cotra.marko/wtf-is-sensor-fusion-part-1-... )
Also speaking as a USAF veteran, many of the people I worked with were bigots and liars. The enlisted corps is basically a cross section of the disadvantaged and uneducated while the officers are lightly educated nationalists. Hardly the paragons of virtue and integrity, the USAF core values aside.
> but if you consider each person an imperfect detector of information, then the more people reporting a thing, the more accurate the picture becomes thanks to sensor fusion/the Kalman filter:
Not necessarily. Adding a bunch of extra imperfect sensors is not the same as adding imperfect sensors with imperfect interpretations. The storage medium that interpretation is stored in is also imperfect. An accounting of that interpretation will change non-linearly depending on how many times it's described and how recently from the event it's described.
Adding more and more of these recountings don't necessarily mean you've got better data.
Not necessarily. Adding a bunch of extra imperfect sensors is not the same as adding imperfect sensors with imperfect interpretations. The storage medium that interpretation is stored in is also imperfect. An accounting of that interpretation will change non-linearly depending on how many times it's described and how recently from the event it's described.
Adding more and more of these recountings don't necessarily mean you've got better data.
Yes it does. If you simply treat that drift as additional "error", you're still fundamentally dealing with an imperfect sensor with an error rate. And mathematically, that makes it all still fall under the Kalman filter metrics. (To be fair, you'd still need to quantify the reported thing somehow.)
Which should make intuitive sense. If 1 person claims they got raped by someone, and that is the only evidence against them, you might be skeptical. If 50 people claim they got raped by someone, and that is the only evidence against them, a reasonable position IMHO would be that the chances that this person is not a rapist are vanishingly small, even if (on average) 5 to 10% of the reports are non-truthful and motivated by perverse incentives (such as avoiding shame of promiscuity).
At some point we need to figure out how to deal with eyewitness evidence without complete dismissal, because complete dismissal of it is wrong (it's literally gaslighting- telling people that their reported experiences are irrelevant/invalid, which is the same as asserting that they didn't happen IMHO). Plenty of experiences (both positive and negative) happen that only have the retelling as the evidence, and ignoring all retellings omits a possibly large amount of evidential source of truth.
Which should make intuitive sense. If 1 person claims they got raped by someone, and that is the only evidence against them, you might be skeptical. If 50 people claim they got raped by someone, and that is the only evidence against them, a reasonable position IMHO would be that the chances that this person is not a rapist are vanishingly small, even if (on average) 5 to 10% of the reports are non-truthful and motivated by perverse incentives (such as avoiding shame of promiscuity).
At some point we need to figure out how to deal with eyewitness evidence without complete dismissal, because complete dismissal of it is wrong (it's literally gaslighting- telling people that their reported experiences are irrelevant/invalid, which is the same as asserting that they didn't happen IMHO). Plenty of experiences (both positive and negative) happen that only have the retelling as the evidence, and ignoring all retellings omits a possibly large amount of evidential source of truth.
These military people are claiming other military people are lying and covering up evidence. So I guess it's a paradox, since no one in the military lies.
People aren't all that different no matter what group they join and no matter what values they espouse. Believing someone is above reproach just because they say they are is what let the Catholic Church get away with its atrocities for so long.
People aren't all that different no matter what group they join and no matter what values they espouse. Believing someone is above reproach just because they say they are is what let the Catholic Church get away with its atrocities for so long.
yep. And there's certainly examples of that:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...
hits from multiple radars simultaneously are not "camera quirks"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPrYVmYkL5w#t=49
at some point if you have to bend over completely backwards in order to fit a square peg theory into a round hole (when all you have is the square peg, and the only reason why you don't have a round one is your incredulity), it starts to get ridiculous
I'll tell you what's ludicrous, the idea that we live alone in an unimaginably large universe and that no other intelligence has figured out FTL travel when we already know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
this is starting to look a lot like the people who didn't believe in meteorites despite all the claims of people reporting rocks from space landing in their backyards (granted, that's better physical evidence, at least, than we have now)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-he...
It literally took 3,000 meteorites landing at once and numerous witnesses before the scientific community acknowledged that meteorites were real, despite the fact that they had no explanation for them at the time (which was the reason for their initial dismissal)
Sometimes, when a bunch of people report something for which the physical evidence is still scant, it's not always mass hysteria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPrYVmYkL5w#t=49
at some point if you have to bend over completely backwards in order to fit a square peg theory into a round hole (when all you have is the square peg, and the only reason why you don't have a round one is your incredulity), it starts to get ridiculous
I'll tell you what's ludicrous, the idea that we live alone in an unimaginably large universe and that no other intelligence has figured out FTL travel when we already know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
this is starting to look a lot like the people who didn't believe in meteorites despite all the claims of people reporting rocks from space landing in their backyards (granted, that's better physical evidence, at least, than we have now)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-he...
It literally took 3,000 meteorites landing at once and numerous witnesses before the scientific community acknowledged that meteorites were real, despite the fact that they had no explanation for them at the time (which was the reason for their initial dismissal)
Sometimes, when a bunch of people report something for which the physical evidence is still scant, it's not always mass hysteria
1. Conspiracies where there is evidence of a conspiracy (like sworn testimony from conspirators)
2. Conspiracies where there is no evidence of a conspiracy, i.e. the hypothesis is that it is a successful conspiracy.
Type 2 conspiracy theories are are like invisible pink unicorns: by design they are unfalsifiable, and hence unscientific, and so can be dismissed on those grounds alone.
Contrary to popular opinion, extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence to merit serious consideration, they merely require some evidence that cannot be accounted for by more mundane explanations. Weird video artifacts don't qualify.