I’m a Physicist Who Searches for Aliens. U.F.O.s Don’t Impress Me(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
I’m a Physicist Who Searches for Aliens. U.F.O.s Don’t Impress Me
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/30/opinion/ufo-sightings-report.html
176 comments
>> most of them never appearing in the media for preventing witness testimony contamination
That prevents post-event witness contamination. One really confounding aspect is pre-event contamination. There are links between media depictions and later witness testimonies.
That prevents post-event witness contamination. One really confounding aspect is pre-event contamination. There are links between media depictions and later witness testimonies.
Yes, exactly. It was done that way to isolate common attributes of encounters which did not have circulated in the media or the general UFO lore yet.
J. Allen Hynek, the lead of project Blue Book, encountered the contamination issue very early in his works, and a huge amount of his research is to this day unpublished to prevent that from happening. As you might notice, this is the complete opposite of how scientific inquiry works. As Vallée concluded, this is an intelligence problem before a scientific one.
From that standing, we can understand an UFO encounter as a cybernetic system, not just a physical event. Which leads to consider the UFO phenomenon as informational phenomenon with informational effects on cultures, thoughts and ideas. A lot of Vallée's work is exploring this, which is really fascinating.
J. Allen Hynek, the lead of project Blue Book, encountered the contamination issue very early in his works, and a huge amount of his research is to this day unpublished to prevent that from happening. As you might notice, this is the complete opposite of how scientific inquiry works. As Vallée concluded, this is an intelligence problem before a scientific one.
From that standing, we can understand an UFO encounter as a cybernetic system, not just a physical event. Which leads to consider the UFO phenomenon as informational phenomenon with informational effects on cultures, thoughts and ideas. A lot of Vallée's work is exploring this, which is really fascinating.
IMHO, the strong argument against this being real is how it is "perpetually liminal", i.e. just on the threshold of verification, but staying there. It never quite crosses over into solid evidence. The signal never improves. Even over decades, it never proceeds from a sighting to an artefact in a museum. The results never change from "promising" to "promise fulfilled".
For sure. One of humanity's greatest changes in recent decades is the rise of cheap video recording. Security cameras are everywhere. 3 billion people have smartphones. I could go to YouTube and spend all day watch rare, improbable events that have been caught on camera.
But during that time a number of liminal phenomena have stayed liminal. Bigfoot. Ghosts. UFOs. Angel and demons. Clairvoyance. Haunted houses. Telepathy. Dowsing. Many more, I'm sure.
There are two ways to explain that. One is that all of those things have gotten way better at avoiding evidenced encounters. The other is that they are like the scary animals/monsters kids imagine lurk just outside the firelight when you take them camping: things humans imagine to fill the gaps when sensory data is ambiguous.
But during that time a number of liminal phenomena have stayed liminal. Bigfoot. Ghosts. UFOs. Angel and demons. Clairvoyance. Haunted houses. Telepathy. Dowsing. Many more, I'm sure.
There are two ways to explain that. One is that all of those things have gotten way better at avoiding evidenced encounters. The other is that they are like the scary animals/monsters kids imagine lurk just outside the firelight when you take them camping: things humans imagine to fill the gaps when sensory data is ambiguous.
Well for UFOs (I.E. something that is flying that is hard to identifying, not exactly ALIENS!), I think it's two things.
1. Phone and security cameras are good for objects in close distance. The farther the object, the worse the quality. Best example I have is that I live close to a flight path of a local airport. I've tried to take photos (with an iPhone 11) of interesting airplanes to send to my friends who work in aviation, but the pictures are usually crap. I don't have an exact metric, but I would say its something like every 1 or 2 pictures out of 10 is good enough to identify the plane.
2. There actually are a lot of modern UFO videos on Youtube and the rest of the web that you can spend hours watching. It's just that they are mostly taken with phone cameras, so your video categories will basically be: "that's clearly someone practicing their CGI skills", "that looks like trash/that's clearly a drone", "That's neat and I can't really explain it". I dug through a few popular subreddits and youtube channels last month as we saw an influx of UFO stories in the media and this was basically my experience. It's a fun way to kill some time, but yeah you aren't going to get the high quality videos you want.
1. Phone and security cameras are good for objects in close distance. The farther the object, the worse the quality. Best example I have is that I live close to a flight path of a local airport. I've tried to take photos (with an iPhone 11) of interesting airplanes to send to my friends who work in aviation, but the pictures are usually crap. I don't have an exact metric, but I would say its something like every 1 or 2 pictures out of 10 is good enough to identify the plane.
2. There actually are a lot of modern UFO videos on Youtube and the rest of the web that you can spend hours watching. It's just that they are mostly taken with phone cameras, so your video categories will basically be: "that's clearly someone practicing their CGI skills", "that looks like trash/that's clearly a drone", "That's neat and I can't really explain it". I dug through a few popular subreddits and youtube channels last month as we saw an influx of UFO stories in the media and this was basically my experience. It's a fun way to kill some time, but yeah you aren't going to get the high quality videos you want.
What you're ignoring is that now we have orders of magnitude more data (e.g., the YouTube video you mention) but still no more signal. Just like it was in 1970s, the strongest we've got is still "that's neat and I can't explain it".
This is like "God of the gaps" theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
The claimed phenomenon keeps retreating to exactly fit into the gaps of our ignorance. And it will always keep retreating, because filling in the unknown with quasi-anthropomorphic entities is what humans have been doing since long before they invented Zeus and Thor.
Is it possible it's all UFOs or angels or Huginn and Muninn running errands for Odin? Sure. But there is no more reason to favor one explanation over the other. And the world is full of infinite things we don't have enough data to explain.
Why is that particular bird outside your window right now? Why is it singing the song it does? One explanation is that space aliens are using it to spy on you; the birdsong is how it communicates to coordinate observations with other birds. Maybe the iPhone 11 just isn't good enough to show the construction flaws in the feather patterns that would prove it too is a UFO.
But that theory is exactly as valid as "the explanation for this video is UFOs" and we should treat them with equal weight.
This is like "God of the gaps" theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
The claimed phenomenon keeps retreating to exactly fit into the gaps of our ignorance. And it will always keep retreating, because filling in the unknown with quasi-anthropomorphic entities is what humans have been doing since long before they invented Zeus and Thor.
Is it possible it's all UFOs or angels or Huginn and Muninn running errands for Odin? Sure. But there is no more reason to favor one explanation over the other. And the world is full of infinite things we don't have enough data to explain.
Why is that particular bird outside your window right now? Why is it singing the song it does? One explanation is that space aliens are using it to spy on you; the birdsong is how it communicates to coordinate observations with other birds. Maybe the iPhone 11 just isn't good enough to show the construction flaws in the feather patterns that would prove it too is a UFO.
But that theory is exactly as valid as "the explanation for this video is UFOs" and we should treat them with equal weight.
I will just start by saying that I think UFO stuff is interesting, but I am not convinced it's aliens. Just fun to read up on every few years.
With that said, I don't know how we will get beyond "that's neat and I can't explain". My belief is these UFO's are man made or natural phenomena. In order to fully explain them all, it requires us to know what is man made (disclosure from governments), and then study and understand the natural phenomena.
If this was actually aliens, then I don't think we will get past the "this is neat and I can't explain" unless they want us to. The way I reason with it is that it is the equivalent of if we time traveled a fighter jet or submarine to the 14th century. People back then would have no way to reason or prove what they were seeing unless we landed those vehicles and demonstrated to them. Even then, they would probably think the machine were a creation of pure evil or something.
With that said, I don't know how we will get beyond "that's neat and I can't explain". My belief is these UFO's are man made or natural phenomena. In order to fully explain them all, it requires us to know what is man made (disclosure from governments), and then study and understand the natural phenomena.
If this was actually aliens, then I don't think we will get past the "this is neat and I can't explain" unless they want us to. The way I reason with it is that it is the equivalent of if we time traveled a fighter jet or submarine to the 14th century. People back then would have no way to reason or prove what they were seeing unless we landed those vehicles and demonstrated to them. Even then, they would probably think the machine were a creation of pure evil or something.
We will never get beyond "that's neat and I can't explain" because there will always be liminal events.
Your "it could be aliens" argument applies exactly as well to fairies, angels, demons, demi-gods, wizards, Satan, time travelers, humans from other dimensions, etc. If you weight one of them more highly than the others, you should examine why. But the answer won't be in the evidence.
Your "it could be aliens" argument applies exactly as well to fairies, angels, demons, demi-gods, wizards, Satan, time travelers, humans from other dimensions, etc. If you weight one of them more highly than the others, you should examine why. But the answer won't be in the evidence.
What you're ignoring is that "signal" is in the interpretation. You're blind to that. You can crank up data, and wind down your "signal" to confirm your existing biases. In fact that's what you need to do to preserve your "no unexplained" belief system. And that's what you see, people reaching for every more crazy explanations to pretend they didn't see what they saw: "the pilots hallucinated, and the battlegroup sensors all hallucinated, at the same time, repeatedly, over a few months"
I like the liminal theory but this isn't the same thing.
I like the liminal theory but this isn't the same thing.
Nah. As I mentioned, I believe alien life is very likely to exist somewhere in the universe. I'd be fucking thrilled if it were to drop by for a visit. Fairies and wizards and dragons and whatnot would be cool too. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing that all of these have been on the margins for a long time, and continue to be on the margins despite the massive increase in our ability to document things over the last couple centuries.
That part of you wants to believe in alien visitors, seems to be independent of the priors you have (about the impossibility of this) that filters your interpretation of the data. I think that's normal. People's ideas do not need to be self-consistent and can "contain multitudes".
To extend the pirate rapists example from my other answer. Maybe you'd never known a pirate that had raped a person, but I think if you knew someone who told you that story, and you'd heard other people had similar experiences, you'd certainly believe them.
Or maybe not pirates but Trump supporters. Or whatever group fit your priors for likely/payoff for you to do this. So the "aliens are not a smart possibility" here is just an interpretation skewed by the way you want to read signal in the evidence.
It's equal that we can look at the same things and come to different conclusions. That's diversity of opinion and experience. But maybe you haven't even looked at the same things. Certainly we look at them in different ways.
I believe aliens are here. But I'm not saying this Navy evidence points to that definitely. I'm saying it doesn't rule it out. It's smart to keep open to it. I'd say the preponderance of witness evidence over decades without a doubt points to that they are here. Does this evidence prove it? No to me. But I know it. It's what I believe based on my own knowledge and experiences.
You have a different belief is normal. I don't think either of us can claim to be "right" on this topic re evidence (tho about the solar system, what do you think about those weird obelisks? structures on the moon? NASA's history of censoring space photos? Lights on Ceres, on Phobos, on Luna?)
In one view, the lack of solid widely accepted data is why there's so much "meat" to be argued about, but actually I don't think that's the meat, that's just reaching the ground consensus that people will reach different conclusions and I think as long as they do so with an open mind to the evidence that's valid.
I do think you have to admit that what you say about it comes not from evidence, but from your interpretation of it. It's not proven either way, it's just your belief that it's so. And that's all that matters so far right.
To extend the pirate rapists example from my other answer. Maybe you'd never known a pirate that had raped a person, but I think if you knew someone who told you that story, and you'd heard other people had similar experiences, you'd certainly believe them.
Or maybe not pirates but Trump supporters. Or whatever group fit your priors for likely/payoff for you to do this. So the "aliens are not a smart possibility" here is just an interpretation skewed by the way you want to read signal in the evidence.
It's equal that we can look at the same things and come to different conclusions. That's diversity of opinion and experience. But maybe you haven't even looked at the same things. Certainly we look at them in different ways.
I believe aliens are here. But I'm not saying this Navy evidence points to that definitely. I'm saying it doesn't rule it out. It's smart to keep open to it. I'd say the preponderance of witness evidence over decades without a doubt points to that they are here. Does this evidence prove it? No to me. But I know it. It's what I believe based on my own knowledge and experiences.
You have a different belief is normal. I don't think either of us can claim to be "right" on this topic re evidence (tho about the solar system, what do you think about those weird obelisks? structures on the moon? NASA's history of censoring space photos? Lights on Ceres, on Phobos, on Luna?)
In one view, the lack of solid widely accepted data is why there's so much "meat" to be argued about, but actually I don't think that's the meat, that's just reaching the ground consensus that people will reach different conclusions and I think as long as they do so with an open mind to the evidence that's valid.
I do think you have to admit that what you say about it comes not from evidence, but from your interpretation of it. It's not proven either way, it's just your belief that it's so. And that's all that matters so far right.
Also cellphone cameras didn't generally do well in low light. "Fuzzy unfocused blob of light" is a whole genre of UFO videos.
This may be becoming less of an issue with the newest generation of cameras.
This may be becoming less of an issue with the newest generation of cameras.
It will not become less of an issue, because better cameras just push the liminal bubble out farther. There will always be something far enough away to be ambiguous, and that will be the new proof of UFOs. That is how it has gone for decades of improvement in recording technology.
There is a BIG difference between Bigfoot which would be limited to the forested areas of the earth and UFOs which would have the entire universe to inhabit and hide in. With our most advanced cutting edge telescopes and other remote sensing tech we have trouble detecting planets and other not glowing large bodies of mass if they aren’t orbiting a star, how on earth does anyone think we can confidently say there are no space craft present that we cannot see? Sounds more like everyone wants to believe that rather than it being based on any type of observation.
Sure. The same logic is true of angels. How can we confidently say that supernatural beings aren't everywhere around us right now? How can you say I'm not a demon here to trick you into denying God's glorious helpers?
The answer to this is that there are infinite possible things that could be true. But until there's decent evidence, nobody is obliged to take it seriously.
Do I think there is alien life somewhere in the universe? The odds seem very good. Do I think that a bunch of them have crossed the galaxies just to spend decades hanging around and fucking with people? I don't in the slightest. The simpler explanation is that primate brains evolved to survive on the African savannas are maybe not perfectly tuned to dealing with a universe 93 billion light-years across. That all of these ever-liminal phenomena share a pretty mundane set of explanations in the evolutionary history of the human cognitive architecture.
The answer to this is that there are infinite possible things that could be true. But until there's decent evidence, nobody is obliged to take it seriously.
Do I think there is alien life somewhere in the universe? The odds seem very good. Do I think that a bunch of them have crossed the galaxies just to spend decades hanging around and fucking with people? I don't in the slightest. The simpler explanation is that primate brains evolved to survive on the African savannas are maybe not perfectly tuned to dealing with a universe 93 billion light-years across. That all of these ever-liminal phenomena share a pretty mundane set of explanations in the evolutionary history of the human cognitive architecture.
What if they are already in our solar system, hidden, or holed up on some moon somewhere, and they have been for eons. They don't have to come across the galaxies to get here (even if they can, even if that's where they're from). If they're already in our local area you don't need to pretend aliens are physically impossible to arrive. And that possibility seems equal with all others in this speculation, but people rarely consider it, and instead sight the (shortsighted) "physical impossibility" of travel from far away regions in milky way or outside, as "explanation" for why anything we see cannot be aliens. But it's lazy and stupid and doesn't consider this local cluster possibility.
No one's ever "obliged" to do anything, particularly about this, but "decent" is your judgment. What the decent evidence your family loves you? It's not hard data. it's a story you piece together and your existence depends on it. Far less high stakes whether or not aliens are visiting us or not, for you personally, for easier to accept or reject this belief for personal reasons.
I think something else is involved in what makes this hard for people to consider. Not sure what it is. Maybe something like ridiculous anthropocentrist arrogance? "Aliens can't travel here because we don't know how they could."
No one's ever "obliged" to do anything, particularly about this, but "decent" is your judgment. What the decent evidence your family loves you? It's not hard data. it's a story you piece together and your existence depends on it. Far less high stakes whether or not aliens are visiting us or not, for you personally, for easier to accept or reject this belief for personal reasons.
I think something else is involved in what makes this hard for people to consider. Not sure what it is. Maybe something like ridiculous anthropocentrist arrogance? "Aliens can't travel here because we don't know how they could."
Anything's possible, but I deny aliens being resident in the solar system is equally possible.
What you're doing is classic "god of the gaps" thinking. Science fiction from 100 years ago imagined aliens on Venus and Mars. From early telescope images, people believed there were canals on Mars. It was all bunk, of course. We have enough data that current live on Mars and Venus looks much less likely. So now you've pushed the little green men back to the parts we can't see as well. That's not because there's any evidence there, but because you have started with a conclusion and you're reasoning toward it.
What you're doing is classic "god of the gaps" thinking. Science fiction from 100 years ago imagined aliens on Venus and Mars. From early telescope images, people believed there were canals on Mars. It was all bunk, of course. We have enough data that current live on Mars and Venus looks much less likely. So now you've pushed the little green men back to the parts we can't see as well. That's not because there's any evidence there, but because you have started with a conclusion and you're reasoning toward it.
And what you're doing is denying looking at stuff because it doesn't confirm your biases. There's a bunch of weird things in solar system and mountains of evidence for weirdness on Earth that you'd have question marks over if you were being honest about this.
You may say you want there to be aliens here but you're not acting like you're willing to engage with the evidence about this. You're viewing it through a preconceived idea.
Right there's no smoke gun evidence for solar residence but there's no evidence for them not being there. Circumstantial evidence for proximity to help explain the evidence that they're here on Earth.
"God of the gaps" is a biased and weird way to describe something you do every day. You have a hypothesis, you know there's something wrong, somewhere, but you don't know where it is. So you go looking. Is it in your fridge? No. The closet? No. Under the rug? Backseat of the car? No. Where could it be? Maybe you just imagined the thing. But you were so sure. But there's no evidence....But there is. You sensed something was wrong. You saw the thing yesterday, and now can't see it.
Because you have some Wikipedia page and fancy scary name for some thing that's a normal part of human thinking (and science -- where are all those particles? Let's search in other energy levels and collisions ...) then any thing that looks like that is "little green men" and "bunk"? Come on. By that logic the housemate's lost package, the smell in the living room and the bug you hunt down in your program is bunk.
You're sure there's a bug (might it not just be how you're measuring it?), and you employ a process of elimination. That you employ that process does not make you crazy...but it seems you would look yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm crazy for doing god in the gaps thinking about this bug." Or is that just what you say about others but not yourself?
I just think it's not the type of erroneous thinking you think. It's actually logical. We have a big search space, we have some signals, now go find where they originate. It's a big space, and you don't have access to any of it. If you want to sit there and say, there's nothing there. That's completely illogical. It's not even "unlikely" that there's nothing there. You have signals on Earth, and by your logic of the impossibility of intergalactic travel, the signals are more likely to originate locally.
So... just because you didn't find it on Venus or Mars (so far, but have you been there?), doesn't mean they're not here. There's a lot of places we haven't looked, and they could be there.
You may deny it but that doesn't change one iota of the reality. It's just your belief about it. "God of the gaps" cuts both ways. Every time you see a gap, "You can say, see this is more support to what I'm saying." I can say that. SO can you. It doesn't disprove what you think is unlikely. It doesn't make it more likely. People used to say Marilyn Monroe made a man more of what he was. Cocky men became more cocky in her presence. Timid men more timid. Maybe the gaps show us what we really think, not what's really there? It doesn't show you anything. It's not "god of the gaps" it's unknown in the gaps.
Only thing it shows is we're both willing to fill in the gaps with certainty. You're certain they're not in the solar system. Another idea that supports the notion that aliens visiting Earth is more likely than without them being in the solar system? You deny it. To support your pre-existing belief? Of course not. Simple because the evidence guides you toward that in your unbiased appraisal of it. Come on... You're blind to the interpretive nature of your conclusions, and still hide that in the perception that the "sensible majority consensus" aligns with your view. But that very conservatism makes you an unreliable speaker about these mysteries. What value can you add if you're not willing to engage with the gaps?
"Ah, it's a big black unknown. Leave it alone. Nothing to see there."
You're saying it's all bunk, is the bunk. Because you don't know. Have you searched every crevice of the solar system to prove there's no life there? That someone had a story that was a wrong interpretation of the data, but if true supports a 'they're here' hypothesis, does not disprove that hypothesis if their interpretation is wrong.
I'd say we don't have nearly enough data to rule it out. 'Much less likely' compared to a strawman? Still can be very likely.
You've kept the little green men out of your garden because it doesn't make sense to you that they're here. Or you felt in the past it's just too much fun for you to argue with those that believe. And you think the time is still here when denying evidence of this stuff still looks rational. But that time has passed. It now looks crazy to say the evidence leads you to stretch denials into invoking a certainty of impossibility in the face of ambiguity and lots of signal.
You may say you want there to be aliens here but you're not acting like you're willing to engage with the evidence about this. You're viewing it through a preconceived idea.
Right there's no smoke gun evidence for solar residence but there's no evidence for them not being there. Circumstantial evidence for proximity to help explain the evidence that they're here on Earth.
"God of the gaps" is a biased and weird way to describe something you do every day. You have a hypothesis, you know there's something wrong, somewhere, but you don't know where it is. So you go looking. Is it in your fridge? No. The closet? No. Under the rug? Backseat of the car? No. Where could it be? Maybe you just imagined the thing. But you were so sure. But there's no evidence....But there is. You sensed something was wrong. You saw the thing yesterday, and now can't see it.
Because you have some Wikipedia page and fancy scary name for some thing that's a normal part of human thinking (and science -- where are all those particles? Let's search in other energy levels and collisions ...) then any thing that looks like that is "little green men" and "bunk"? Come on. By that logic the housemate's lost package, the smell in the living room and the bug you hunt down in your program is bunk.
You're sure there's a bug (might it not just be how you're measuring it?), and you employ a process of elimination. That you employ that process does not make you crazy...but it seems you would look yourself in the mirror and think, "I'm crazy for doing god in the gaps thinking about this bug." Or is that just what you say about others but not yourself?
I just think it's not the type of erroneous thinking you think. It's actually logical. We have a big search space, we have some signals, now go find where they originate. It's a big space, and you don't have access to any of it. If you want to sit there and say, there's nothing there. That's completely illogical. It's not even "unlikely" that there's nothing there. You have signals on Earth, and by your logic of the impossibility of intergalactic travel, the signals are more likely to originate locally.
So... just because you didn't find it on Venus or Mars (so far, but have you been there?), doesn't mean they're not here. There's a lot of places we haven't looked, and they could be there.
You may deny it but that doesn't change one iota of the reality. It's just your belief about it. "God of the gaps" cuts both ways. Every time you see a gap, "You can say, see this is more support to what I'm saying." I can say that. SO can you. It doesn't disprove what you think is unlikely. It doesn't make it more likely. People used to say Marilyn Monroe made a man more of what he was. Cocky men became more cocky in her presence. Timid men more timid. Maybe the gaps show us what we really think, not what's really there? It doesn't show you anything. It's not "god of the gaps" it's unknown in the gaps.
Only thing it shows is we're both willing to fill in the gaps with certainty. You're certain they're not in the solar system. Another idea that supports the notion that aliens visiting Earth is more likely than without them being in the solar system? You deny it. To support your pre-existing belief? Of course not. Simple because the evidence guides you toward that in your unbiased appraisal of it. Come on... You're blind to the interpretive nature of your conclusions, and still hide that in the perception that the "sensible majority consensus" aligns with your view. But that very conservatism makes you an unreliable speaker about these mysteries. What value can you add if you're not willing to engage with the gaps?
"Ah, it's a big black unknown. Leave it alone. Nothing to see there."
You're saying it's all bunk, is the bunk. Because you don't know. Have you searched every crevice of the solar system to prove there's no life there? That someone had a story that was a wrong interpretation of the data, but if true supports a 'they're here' hypothesis, does not disprove that hypothesis if their interpretation is wrong.
I'd say we don't have nearly enough data to rule it out. 'Much less likely' compared to a strawman? Still can be very likely.
You've kept the little green men out of your garden because it doesn't make sense to you that they're here. Or you felt in the past it's just too much fun for you to argue with those that believe. And you think the time is still here when denying evidence of this stuff still looks rational. But that time has passed. It now looks crazy to say the evidence leads you to stretch denials into invoking a certainty of impossibility in the face of ambiguity and lots of signal.
You are making up a magical unicorn extreme example. Yes technically you cannot use deductive reasoning to prove there are no angels or gods or supernatural entities we cannot see. For our purposes an extraterrestrial intergalactic species that could reach our planet would be exactly what you just described. We cannot prove these entities are not out there. Just remember science and reason do not allow us say anything with certainty that cannot be calculated or measured, it’s just as much a fallacious religion to claim they don’t exist as they do, one real risk is what happens if either side is correct. If you are correct and aliens do not exist, it doesn’t matter at all however if you are wrong and they do, there are entire classes of possible dystopian and utopian realities that become actual possibilities. Moderate Preparation and risk minimization is really all anyone can do to address the unknown.
> There is a BIG difference between Bigfoot which would be limited to the forested areas of the earth and UFOs which would have the entire universe to inhabit and hide in.
No. Bigfoot, as with UFOs, could exist on other planets. That's not the assertion being made with these recent videos, though. Just like Bigfoot, they're alleged to be here, on Earth.
No. Bigfoot, as with UFOs, could exist on other planets. That's not the assertion being made with these recent videos, though. Just like Bigfoot, they're alleged to be here, on Earth.
The liminal nature of the phenomenon is the calling card of a higher intelligence, seeking to fulfill/manifest it's understanding of metaphysical principles.
The primary metaphysical principle which, in my understanding, is seeking to be respected by these intelligences is this: Free will, even on the level of deciding what is allowed to be considered as real. A UFO that "proves its existence" to you has made concrete decisions about how it wants to alter your worldview. I believe that is a no-no.
The evidence that you will find in favor of UFOs, matches precisely or semi-precisely what the deeper nature of your belief system and mind want to believe about them. The Twining Memo alone, if meditated on and considered for its implications, proves beyond a doubt the reality of the phenomenon. I could rattle off a list of a half-dozen books that go into the topic in great detail. The amount of deathbed confessions and former insider testimony will astonish anyone, truly. The freedom to disbelieve in these things is protected. But even the Pentagon just came out saying that "UAPs" harass them regularly (with the implication known to those of us who research the matter, that this has happened ongoingly now for 70 years).
Basically just choose to open yourself to the possibility and I think you will find the evidence.
The primary metaphysical principle which, in my understanding, is seeking to be respected by these intelligences is this: Free will, even on the level of deciding what is allowed to be considered as real. A UFO that "proves its existence" to you has made concrete decisions about how it wants to alter your worldview. I believe that is a no-no.
The evidence that you will find in favor of UFOs, matches precisely or semi-precisely what the deeper nature of your belief system and mind want to believe about them. The Twining Memo alone, if meditated on and considered for its implications, proves beyond a doubt the reality of the phenomenon. I could rattle off a list of a half-dozen books that go into the topic in great detail. The amount of deathbed confessions and former insider testimony will astonish anyone, truly. The freedom to disbelieve in these things is protected. But even the Pentagon just came out saying that "UAPs" harass them regularly (with the implication known to those of us who research the matter, that this has happened ongoingly now for 70 years).
Basically just choose to open yourself to the possibility and I think you will find the evidence.
What if that's exactly the effect that the source of the phenomenon is trying to achieve ?
When you tease a kitten with a laser pointer, the beam dot is moving in ways kitten-brain-physics can't comprehend and has to read as a lifeform. Why would you you so confuse a poor critter?
The answer "it's very funny" should not be ruled out.
The answer "it's very funny" should not be ruled out.
I'm not convinced the cat is confused into thinking it's a life form, though there is perhaps some confusion due to the non-material nature of the dot. My cat knows that I control the laser and complains to me if I turn it off too soon.
> the beam dot is moving in ways kitten-brain-physics can't comprehend and has to read as a lifeform
It is a lifeform—a lifeform with a laser pointer teasing a cat.
It is a lifeform—a lifeform with a laser pointer teasing a cat.
My dad would joke about making a Q&A book called "The Fundamentalist's Guide to Science". On each left page would be a good question, like, "Why is the sky blue?" or "Why are there stars at night?" On each right page you'd see, "Because God wants it that way."
Ultimately, an "explanation" that can explain any set of data is useless. I will grant, given the state of the world, "Because God is fucking with us," is an emotionally satisfying one. But ultimately it's just as unhelpful as "Because God wants it that way" from a scientific perspective.
Ultimately, an "explanation" that can explain any set of data is useless. I will grant, given the state of the world, "Because God is fucking with us," is an emotionally satisfying one. But ultimately it's just as unhelpful as "Because God wants it that way" from a scientific perspective.
The truth doesn't care whether you like it or not or whether you find it "helpful". We can't really ever exclude the possibility that we're merely playthings for beings far more advanced than ourselves. Usually we don't need to assume that such things exist to explain our observations but if we do encounter observations that don't fit our models of reality we do need to consider other possibilities.
What "truth" means is exactly the question here, so you can't use it as an answer like that.
There's a world full of natural phenomena which we perceive dimly. We try to create linguistic structures that explain it. A proposed change to that linguistic structure, like "Fairies are real," can only be more or less helpful in explaining the world we observe.
As George Box said, "All models are wrong; some models are useful." We should always be open to possibility. I am equally open to Bigfoot, UFOs, ESP, vampires, fairies, Santa, and Thor as explanations for phenomena. Which is to say that they are historically bad explanations that can never be disproven, but which have been demonstrably unhelpful in explaining the world.
There's a world full of natural phenomena which we perceive dimly. We try to create linguistic structures that explain it. A proposed change to that linguistic structure, like "Fairies are real," can only be more or less helpful in explaining the world we observe.
As George Box said, "All models are wrong; some models are useful." We should always be open to possibility. I am equally open to Bigfoot, UFOs, ESP, vampires, fairies, Santa, and Thor as explanations for phenomena. Which is to say that they are historically bad explanations that can never be disproven, but which have been demonstrably unhelpful in explaining the world.
You can disprove all those things. You just have to find "the real thing" that gives rise to the evidence people talk about, and say, "see it's not X, it's Y". X disproved. But it's a bit dishonest to lump all together. UFOs we have thousands of witnesses, and radar data. Santa we don't have as many witnesses or data.
If we find some Bigfoot like civilization living underground, but that's different to how we think of Bigfoot, we've "explained" Bigfoot and disproven "the wrong version" of Bigfoot.
If Thor lands on Earth and say, "I'm back," but says, "btw my name is "Bor". We've disproved "Thor". If we discover people with some disease which makes them live indoors, drink lymph fluid and live for hundreds of years, we've disproved "vampires" but explained the stories around that.
At the level of speculation we're operating at, these things can be argued both ways. It's not truth that brings you down on one side or another, it's your preference. You're blind to that.
If we find some Bigfoot like civilization living underground, but that's different to how we think of Bigfoot, we've "explained" Bigfoot and disproven "the wrong version" of Bigfoot.
If Thor lands on Earth and say, "I'm back," but says, "btw my name is "Bor". We've disproved "Thor". If we discover people with some disease which makes them live indoors, drink lymph fluid and live for hundreds of years, we've disproved "vampires" but explained the stories around that.
At the level of speculation we're operating at, these things can be argued both ways. It's not truth that brings you down on one side or another, it's your preference. You're blind to that.
You can't disprove those things. People who believe in ghosts or fairies or angels or gods always beliefs plus claims of evidence. You can disprove some part of the evidence, but they'll always have another bit of evidence where there's not enough data to prove anything one way or the other.
It's the same deal with space aliens visiting Earth. The evidentiary basis for that is no stronger than that for aliens. You're correct that it's preference that leads some to favor aliens over angels, etc. But that's all it is.
It's the same deal with space aliens visiting Earth. The evidentiary basis for that is no stronger than that for aliens. You're correct that it's preference that leads some to favor aliens over angels, etc. But that's all it is.
so they'll believe them. You can disprove/prove it but you just won't convince them: the certainters on either side. The situation you describe is different to proof, it's more subjective, more to do with resistance.
It's an exact mirror of the practice you see of people who don't want to believe in aliens visiting Earth, inventing new ways to avoid the evidence, whether it's sensor data, witnesses whatever.
"The evidentiary basis for that (fairies and ghosts) is no stronger than that for aliens."
That's an objective sounding statement, but it's just your interpretation and preference. By what standard? If we had hundreds of thousands of people around the world saying they'd been raped / kidnapped by a gang of roaming miscreants dressed up as pirates, and these people had missing time, missing clothes, and then we had the EU maritime agency come out and say, "We've captured what seem to be swarms of pirate ships on radar". Would you still not believe them?
It's an exact mirror of the practice you see of people who don't want to believe in aliens visiting Earth, inventing new ways to avoid the evidence, whether it's sensor data, witnesses whatever.
"The evidentiary basis for that (fairies and ghosts) is no stronger than that for aliens."
That's an objective sounding statement, but it's just your interpretation and preference. By what standard? If we had hundreds of thousands of people around the world saying they'd been raped / kidnapped by a gang of roaming miscreants dressed up as pirates, and these people had missing time, missing clothes, and then we had the EU maritime agency come out and say, "We've captured what seem to be swarms of pirate ships on radar". Would you still not believe them?
I forget the math behind it; and could be totally wrong but I think for every additional caveat you add to a hypothesis to make it fit the data post hoc, it cuts the odds of your new hypothesis in half.
No, not quite. It depends on your prior assumptions. Basically imagine that you have these preconceptions
Possibility Prior probability
No aliens 0.55
Aliens at the perceptual limit 0.1
Completely invisible aliens 0.2
Obviously visible aliens 0.15
Possibility Posterior probability
No aliens 0.55 / 0.85
Aliens at the perceptual limit 0.1 / 0.85
Completely invisible aliens 0.2 / 0.85
Obviously visible aliens 0
To be honest, I'm stealing from here:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11868 (The cost of making excuses)
Which if I understand; would go like this on explaining UFOs:
Naive Approach:
P(ALIENS) = 50% p(~ALIENS) = 50%
Time elapses and I find some new evidence that looks like this:
P(Evidence | ALIENS) = 30% P(Evidence | ~ALIENS) = 90%
Which gives my hypothesis (Its Aliens) a posterior probability of 25% => (50% X 30%)/(50% X 30% + 50% X 90%).
I want it to be aliens so I say that they're conducting studies on us which juices P(Evidence | ALIENS && Studying Us) = 100%. But because I have no evidence to back that up, the odds are no better than 50/50; and I have to drop the prior of my new hypothesis (UFOs are Aliens who Study us) to 25% (50% X 50%). This nets out a new posterior probability of around 27%.
P(ALIENS AND They Study Us) = 25% p(~ALIENS) = 75%
P(Evidence | ALIENS & They Study Us) = 100% P(Evidence | ~ALIENS) = 90%
I'm new to Bayesian logic and am still shaky with it, so there could totally be glaring errors I'm overlooking, but as I understand it that's what I was trying to get across - Every new caveat you add to explain away a poor data fit shouldn't juice your odds.
Which if I understand; would go like this on explaining UFOs:
Naive Approach:
P(ALIENS) = 50% p(~ALIENS) = 50%
Time elapses and I find some new evidence that looks like this:
P(Evidence | ALIENS) = 30% P(Evidence | ~ALIENS) = 90%
Which gives my hypothesis (Its Aliens) a posterior probability of 25% => (50% X 30%)/(50% X 30% + 50% X 90%).
I want it to be aliens so I say that they're conducting studies on us which juices P(Evidence | ALIENS && Studying Us) = 100%. But because I have no evidence to back that up, the odds are no better than 50/50; and I have to drop the prior of my new hypothesis (UFOs are Aliens who Study us) to 25% (50% X 50%). This nets out a new posterior probability of around 27%.
P(ALIENS AND They Study Us) = 25% p(~ALIENS) = 75%
P(Evidence | ALIENS & They Study Us) = 100% P(Evidence | ~ALIENS) = 90%
I'm new to Bayesian logic and am still shaky with it, so there could totally be glaring errors I'm overlooking, but as I understand it that's what I was trying to get across - Every new caveat you add to explain away a poor data fit shouldn't juice your odds.
If anyone wonders why our approaches look so different, it's because I assumed ideal evidence that cleanly disproved one hypothesis without affecting any of the others. I did choose the list of hypotheses to ensure that was (approximately) valid.
Why would they? What if you're overthinking it?
Why do human scientists force mice to find their way through strange mazes ?
You've basically re-invented capricious elves and pixies.
It's an exercise in medievalist superstition dressed up in a cheap sci-fi veneer. Waste of time.
It's an exercise in medievalist superstition dressed up in a cheap sci-fi veneer. Waste of time.
Wait until you dig into the lore on capricious elves and pixies and realise that it overlaps UFO lore in the kinds of weirdness it contains, despite being recorded by people separated by centuries, continents, and cultures.
Exactly. "The Phenomena" is sort of all encompassing. I think that's an interesting thread that's come out recently. Jeremy Corbell advances the idea (not the first to, tho) that things like ghosts, consciousness, the multiverse and ETs are all connected.
In some sense it's easily dismissed as "trivially lumping together all things we don't understand" and calling it "quantum". But on another level there does seem to be overlap: in types of experiences, places they happen, and other things I don't know about.
In some sense it's easily dismissed as "trivially lumping together all things we don't understand" and calling it "quantum". But on another level there does seem to be overlap: in types of experiences, places they happen, and other things I don't know about.
When I built mazes for gene knockout mice, we did it for addiction/pain research. The mazes themselves are really cool. You get to program all these little doors and sequences. Come for the research, stay for the fun.
It’s Peppermint-Patty(?) from the Peanuts cartoon pulling the football away from Charlie Brown just before he kicks it.
Fool me once, shame on you; ok I know the last 892 times we told you it was different but it turned out not to be different - BUT THIS TIME ITS REAL...
Fool me once, shame on you; ok I know the last 892 times we told you it was different but it turned out not to be different - BUT THIS TIME ITS REAL...
You're thinking of Lucy.
the strong argument against this being real is how it is "perpetually liminal", i.e. just on the threshold of verification, but staying there. It never quite crosses over into solid evidence
Aliens could be actively trying not to be detected. It would be quite reasonable if they're monitoring us for them to disturb us as little as possible and not to leave any evidence behind. That's how humans study nature after all.
Aliens could be actively trying not to be detected. It would be quite reasonable if they're monitoring us for them to disturb us as little as possible and not to leave any evidence behind. That's how humans study nature after all.
If you're trying not to be detected at all, you don't do about nine tenths of the stuff UFOs do, like flying around with lights on, stopping right over the head of some ordinary person on the road and dropping a searchlight on them, or buzzing military jets and ships.
If you're trying to fuck with the humans though...
If you're trying to fuck with the humans though...
> Aliens could be actively trying not to be detected.
You're not the first to suggest that, but it just doesn't pass a smell test. I mean, why and how? And with such consistently liminal results? Always on that edge.
It's an exceedingly "extraordinary claim".
They _could_ but it's pretty ridiculous.
You're not the first to suggest that, but it just doesn't pass a smell test. I mean, why and how? And with such consistently liminal results? Always on that edge.
It's an exceedingly "extraordinary claim".
They _could_ but it's pretty ridiculous.
I mean, why and how?
Why is simple. If they're monitoring us they probably wouldn't want to affect the result of their observations. That's exactly why people studying nature on Earth try not to have an impact on what they're observing. It affects the outcome and it results in bad science. Or maybe they're shy.
As for how ... we're talking about hypothetical aliens who have crossed galaxies to watch us. Speculating about how they might hide from us when they get here in an HN post is beyond futile. How the heck would anyone know?
Why is simple. If they're monitoring us they probably wouldn't want to affect the result of their observations. That's exactly why people studying nature on Earth try not to have an impact on what they're observing. It affects the outcome and it results in bad science. Or maybe they're shy.
As for how ... we're talking about hypothetical aliens who have crossed galaxies to watch us. Speculating about how they might hide from us when they get here in an HN post is beyond futile. How the heck would anyone know?
Yes, I get the drift. It's certainly a self-contained consistent belief you have there.
Utterly absurd, though.
Utterly absurd, though.
That's actually a rather weak argument, as it ignores the phenomenon's own intelligence. This would work if it was natural/"dumb".
The argument only fails if the phenomenon is both motivated to do this, and capable of doing it without fail for decades.
i.e. it not only has to not be natural/dumb, it has to choose this pointless course of action, and execute it without failure.
It's a very extra-ordinary claim that that point. With only perpetually liminal proof. We can't rule it out, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354904
i.e. it not only has to not be natural/dumb, it has to choose this pointless course of action, and execute it without failure.
It's a very extra-ordinary claim that that point. With only perpetually liminal proof. We can't rule it out, but https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354904
At least some of that is humans.
Those videos got leaked, and then tentatively confirmed, but is the military releasing all the other gubbins they have, like radar tracks and voice transcripts? Are they heck.
Those videos got leaked, and then tentatively confirmed, but is the military releasing all the other gubbins they have, like radar tracks and voice transcripts? Are they heck.
>> The signal never improves.
It does. The xkcd comic below says it best. In recent decades the number of available sensors (cameras) have radically increased. So too has the quality of those cameras. But have we seen more and better pictures? No. The quality of evidence is not tied to the increasing quality of the signal source. If anything, the signal is increasingly pointing towards 'not real'.
https://xkcd.com/1235/
It does. The xkcd comic below says it best. In recent decades the number of available sensors (cameras) have radically increased. So too has the quality of those cameras. But have we seen more and better pictures? No. The quality of evidence is not tied to the increasing quality of the signal source. If anything, the signal is increasingly pointing towards 'not real'.
https://xkcd.com/1235/
What I meant by "the signal" was the opposite.
But it's also true that something that remains liminal while sensors radically improve, is actually retreating fast. And that is a signal.
But it's also true that something that remains liminal while sensors radically improve, is actually retreating fast. And that is a signal.
I saw a UFO once, and it looked and behaved exactly like everyone says it does. Silvery oval shape, hovering and moving left/right in a straight line before accelerating at an insane rate. Moved across the sky in a quarter of a second. It was about half a nail's width at arm's length distance.
I did hear a stereotypically UFO hovering sound a few minutes later even though there was nothing anywhere around me.
Either this is psychological and people have some kind of built-in hallucination effect for this specific phenomena in the sky. Which is interesting and should be studied. Or it's the real thing. And if it's real it's not going to affect our life by any amount unless we want it to. If the aliens wanted to land and share information or anything else with us they would have done it already, and we can't force them to do any such thing so who cares.
I am also extremely skeptical of Roswell type claims of crashed craft, unless the aliens have horrible QA engineers or we get millions of visitors per century I doubt they would crash one of their flying cars on our planet.
I did hear a stereotypically UFO hovering sound a few minutes later even though there was nothing anywhere around me.
Either this is psychological and people have some kind of built-in hallucination effect for this specific phenomena in the sky. Which is interesting and should be studied. Or it's the real thing. And if it's real it's not going to affect our life by any amount unless we want it to. If the aliens wanted to land and share information or anything else with us they would have done it already, and we can't force them to do any such thing so who cares.
I am also extremely skeptical of Roswell type claims of crashed craft, unless the aliens have horrible QA engineers or we get millions of visitors per century I doubt they would crash one of their flying cars on our planet.
> I am also extremely skeptical of Roswell type claims of crashed craft
Roswell's official city slogan is "We Believe" but I suspect what most Roswell residents believe is that tourist dollars are good, rather than anything about aliens. The alien myth has been a major economic boon to the city.
https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/roswell-unveils-new-com...
Roswell's official city slogan is "We Believe" but I suspect what most Roswell residents believe is that tourist dollars are good, rather than anything about aliens. The alien myth has been a major economic boon to the city.
https://www.krqe.com/news/new-mexico/roswell-unveils-new-com...
> Silvery oval shape, hovering and moving left/right in a straight line before accelerating at an insane rate
How did you judge the distance of a silvery oval in the sky? We're generally pretty bad at estimating distance without sufficient cues (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0042698979... https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-02284-005 https://www.nature.com/articles/35102562). It may have been something smaller and closer than you thought, and so not necessarily making insane movements.
> Either this is psychological and people have some kind of built-in hallucination effect for this specific phenomena in the sky
It doesn't have to be "built-in" - suggestibility could play a big role.
How did you judge the distance of a silvery oval in the sky? We're generally pretty bad at estimating distance without sufficient cues (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0042698979... https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-02284-005 https://www.nature.com/articles/35102562). It may have been something smaller and closer than you thought, and so not necessarily making insane movements.
> Either this is psychological and people have some kind of built-in hallucination effect for this specific phenomena in the sky
It doesn't have to be "built-in" - suggestibility could play a big role.
I think this is the number one reason for UFOs being judged as aliens or even as flying objects at all. People don't realize that that if you have no idea of the distance, size or speed, then you can't even attempt to estimate any of them and seemingly impossible things happen. Planets look like balloons, cars look like stars, etc. This seems to be the problem with those military pilot's videos and accounts.
Whenever someone says it was "as big as a ..." or "impossibly fast", they're usually interpreting what they actually saw through their faulty intuition about those things. Angular size like the OP said is a useful observation, but not actual size.
I experienced this the first time I flew on a plane. I was watching the clouds passing by just below the plane and had a feeling for our comfortable speed, then suddenly a whispy bit of cloud in the foreground shot past much faster than I thought we were travelling and gave me a little shock. I then realized the clouds I'd been watching were probably much further away than I'd imagined.
Whenever someone says it was "as big as a ..." or "impossibly fast", they're usually interpreting what they actually saw through their faulty intuition about those things. Angular size like the OP said is a useful observation, but not actual size.
I experienced this the first time I flew on a plane. I was watching the clouds passing by just below the plane and had a feeling for our comfortable speed, then suddenly a whispy bit of cloud in the foreground shot past much faster than I thought we were travelling and gave me a little shock. I then realized the clouds I'd been watching were probably much further away than I'd imagined.
It was behind some trees about 30-40 meters away, I ran across the street to get a better view(it was suspicious after all) and didn't notice much parallax shift, but I doubt I would have seen much against a blue sky. Obviously if you don't have a good view of a random object like that it's extremely hard to judge distance. It might as well have been a point object that's almost impossible to judge anything other than color/shape/movement. The movement is what made me realize it's a UFO, if it disappeared or kept moving at a reasonable rate I wouldn't have though twice about it since it's probably some white/silver balloon being blown in the wind or something.
Even if it was close by, you don't jump from almost stationary to the other side of the sky from your perspective at a reasonable speed.
Even if it was close by, you don't jump from almost stationary to the other side of the sky from your perspective at a reasonable speed.
I don't think those papers mean what you think they mean. I could be wrong, I'm not perception studies expert, but the first one seems to say that binocular parallax (signals from looking with two eyes) are relatively reliable, especially in daylight conditions (the case you critique). Second two seems to talk about how high up in the sky something is as being the biggest distortion in estimating distance. Also the last one involved bizarre artificial conditions of looking through light bending prisms. Our eyes are definitely unreliable (to a certain extent), you have a blindspot in the middle of your vision in both eyes (retinal optic nerve spot) but you nearly never see it because your brain can interpolate. But I think judging something like this, in the well lit conditions described, I think you're exaggerating the difficulty. And I dislike that because it seems dishonest, and cruel to witnesses. It's a form of gaslighting. You have people (Navy pilots, civilians) coming forward and seeing things, and then everyone else wants to say, "Are you sure you saw that?" I get it, because you didn't see it, so it's natural to doubt. But you will walk across the street today, and reach down and pick up a coin, and I'll stop you and say, are you sure those cars are that far away, are you sure you see the coin. Don't cross the street, don't touch that coin. Maybe it's a hallucination. Maybe it's a bomb. Maybe it's a snake. Of course I wouldn't do that. That would be crazy. People casting doubt should doubt their own doubt too. It shouldn't be natural to doubt when so many people say the same thing.
Speaking of seeing UFOs, my best experience with unidentified objects was October 16th last year in Florida / Poinciana on what was moonless night around 5am morning. I believe this is Starlink satellite. Any other ideas?
https://i.ibb.co/ryNRd9C/2021-04-26-07-15-41.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/zXZRp5B/2021-04-26-07-15-34.jpg
Edit: photos has not been altered other than iOS auto resizing.
https://i.ibb.co/ryNRd9C/2021-04-26-07-15-41.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/zXZRp5B/2021-04-26-07-15-34.jpg
Edit: photos has not been altered other than iOS auto resizing.
The second one is an out of focus blob and the first is a nondescript dot. It'd probably be more interesting to hear what it was doing. Satellites go fairly fast across the sky but they go in straight lines at a constant speed, and they don't stop, reverse or turn.
Second one is not out of focus. its a zoom of the first shot. Did over 100 shots on both iPhone and with DSLR all looked the same.
It just "hanged" there for about 20 minutes and then vanished. Did not move at all, did not change the lighting.
It just "hanged" there for about 20 minutes and then vanished. Did not move at all, did not change the lighting.
You see that "fuzzy ring surrounding a darker area" look? That is what a point light source looks like when it isn't in focus. In that case, zooming it is just going to give you a bigger blur.
That's so cool. The few minutes later is weird. Maybe it was something invisible nearby, or maybe the sound traveled to you, but a few minutes 180s*330m/s would be around 59Km away. If it was that far in the atmosphere it would have been huge, and maybe not even made a sound because the air would have been pretty thin that far away.
I hear that the crashes were shoot-downs or Trojan horse style gifts designed to lure us into co-operation with ETs who sly gave us tech far too advanced for us to figure out, then promised to slowly teach us how some of it works in exchange for whatever cooperation. There's lots of narrative and can be argued both ways, but without people seeing some hard data they believe, probably we'll have zero consensus.
I hear that the crashes were shoot-downs or Trojan horse style gifts designed to lure us into co-operation with ETs who sly gave us tech far too advanced for us to figure out, then promised to slowly teach us how some of it works in exchange for whatever cooperation. There's lots of narrative and can be argued both ways, but without people seeing some hard data they believe, probably we'll have zero consensus.
Maybe its their kids having fun, 'borrowing' the little 'shuttle car' of their parents, while on a field trip with the 'big camper' to study the strange creatures.
> What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints provided by devices that register various wavelengths (visual, infrared, radar).
Fighter jets (Like the Navy HUD showed in the article?) have radars, targeting pods with high zoom, IR, TV, and laser-range-detectors, and fly in formation. These radars show the altitude and airspeed of anything they pick up. They also are always recording displays that would save this information.
My building's concierge loves talking about UFOs. I try to steer him towards articles etc on the latest exobiology info. Real stuff can capture that desire for something exotic just as well. Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is a great read for the psychology and history behind the UFO phenomenon.
Fighter jets (Like the Navy HUD showed in the article?) have radars, targeting pods with high zoom, IR, TV, and laser-range-detectors, and fly in formation. These radars show the altitude and airspeed of anything they pick up. They also are always recording displays that would save this information.
My building's concierge loves talking about UFOs. I try to steer him towards articles etc on the latest exobiology info. Real stuff can capture that desire for something exotic just as well. Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is a great read for the psychology and history behind the UFO phenomenon.
Exobiology is more accurate but less impressive -- it's chemicals not little green men.
UFOs are more inpressive (advanced flight tech, little green men) but fictional.
Since neither will ever affect the average non-exobiologist's real life on earth, being isn't negative factor.
UFOs are more inpressive (advanced flight tech, little green men) but fictional.
Since neither will ever affect the average non-exobiologist's real life on earth, being isn't negative factor.
Isn’t it an argument to ignorance to claim UFOs are fictional? To confidently say they don’t exist would require you to be aware of all parts of the sky at all times.
Like the spaghetti monster, it's certainly not impossible they don't exist. It's also not impossible that they're indeed here, unfailingly remaining just beyond our ability to confirm their presence, and they look exactly as they appear in the popular imagination -- except with bowler hats.
The other side has to prove that they exist, not vice versa.
By that reasoning, You cannot actually prove that anyone else exists except you. The burden of proof is on you to prove you are not the only being in existence. Have fun.
prove they are fictional. or not. it's still open.
>UFOs are more inpressive (advanced flight tech, little green men) but fictional.
The only people who believe this haven't studied the data, or dug any deeper than surface level. If we disqualify all single-witness events and only select for highly credible individuals the evidence is still overwhelming.
The only people who believe this haven't studied the data, or dug any deeper than surface level. If we disqualify all single-witness events and only select for highly credible individuals the evidence is still overwhelming.
Evidence of what?
> Fighter jets (Like the Navy HUD showed in the article?) have radars, targeting pods with high zoom, IR, TV, and laser-range-detectors, and fly in formation.
Yes. Also very possible that they have something else that's classified but gives an extra layer of plausibility.
Yes. Also very possible that they have something else that's classified but gives an extra layer of plausibility.
I think most people assume the U in UFO stands for alien, but I think it's more likely it stands for "top secret military aircraft (manned or unmanned) of human origin that the overwhelming majority of military pilots and air traffic controllers aren't going to have clearance to know about".
If the SR-71 could go as fast as it did using 50s technology I don't see why modern classified tech wouldn't be similarly impressive. Just look at how far racing cars have come since then for example, largely due to the rise of computers.
Pulling between 500-800Gs is a huge feat as that force would instantly kill any human being and would obliterate any constructed craft we're capable of building.
My bet is those turns are a no-lock targeting pod track without reliable range information, or biting off on something else mid-track.
Why put a person in it? There a place for human pilots when decisions need to be made but for (say) an SR-72 there's no need.
Regardless, our craft materials could not withstand that force either.
UFO are cool, they don't need to be from aliens to be cool.
New weather phenomena? So cool!
Strange illusion? Still cool!
Technical prowess from a foreign gov? Super cool!
New weather phenomena? So cool!
Strange illusion? Still cool!
Technical prowess from a foreign gov? Super cool!
Luis Elizondo, former head of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, has publicly stated that they're 99% sure that the 5-10% of the crafts they are not able to identify are not technologies from foreign governments. He's also mentioned that the Pentagon is aware that Russian and Chinese governments are also in the same position and have been working to figure it out.
These craft pull 500-800Gs and have been measured to be going 13000-20000mph+, so it's highly unlikely that they're made by humans, unless we've figured out a way to not turn into goo at that force, and use materials that could withstand that force as well.
Whatever these things are, they're not weather phenomena, nor illusions, especially when they've been visually identified by countless navy and air force pilots, and picked up/measured by military radar, satellite systems, and other instruments. Pretty sure the military would have easily ruled out weather phenomena/illusions given their budget and capabilities.
These craft pull 500-800Gs and have been measured to be going 13000-20000mph+, so it's highly unlikely that they're made by humans, unless we've figured out a way to not turn into goo at that force, and use materials that could withstand that force as well.
Whatever these things are, they're not weather phenomena, nor illusions, especially when they've been visually identified by countless navy and air force pilots, and picked up/measured by military radar, satellite systems, and other instruments. Pretty sure the military would have easily ruled out weather phenomena/illusions given their budget and capabilities.
From Wikipedia:
“In the 2021 New Yorker article, reporter Gideon Lewis-Kraus writes that after talking with Elizondo, it was difficult to tell what AATIP had accomplished, and when pressed, Elizondo "invokes his security oath like a catchphrase". When in 2019 Elizondo was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, Elizondo stated that the government had fragments of a UFO, "then quickly invoked his security oath".[4] Colavito writes that Elizondo "still speaks of demon cabals, otherworldly beings, and UFOs operating beyond human perception — just not on 60 Minutes", and characterizes Elizondo's claims as "bad science and dangerous as government policy, the kind of magical thinking that leads to lunacy and disaster".[30]”
“In the 2021 New Yorker article, reporter Gideon Lewis-Kraus writes that after talking with Elizondo, it was difficult to tell what AATIP had accomplished, and when pressed, Elizondo "invokes his security oath like a catchphrase". When in 2019 Elizondo was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, Elizondo stated that the government had fragments of a UFO, "then quickly invoked his security oath".[4] Colavito writes that Elizondo "still speaks of demon cabals, otherworldly beings, and UFOs operating beyond human perception — just not on 60 Minutes", and characterizes Elizondo's claims as "bad science and dangerous as government policy, the kind of magical thinking that leads to lunacy and disaster".[30]”
it's kind of dodgy if you can point to one flawed human and say, "see i found some dirt" and use that to convince yourself that everything you can somehow tenuously connect to that human must be false. radical simplification of reality. i understand the motivation, but i don't think it pass muster.
"breathe a sigh of relief, people, the US government today, can announce, that after decades of so-called unexplained sightings, radar data, navy witnesses, civilian encounters worldwide numbering in the millions, we have finally been able to come to a conclusive and final answer that will explain once and for all the previously mysterious phenomena known as UFOs. Here it is, folks: Luis Elizondo has been proven to be a crank. Now all of us can rest in the surety that UFOs must therefore be false, and no further study needs to be done about any of it. Thank you."
it's like a "omg i can't take this truth" fantasy to think this kind of stuff. Just be a little bit open, if it scares you, just ignore it...but pretending it's not real....closes yourself off to reality.
"breathe a sigh of relief, people, the US government today, can announce, that after decades of so-called unexplained sightings, radar data, navy witnesses, civilian encounters worldwide numbering in the millions, we have finally been able to come to a conclusive and final answer that will explain once and for all the previously mysterious phenomena known as UFOs. Here it is, folks: Luis Elizondo has been proven to be a crank. Now all of us can rest in the surety that UFOs must therefore be false, and no further study needs to be done about any of it. Thank you."
it's like a "omg i can't take this truth" fantasy to think this kind of stuff. Just be a little bit open, if it scares you, just ignore it...but pretending it's not real....closes yourself off to reality.
which wikipedia article?
My comment is not trying to characterize any UFO in particular.
I'm just stating that the whole concept of UFO is exciting, regarding of interpretation.
I'm open minded about any theory, in any case, it's a lot of fun.
I'm just stating that the whole concept of UFO is exciting, regarding of interpretation.
I'm open minded about any theory, in any case, it's a lot of fun.
> Technical prowess from a foreign gov? Super cool!
... and depending on your viewpoint, super scary!
... and depending on your viewpoint, super scary!
I think some of the people behind the current "disclosure" are definitely pushing that angle.
Russians have flying saucers! Fund us plz & thank.
Russians have flying saucers! Fund us plz & thank.
To be clear, the pentagon for the last 70 years has kept a tight lip on any UFO information, and is only now creating a report after forced compliance.
Even the stuff Harry Reid did a while back was fought against by the pentagon.
Their position seems to be, anything we don't know that is in our airspace is a threat, and none of it is the public's business
Even the stuff Harry Reid did a while back was fought against by the pentagon.
Their position seems to be, anything we don't know that is in our airspace is a threat, and none of it is the public's business
The TTSA disclosures of videos were snuck out without going through proper channels, if not exactly fully unofficial. And they did get groused at for that.
But there was a point, I think in late 2019, when they made a very unforced admission that the videos were real. it would have been much more normal and typical of their previous behaviour to just stick to "we can neither confirm nor deny".
And that, in itself, is interesting.
But there was a point, I think in late 2019, when they made a very unforced admission that the videos were real. it would have been much more normal and typical of their previous behaviour to just stick to "we can neither confirm nor deny".
And that, in itself, is interesting.
They could also be the ones behind the developments. So not only can you scare the population into securing more funding, but they serve as an implicit threat to other governments: if these things can evade an F35-A, what hope does a MiG have?
Plus, it's a good sales tactic.
Plus, it's a good sales tactic.
could also be technical prowess from a private company or part of our government that is so secret it doesn't want to tell the military what it's doing, so it can be classified.
And that would also be cool
I've met a few people that really believe in aliens, and they are insufferable. It's like trying to talk to a young earth christian about dinosaurs. In general, I like when people question the official story, but not when they have their own answers to their questions. I have a feeling that this article is in response to that crowd. Though I can't read it because nytimes and all.
And that would also be cool
I've met a few people that really believe in aliens, and they are insufferable. It's like trying to talk to a young earth christian about dinosaurs. In general, I like when people question the official story, but not when they have their own answers to their questions. I have a feeling that this article is in response to that crowd. Though I can't read it because nytimes and all.
If the CIA ever released an incontrovertible UFO video (i.e. the UFO landing, aliens stepping out and doing a hula dance, all at 8K video resolution) along with multiple sober military officials saying they saw the whole scene transpire with their own eyes, I'd still put the odds that the report is real at one in 1000.
The fact is that there are just too many imaginable ways that such a video artifact could be released, even by well-meaning officials, and still be fake: As the OP article states, the secrecy in government agencies creates many perverse, confusing incentives that can have unintended consequences.... and we never have enough of "provenance" of any artifact to be able determine its veracity.
For instance, how do we know that the military doesn't have a secret computer graphics team that was tasked with making a demo video of what a UFO may look like, based on eyewitness testimony? Then, the infamous Navy videos accidentally leaks, but the CG team is super-secret, so officials have to pretend they are real, to protect the secrecy of their CG team? (I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying this is one of 1000 possible mundane explanations for these videos)
In summary, I don't think the CIA/military are technically capable of providing incontrovertible evidence for anything, they are simply not built to be trustworthy on these kinds of matters. This is because the scientific method requires open access to their data gathering process, which goes against their obsession with secrecy.
The fact is that there are just too many imaginable ways that such a video artifact could be released, even by well-meaning officials, and still be fake: As the OP article states, the secrecy in government agencies creates many perverse, confusing incentives that can have unintended consequences.... and we never have enough of "provenance" of any artifact to be able determine its veracity.
For instance, how do we know that the military doesn't have a secret computer graphics team that was tasked with making a demo video of what a UFO may look like, based on eyewitness testimony? Then, the infamous Navy videos accidentally leaks, but the CG team is super-secret, so officials have to pretend they are real, to protect the secrecy of their CG team? (I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying this is one of 1000 possible mundane explanations for these videos)
In summary, I don't think the CIA/military are technically capable of providing incontrovertible evidence for anything, they are simply not built to be trustworthy on these kinds of matters. This is because the scientific method requires open access to their data gathering process, which goes against their obsession with secrecy.
This is my view as well. It's more than a bit fishy that most UFO sightings are from the US, and not uniformly distributed around the world.
Sampling bias. Try searching in languages other than English. Belgium UFO wave. Mexico City UFOs. UFOs in South America.
I think it's fishy that most SSP/SAP insider people with so called UFO related leaks come from the US (and further, are white dudes), because it seems like these programs would be global. But you can definitely find UFO reports happening around the world.
Want a rabbit hole? Search "不明飞行物在中国" on Baidu and go to the videos page.
The world's a lot bigger than your media shows it
I think it's fishy that most SSP/SAP insider people with so called UFO related leaks come from the US (and further, are white dudes), because it seems like these programs would be global. But you can definitely find UFO reports happening around the world.
Want a rabbit hole? Search "不明飞行物在中国" on Baidu and go to the videos page.
The world's a lot bigger than your media shows it
How about a 10,000 year old UFO painting from India?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10000-year-old-roc...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/10000-year-old-roc...
Unless pentagon is engaged in a disinformation campaign, the data made available this year make this debunking article very data-poor.
Even Obama came on record in an interview saying there are real videos, which show unexplainable movement and trajectories [1].
Of course Obama could have been misinformed, they could have been unable to better analyze the images.
1 - https://wgntv.com/news/barack-obama-talks-about-ufos-again-o...
Even Obama came on record in an interview saying there are real videos, which show unexplainable movement and trajectories [1].
Of course Obama could have been misinformed, they could have been unable to better analyze the images.
1 - https://wgntv.com/news/barack-obama-talks-about-ufos-again-o...
The videos have been explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8
The pentagon released them because they were getting sick of FOIA requests from the mob of people the To The Stars folks have been rallying.
GAO is currently reviewing the contracts granted to those folks as well.
The pentagon released them because they were getting sick of FOIA requests from the mob of people the To The Stars folks have been rallying.
GAO is currently reviewing the contracts granted to those folks as well.
That video only explains the video footage if you assume everyone who were part of that operation are lying.
There were plenty of people who saw it on their radars, and at least one of them was a very highly ranked military.
There were plenty of people who saw it on their radars, and at least one of them was a very highly ranked military.
The radar issue is discussed in the video. What he says is entirely accurate. Despite how capable these radars are, they don't prevent the operator doing the equivalent of asking the wrong question.
Eyewitness testimony, even from experts, is notoriously unreliable. However everything in the testimonies so far is consistent with misunderstanding parallax.
Eyewitness testimony, even from experts, is notoriously unreliable. However everything in the testimonies so far is consistent with misunderstanding parallax.
His radar explanation for FLIR doesn't really hold well if you take their stories into account though. There's a limit to how far away it could have been since they're saying they saw it near sea level below where they were. He also doesn't explain why the jet engines of said plane didn't show up as a different color on the IR camera.
Eyewitness testimonies are not very reliable, no, but unless they're lying, there was definitely something unexplained going on there. It's possible there's an explanation which covers all of it, but Mick West's doesn't.
Not to mention that he's a game developer and not an aerospace engineer. I really doubt he has any experience using the systems that he's explaining. I would love to see that video "peer-reviewed" by someone who has the credentials to talk about those things.
Eyewitness testimonies are not very reliable, no, but unless they're lying, there was definitely something unexplained going on there. It's possible there's an explanation which covers all of it, but Mick West's doesn't.
Not to mention that he's a game developer and not an aerospace engineer. I really doubt he has any experience using the systems that he's explaining. I would love to see that video "peer-reviewed" by someone who has the credentials to talk about those things.
Hahaha. "Debunking" video by Mick West. He's the guy that thinks the Navy can't tell the difference between a bird, and an aircraft. A bug on a sensor and the plane. Desperate mental gymnastics a crazy attempt to confirm existing biases and preserve a belief system he feels is threatened by data. Why have anything to do with someone so trapped like that?
That video was debunked, the author clearly has no idea how these systems work.
>GAO is currently reviewing the contracts granted to those folks as well.
The inspector general is investigating the complete and total failure of our bureaucracy to report and respond to these things.
>GAO is currently reviewing the contracts granted to those folks as well.
The inspector general is investigating the complete and total failure of our bureaucracy to report and respond to these things.
The videos are real. But, just because we can’t explain it doesn’t mean it’s outer space aliens.
Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic (or outer space alien technology).
Any sufficiently advanced technology looks like magic (or outer space alien technology).
Sometimes a bug on the lens also looks like magic.
How does that bug show up on the radars of two ships?
Operator error https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354181
The military is bending over backwards not to favor the outer space aliens hypothesis. It's "unexplained aerial phenomena". Not knowing what it is makes it interesting enough.
For what it's worth, we at least know the videos are official: https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents
Ha, indeed, why would the Pentagon ever engage in disinformation?
There's a moment in a Gabriel García Márquez novel where the villagers are completely unimpressed by the invention of the airplane as they had all already tried out the flying carpet in the county fair and in comparison the airplane looked cumbersome. This article reads like someone complaining that their cool science work will not get the public recognition they think they deserve because the common standard for alien discoveries is way too high.
> "Powerful telescopes that will soon be operational may be capable of detecting city lights on the night side of planets that orbit distant stars"
Hopefully that "may" is not carrying too much load as this would be incredibly cool.
> "Powerful telescopes that will soon be operational may be capable of detecting city lights on the night side of planets that orbit distant stars"
Hopefully that "may" is not carrying too much load as this would be incredibly cool.
Maybe if the alien city covers the entire planet and consists mostly of searchlights. Otherwise, the "may" and "soon" are too optimistic.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanet...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanet...
> Powerful telescopes that will soon be operational may be capable of detecting city lights on the night side of planets that orbit distant stars or the telltale mark of reflected light from planet-wide solar-collecting arrays or the distinctive sign of industrial chemicals in a planet’s atmosphere. All of these “technosignatures,” should we find evidence of them, will be small effects. If we do detect such things, you better believe that my colleagues and I will go to extraordinary lengths to eliminate every possible source of error and every possible alternative explanation.
That is nuts, and incredibly exciting!
That is nuts, and incredibly exciting!
Yes but probably those planets will be thousands of years in the past. We should also spend money studying the things that are here now. Scary as it is to look for the "monster under the bed"
Scientific analysis of why the "it's probably not extraordinary" claim on the Navy sensor data is bullshit:
ESTIMATING FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS OF ANOMALOUS UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL VEHICLES[0]
More like that: https://www.explorescu.org/publications
[0]: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939
ESTIMATING FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS OF ANOMALOUS UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL VEHICLES[0]
More like that: https://www.explorescu.org/publications
[0]: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939
I looked at the Tic Tac explanation in that article (section 2.4.3); I assert it's ... weak.
The object is tracking left with respect to the aircraft, as seen by the increasing left azimuth reported from the sensor. However, that azimuth is reported in units of whole degrees, with the sensor field-of-view being 0.7 degrees at 1x zoom or 0.35 degrees at 2x zoom.
The rate of azimuth change is about 0.3 degrees per second based on some simple stopwatch measurements.
In other words, if the sensor loses lock and ceases to track the target, you would expect the object to appear to accelerate left out of frame. At the 2x zoom, the angular distance across half the field-of-view (i.e. from the middle to the left edge) is 0.175 degrees; so you'd absolutely it to disappear in ~0.5 seconds.
You can see some "bobbling" of the lock as the operator switches between zoom levels in the video, and indeed the apparent sudden movement of the object occurs immediately after one increase in zoom level.
The data presented is equally consistent with this theory, but the article doesn't address that possibility at all - instead assuming that the explanation can only be due to kinematics of the object.
So, yeah, weak.
The object is tracking left with respect to the aircraft, as seen by the increasing left azimuth reported from the sensor. However, that azimuth is reported in units of whole degrees, with the sensor field-of-view being 0.7 degrees at 1x zoom or 0.35 degrees at 2x zoom.
The rate of azimuth change is about 0.3 degrees per second based on some simple stopwatch measurements.
In other words, if the sensor loses lock and ceases to track the target, you would expect the object to appear to accelerate left out of frame. At the 2x zoom, the angular distance across half the field-of-view (i.e. from the middle to the left edge) is 0.175 degrees; so you'd absolutely it to disappear in ~0.5 seconds.
You can see some "bobbling" of the lock as the operator switches between zoom levels in the video, and indeed the apparent sudden movement of the object occurs immediately after one increase in zoom level.
The data presented is equally consistent with this theory, but the article doesn't address that possibility at all - instead assuming that the explanation can only be due to kinematics of the object.
So, yeah, weak.
I also checked on the journal that published this analysis; it turns out that the principle author of the article is also the editor-in-chief of the journal... also the publisher of the journal (MDPI) has been on-and-off the lists of predatory journal publishers for some years.
That's good analysis. But by your standard of equally consistent your analysis also must be judged as weak. I don't think either theory are weak. They're just theories consistent with the evidence. So that's kind of strong.
Also I agree with you on the journal. Probably not the best example. I'd just rather people try to analyze than dismiss it irrationally so even a dodgy journal, with a comprehensive analysis is better. I don't think we should "default to trust" something just because it's in a journal. Likewise no default to distrust.
None of the radar data released recently about Omaha shows extraordinary speeds or Gs. So maybe nothing in the hard data shows any smoking gun evidence of super speeds. That might be deliberate by the Navy but such speculation doesn't change facts we have.
I dislike the "smearing of witnesses" and default to "explained" attitude brought to this, which is interesting and justifies curiosity. Witnesses are unreliable but Navy aviators are trained witnesses, experts in the domain of estimating speed, distance, aircraft type, maneuvering - and you have a handful of them who have come forward saying they saw dozens of these things over days. And people want to just pretend the Navy doesn't know the difference between a plane and a bird, or doesn't know how to read their sensors or calibrate them to remove artefacts.
I'm not saying you're disputing there is a real object detected, but some people say it's a fly on the glass or something ridiculous. I dislike these contemptuous dismissals of trained observers and supposedly best-in-class top-secret sensors. So I want to see more analysis and curious discussion ... less arrogant dismissal.
Even the points that are not in contention are extraordinary: no control surface, no heat signature, no propulsion signature, extended time-on-station, active jamming, foreknowledge of CAP point, apparent thermoptic/radar cloaking (or superspeed) re it can vanish and appear almost instantly.
They say the things dropped from space to sea-level in a second. That's amazing. I think a valid alternative is that they were able to hack/delude the radar into thinking they just appeared. Just like how they disappeared. It's seems possible a smooth white object could be covered in some sort of optical/thermal/radar distorting materials, that could make it vanish to sensors even if it was still there. That's not the explanation I believe, but I think it's a valid alternative in light of a lack of discriminating evidence.
I don't have any explanations for the violation of aerodynamics, lack of heat, wake, or extended "battery life". I would sure love to know how it did that. That's extraordinary. Until proven otherwise. I think you can question the data a bit, and the witnesses a lot, but when you start reaching hard to twist everything into an "explained away" narrative, you're missing the signal that's there. And it seems crazy, to do mental gymnastics that requires a coincidence of all the failures, repeated, over time: the Pentagon is lying or doesn't know it's a bird, or a stick of gum on the sensor, the aviators are hallucination, the sensors (across the entire battle group) are malfunctioning at the same time and erroneously reporting internally-consistent tracks, that then coincide with positions seen by aviators visually, this didn't just happen as a glitch in one moment, but consistently, over days, and months (according to some people). As these strange skythings have also happened to thousands of civilians and other servicepeople around the world over decades. It's crazy to paint it as "a coincidence of errors and hallucinations". I'm not saying anyone who says that is crazy, just the idea itself, because I guess to them it seems crazy to say it's aliens.
Maybe this thing is all a weird and elaborate way for the US govt to do a big reveal of some new exotic drone tech it has and make sure everyone in the world is watching. Could be truth of it, but I think the mileage attainable from running with the "we don't know / mystery" narrative is probably higher than tying it all up in a neat little bow right now. I don't think any of this will answer the question of aliens/not - it's entirely possible to be having a dealing with aliens in secret, and then do this "semi-public" reveal in parallel and keep the two things isolated, maybe deliberately, maybe to plunge the secret alien connection further into the depths of secrecy. I think the key thing is the big reveal is about control. Seems various factions have been coming forward over time to leak things out, now someone needs to get out in front of this, unified front, unified messaging, and recapture control of the narrative.
Also I agree with you on the journal. Probably not the best example. I'd just rather people try to analyze than dismiss it irrationally so even a dodgy journal, with a comprehensive analysis is better. I don't think we should "default to trust" something just because it's in a journal. Likewise no default to distrust.
None of the radar data released recently about Omaha shows extraordinary speeds or Gs. So maybe nothing in the hard data shows any smoking gun evidence of super speeds. That might be deliberate by the Navy but such speculation doesn't change facts we have.
I dislike the "smearing of witnesses" and default to "explained" attitude brought to this, which is interesting and justifies curiosity. Witnesses are unreliable but Navy aviators are trained witnesses, experts in the domain of estimating speed, distance, aircraft type, maneuvering - and you have a handful of them who have come forward saying they saw dozens of these things over days. And people want to just pretend the Navy doesn't know the difference between a plane and a bird, or doesn't know how to read their sensors or calibrate them to remove artefacts.
I'm not saying you're disputing there is a real object detected, but some people say it's a fly on the glass or something ridiculous. I dislike these contemptuous dismissals of trained observers and supposedly best-in-class top-secret sensors. So I want to see more analysis and curious discussion ... less arrogant dismissal.
Even the points that are not in contention are extraordinary: no control surface, no heat signature, no propulsion signature, extended time-on-station, active jamming, foreknowledge of CAP point, apparent thermoptic/radar cloaking (or superspeed) re it can vanish and appear almost instantly.
They say the things dropped from space to sea-level in a second. That's amazing. I think a valid alternative is that they were able to hack/delude the radar into thinking they just appeared. Just like how they disappeared. It's seems possible a smooth white object could be covered in some sort of optical/thermal/radar distorting materials, that could make it vanish to sensors even if it was still there. That's not the explanation I believe, but I think it's a valid alternative in light of a lack of discriminating evidence.
I don't have any explanations for the violation of aerodynamics, lack of heat, wake, or extended "battery life". I would sure love to know how it did that. That's extraordinary. Until proven otherwise. I think you can question the data a bit, and the witnesses a lot, but when you start reaching hard to twist everything into an "explained away" narrative, you're missing the signal that's there. And it seems crazy, to do mental gymnastics that requires a coincidence of all the failures, repeated, over time: the Pentagon is lying or doesn't know it's a bird, or a stick of gum on the sensor, the aviators are hallucination, the sensors (across the entire battle group) are malfunctioning at the same time and erroneously reporting internally-consistent tracks, that then coincide with positions seen by aviators visually, this didn't just happen as a glitch in one moment, but consistently, over days, and months (according to some people). As these strange skythings have also happened to thousands of civilians and other servicepeople around the world over decades. It's crazy to paint it as "a coincidence of errors and hallucinations". I'm not saying anyone who says that is crazy, just the idea itself, because I guess to them it seems crazy to say it's aliens.
Maybe this thing is all a weird and elaborate way for the US govt to do a big reveal of some new exotic drone tech it has and make sure everyone in the world is watching. Could be truth of it, but I think the mileage attainable from running with the "we don't know / mystery" narrative is probably higher than tying it all up in a neat little bow right now. I don't think any of this will answer the question of aliens/not - it's entirely possible to be having a dealing with aliens in secret, and then do this "semi-public" reveal in parallel and keep the two things isolated, maybe deliberately, maybe to plunge the secret alien connection further into the depths of secrecy. I think the key thing is the big reveal is about control. Seems various factions have been coming forward over time to leak things out, now someone needs to get out in front of this, unified front, unified messaging, and recapture control of the narrative.
The author describes their research agenda below. It sounds like they expect alien civilization to exactly mirror human civilization:
"detecting city lights on the night side of planets that orbit distant stars or the telltale mark of reflected light from planet-wide solar-collecting arrays or the distinctive sign of industrial chemicals in a planet’s atmosphere. All of these “technosignatures,” should we find evidence of them, will be small effects. If we do detect such things, you better believe that my colleagues and I will go to extraordinary lengths to eliminate every possible source of error and every possible alternative explanation. This will take time and careful effort."
"detecting city lights on the night side of planets that orbit distant stars or the telltale mark of reflected light from planet-wide solar-collecting arrays or the distinctive sign of industrial chemicals in a planet’s atmosphere. All of these “technosignatures,” should we find evidence of them, will be small effects. If we do detect such things, you better believe that my colleagues and I will go to extraordinary lengths to eliminate every possible source of error and every possible alternative explanation. This will take time and careful effort."
This is an active search. They are looking for things they know they can detect and which—if detected—will provide them with enough certainty that they're looking at output from an alien civilization to warrant further investigation.
We may stumble upon something novel, like Tabby's Star[0], and ultimately determine it is caused by an alien civilization or not. This sort of passive search is fine; but generally speaking, if aliens do things differently than we do, they will either be invisible to us, or we won't know we're looking at them even if we see them. We don't know enough to have any kind of active search for aliens that aren't like us in some way. Even searches for things like Dyson swarms are informed by speculating about our own needs.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabby%27s_Star
We may stumble upon something novel, like Tabby's Star[0], and ultimately determine it is caused by an alien civilization or not. This sort of passive search is fine; but generally speaking, if aliens do things differently than we do, they will either be invisible to us, or we won't know we're looking at them even if we see them. We don't know enough to have any kind of active search for aliens that aren't like us in some way. Even searches for things like Dyson swarms are informed by speculating about our own needs.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabby%27s_Star
From the article:
Plus the testimony of "Top Gun" pilots, who are under constant psychological monitoring, whose eyes must be in 1A shape (friend/foe distinction within the fraction of a second), who are well studied and trained in practical avionics...
What I do not understand here:
* on the one hand you got data from the most advanced radar network of its time, one, that has been created specifically for this task: detect flying objects of unknown origin.
* on the other hand you got T.O.P. pilots, Aces, witnessing the same
and the answer of this scientist is:
* there is no data from different point of view
* witnesses are unreliable
And each time, somebody tries to come up with an example on what it could have been, the probability of the example holds only, unless you disregard the rest of the information.
Scientists can’t accurately gauge distances or velocity from a pilot’s
testimony [...]
What a scientist needs are precise measurements from multiple viewpoints
provided by devices that register various wavelengths (visual, infrared,
radar).
Plus the testimony of "Top Gun" pilots, who are under constant psychological monitoring, whose eyes must be in 1A shape (friend/foe distinction within the fraction of a second), who are well studied and trained in practical avionics...
What I do not understand here:
* on the one hand you got data from the most advanced radar network of its time, one, that has been created specifically for this task: detect flying objects of unknown origin.
* on the other hand you got T.O.P. pilots, Aces, witnessing the same
and the answer of this scientist is:
* there is no data from different point of view
* witnesses are unreliable
And each time, somebody tries to come up with an example on what it could have been, the probability of the example holds only, unless you disregard the rest of the information.
Here's a good explanation of the Nimitz FLIR1 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1di0XIa9RQ
Thanks! I am actually subscribed to his channel. And while I respect and enjoy the great lengths he goes in his analysis, again, it's just a single point of view, that leaves us with all the other questions open.
I thinked about that a lot. I came to some conclusions:
1. Certainly theres life somewhere in the the universe. Inteligent? Problably not. We as humans tend to think that intelligence is necessary for survival, but other species, with the exception when dealing with us, seens to do fine without that.
2. IF they are inteligent, they are bound to the same physical principals that us humans are, so that's a reason why we didn't make contact. Maybe.
3. I don't think that they are extraterrestrial, maybe some type of advanced drone, but not out of earth.
4. If the are indeed aliens, the reason why they don't land and present themselfs is maybe because they just don't care. If what people are saying is true, they may be so advanced that for them, we are like antes or something, insignificant, and problably not worth attention.
2. IF they are inteligent, they are bound to the same physical principals that us humans are, so that's a reason why we didn't make contact. Maybe.
3. I don't think that they are extraterrestrial, maybe some type of advanced drone, but not out of earth.
4. If the are indeed aliens, the reason why they don't land and present themselfs is maybe because they just don't care. If what people are saying is true, they may be so advanced that for them, we are like antes or something, insignificant, and problably not worth attention.
Donald Hoffman has a paper supporting the premise that we're in a simulation. There's a number of good youtube video interviews with him. He doesn't seem to be a charlatan, or one of those ancient alien fakes.
If they are from another VR headset, or outside our reality, then their "physics" is also different because all laws of science only apply to our reality, (and math, math is universal across all realities, the only constant)...
I've heard some surmise it might be easier to transverse universes in a multiverse, (which could be "stacked" like an onion has layers), so they could be coming from there, or they could have been here a very long time, and they're really just living "hidden" on venus, and looking for greener pastures.
Could even just be time-travel experiments from ourselves in the future.
It doesn't have to be aliens, but it could be... and it probably isn't, and it's still interesting that there's that small chance, which is smaller than us finding it through telescopes, but that chance is still pretty darn cool.
If they are from another VR headset, or outside our reality, then their "physics" is also different because all laws of science only apply to our reality, (and math, math is universal across all realities, the only constant)...
I've heard some surmise it might be easier to transverse universes in a multiverse, (which could be "stacked" like an onion has layers), so they could be coming from there, or they could have been here a very long time, and they're really just living "hidden" on venus, and looking for greener pastures.
Could even just be time-travel experiments from ourselves in the future.
It doesn't have to be aliens, but it could be... and it probably isn't, and it's still interesting that there's that small chance, which is smaller than us finding it through telescopes, but that chance is still pretty darn cool.
One of my friends said that maybe they are advanced drones from Russia or China, but if they are this advanced in aeronautical technology I think they would have invaded the ocident already.
I like the idea of time travelling drones, but it seems a bigger stretch than alien tech.
I like the idea of time travelling drones, but it seems a bigger stretch than alien tech.
Joe Rogan (Spotify Podcast) had Neil degrasse Tyson on a couple of days ago for a discussion on all the UFO/UAP videos and information. It was interesting how Neil basically tore apart the whole subject. I'm no where near as smart as folks like Neil or Elon and both have dismissed the UFO phenomena as unlikely. Their arguments really are pretty strong but people want to believe there is something more out there.
Anyway, it was a great discussion, Neil is a pleasure to listen to.
Anyway, it was a great discussion, Neil is a pleasure to listen to.
They're both arrogant unfortunately. I thought the views of Neil on UFOs, like the views of Joe on psychics were really low value. They're both engaging in "let's selectively ignore evidence and witnesses to preserve existing biases and our existing preferred beliefs" but neither of them see it. They're a mirror of each other: Neil wants to gaslight on UFOs, and Joe wants to gaslight on psychics. And their big platform and audience everyone laps it up. Really, truly sad. But hey, it's OK. People step towards truth but slowly.
The relevant question is why does the search for aliens/ufo's remain in our customs. The one 100% certain thing is that humans have for centuries needed to see something mysterious in the sky. Our metanarrative, as "first world", means that when we do this universal human questioning as we build our symbollic reality, it must originate from 'objective' categories like science and governments and military and not religion.
"scientists like me and my colleagues are on the threshold of gathering data that may be relevant to the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. But this evidence involves subtle findings about phenomena far away in the galaxy"
I'm very curious about this. It sounds like more than the standard spectroscopy that looks for organic compounds and other life signatures. Could anyone provide some more context?
I'm very curious about this. It sounds like more than the standard spectroscopy that looks for organic compounds and other life signatures. Could anyone provide some more context?
I'm guessing they're referring to the James Webb Telescope which has taken like decades longer than planned. there's even an xkcd on it: https://xkcd.com/2014/
The best quote I've got on UFOs is from Leroy Chiao, a former ISS commander.
"Probably some sort of secret military program" [0].
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eWnHHMrck&t=30s
"Probably some sort of secret military program" [0].
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1eWnHHMrck&t=30s
I hope everyone commenting in this thread revisits these words after the Pentagon's UAP report is released and performs an honest reflection on their thought processes.
What do you think it will reveal?
We're probably more likely to find out if aliens exist on July 18th, than what the pentagon releases. Just saying... and that likelihood is extremely low.
The sudden wave of UFO propaganda has me wondering, "Why now?". Will UFOs suddenly become the new enemy we must mobilize against?
Here's my theory:
The aliens do have advanced technology such that they could remain hidden from us, but choose to appear to us in patterns consistent with human mythological sightings -- fleeting/mysterious/ambiguous/infrequently -- due to their own inscrutable alien social norms.
That is, they are friendly, and this is the strange way they show it...
I think it's so as not to "rudely" impinge too strongly on our sense of reality. Especially our place within the universe, since we believe we are at the top.
(just having fun with this)
The aliens do have advanced technology such that they could remain hidden from us, but choose to appear to us in patterns consistent with human mythological sightings -- fleeting/mysterious/ambiguous/infrequently -- due to their own inscrutable alien social norms.
That is, they are friendly, and this is the strange way they show it...
I think it's so as not to "rudely" impinge too strongly on our sense of reality. Especially our place within the universe, since we believe we are at the top.
(just having fun with this)
If you dig into the UFO reports out there - most of which are much less detailed and documented, but also more various and flat out weird than the ones the Pentagon is giving the thumbs up to - then you start to see parallels and linkage with reports of cryptids, with ghosts and spirits, and with fairies and other historical folklore critters. The "ETs in nuts-and-bolts spaceships with a Prime Directive" hypothesis doesn't really hold up as a general explanation for a number of reasons. But that leaves a much stranger and more confusing phenomenon.
Maybe they're just trolling us for pure entertainment. I imagine it would get boring up there for them, silently watching an intellectually inferior lifeform day after day.
I would so troll, if I were an alien.
why would they bother? It just doesnt make sense for them to play stupid games. To what end would they do it?
That's actually a really interesting question given the complexity of the whole phenomenon.
I suddendly feel an urge to play X-COM UFO Defense again :)
This article makes the most sense. Occam’s Razor.
TLDR: hypersonic drones. If it truly was E.T. they would be much faster and could easily evade basic radar technology from the early 1900s.
TLDR: hypersonic drones. If it truly was E.T. they would be much faster and could easily evade basic radar technology from the early 1900s.
Hypersonic things are hot, and they go in straight lines, or else they have big engines and obvious control surfaces. A hypersonic thing that has no engine and no control surfaces is basically a thrown rock and the navy is perfectly capable of recognizing it as such.
Absolutely nothing human that is hypersonic can do that from a dead stop hover without a really unsubtle plume of rocket exhaust.
Absolutely nothing human that is hypersonic can do that from a dead stop hover without a really unsubtle plume of rocket exhaust.
Hover to hypersonic was a visual trick of the system losing lock.
Also the people who said it was hovering:
1. Were at what like 20,000 feet? Until one of them flew down toward it and it disappeared… almost like his sonic boom caused it to disintegrate and melt into thin air, hmm. I mean what does that… could it be… ice?
2. Had zero experience seeing anything like this. Zero.
3. Also said it was moving with no discernible trajectory.
4. Said it looked like when you dropped your cell phone in the kitchen and it bounces around while falling. (Sounds more and more to me like this white, cold object was a falling slab of ice from an icy object that fell from space. Tumbling and flitting as it fell.)
5. Did not have the presence of mind… I mean, come on… to turn on their helmet cameras. Sure there may have been adrenaline in the picture but you don’t get to say the high level of training gives them credibility while also seeing that their training did not adequately kick in here.
6. (one of them) described himself as “the class clown.”
7. (the class clown) was best buddies (quote: he was at my wedding) with one of the people who work on the FLIR software which means that their buddy could be in a position to have some fun.
8. Stated that it seemed from the spot of whitecaps below them that there might be some object just under the water… almost as though some other ice slabs had, just prior, landed in the water after descending from outer space on a ballistic trajectory that was seen on radar.
And a slab of falling ice is 1) not hot and 2) does not fall in a straight line.
So I like the falling slab of ice theory.
The conclusion that it was hypersonic came from pilots with no experience with this sort of thing and from a video of a system losing lock on an object that it was tracking. When that happens, the object can rapidly flit off screen making it appear, to the prepared mind (meaning a mind that wants to see UFOs) that is is suddenly going fast.
>the navy is perfectly capable
Bless their hearts, but these are people who apparently are:
- incapable of releasing the raw radar data as actual data
- incapable of using cell phone cameras while on board a ship, even at the highest levels where rules against cell phones could be overridden, and
- incapable of mounting so much as a single working dashcam on their ship in the year 2020.
Also the people who said it was hovering:
1. Were at what like 20,000 feet? Until one of them flew down toward it and it disappeared… almost like his sonic boom caused it to disintegrate and melt into thin air, hmm. I mean what does that… could it be… ice?
2. Had zero experience seeing anything like this. Zero.
3. Also said it was moving with no discernible trajectory.
4. Said it looked like when you dropped your cell phone in the kitchen and it bounces around while falling. (Sounds more and more to me like this white, cold object was a falling slab of ice from an icy object that fell from space. Tumbling and flitting as it fell.)
5. Did not have the presence of mind… I mean, come on… to turn on their helmet cameras. Sure there may have been adrenaline in the picture but you don’t get to say the high level of training gives them credibility while also seeing that their training did not adequately kick in here.
6. (one of them) described himself as “the class clown.”
7. (the class clown) was best buddies (quote: he was at my wedding) with one of the people who work on the FLIR software which means that their buddy could be in a position to have some fun.
8. Stated that it seemed from the spot of whitecaps below them that there might be some object just under the water… almost as though some other ice slabs had, just prior, landed in the water after descending from outer space on a ballistic trajectory that was seen on radar.
And a slab of falling ice is 1) not hot and 2) does not fall in a straight line.
So I like the falling slab of ice theory.
The conclusion that it was hypersonic came from pilots with no experience with this sort of thing and from a video of a system losing lock on an object that it was tracking. When that happens, the object can rapidly flit off screen making it appear, to the prepared mind (meaning a mind that wants to see UFOs) that is is suddenly going fast.
>the navy is perfectly capable
Bless their hearts, but these are people who apparently are:
- incapable of releasing the raw radar data as actual data
- incapable of using cell phone cameras while on board a ship, even at the highest levels where rules against cell phones could be overridden, and
- incapable of mounting so much as a single working dashcam on their ship in the year 2020.
Dudette if you're going to spend such time on an answer, at least look at the evidence closely.
Ice???? They were seeing and tracking levitating and maneuvering swarms of ice tic tacs for month visually and on radar. Are you sure? This is nuts.
3 is false. It clearly went nose toward him, then started matching his spiral down with a spiral up.
1 is false. It didn't disintegrate at ocean surface, it vanished after spiraling up toward him and jamming radar.
Then reappeared later at the designated rendezvous point.
Maybe it is made of ice. But that's smart, intelligence, possibly alien ice with advanced propulsion. So you didn't really prove anything with the ridiculous ice claim. Please do better.
I accept that the FLIR locks jumps might contribute to perceived movement. Fair enough. But USS Omaha tracking these things vectoring on radar is not an artefact.
- incapable of using cell phone cameras while on board a ship, even at the highest levels where rules against cell phones could be overridden, and
This is false. There are videos released from Navy aviators recorded using cell phones.
I agree with you that quality of video is pathetic. But it's good enough I suppose to bring us all here today to argue about it which is pretty sad I guess
Ice???? They were seeing and tracking levitating and maneuvering swarms of ice tic tacs for month visually and on radar. Are you sure? This is nuts.
3 is false. It clearly went nose toward him, then started matching his spiral down with a spiral up.
1 is false. It didn't disintegrate at ocean surface, it vanished after spiraling up toward him and jamming radar.
Then reappeared later at the designated rendezvous point.
Maybe it is made of ice. But that's smart, intelligence, possibly alien ice with advanced propulsion. So you didn't really prove anything with the ridiculous ice claim. Please do better.
I accept that the FLIR locks jumps might contribute to perceived movement. Fair enough. But USS Omaha tracking these things vectoring on radar is not an artefact.
- incapable of using cell phone cameras while on board a ship, even at the highest levels where rules against cell phones could be overridden, and
This is false. There are videos released from Navy aviators recorded using cell phones.
I agree with you that quality of video is pathetic. But it's good enough I suppose to bring us all here today to argue about it which is pretty sad I guess
>They were seeing and tracking levitating and maneuvering swarms of ice tic tacs for month visually and on radar.
That's not what he said on Lex Fridman podcast. It was more like days. But that is according to the radar which was created by his buddy who could have been trolling him knowing he was going to be in the area.
>3 is false. It clearly went nose toward him, then started matching his spiral down with a spiral up.
I think the nose and the spiral are details you added. I think it "came up" in the same sense that someone might say "the ground came up to meet me" when they describe the perception they might have when landing with a parachute or when diving steeply in an airplane. Not necessarily that it was flying upward.
His perception may very well have been that it was flying upward. But again, he has zero experience with whatever this was, and his brain is used to seeing flying, powered, maneuvering objects, so his brain is fitting the data it sees to that preconceived experience, and not thinking about a falling slab of ice. So in this way his experience was actually working against him understanding what he was seeing.
>1 is false. It didn't disintegrate at ocean surface, it vanished after spiraling up toward him and jamming radar.
I never said it was at the surface though. Yes it vanished, we all agree on that. Can't speak to the jamming but I don't recall him mentioning that. In any case it could have been his radar buddy trolling him, I don't see any reason not to keep that possibility in play.
>Then reappeared later at the designated rendezvous point.
His good buddy who went to his wedding was trolling him. Or the radar operator was in on it and also trolling him.
>There are videos released from Navy aviators recorded using cell phones.
There was a series of incidents last summer (2020) with supposedly 3 days of drone sightings.
Not one video. (If you disagree, please provide links.)
They even anticipated more sightings on day 3 and intentionally, deliberately, with planning, brought in a camera crew with, inexplicably, a single camera apparently and what did they film? They pointed the camera down onto the radar screen while they claim the things were buzzing the ships outside. The resulting footage is so fuzzy you can't even make out the text on the radar screen.
While this was going on for three nights, we are to believe that not one single navy person walked outside on the deck or looked through a porthole and took even one single video of the drones that were swarming the ship… or, if they did, their discipline is so good that none of the videos have ever been posted.
Color me skeptical.
That's not what he said on Lex Fridman podcast. It was more like days. But that is according to the radar which was created by his buddy who could have been trolling him knowing he was going to be in the area.
>3 is false. It clearly went nose toward him, then started matching his spiral down with a spiral up.
I think the nose and the spiral are details you added. I think it "came up" in the same sense that someone might say "the ground came up to meet me" when they describe the perception they might have when landing with a parachute or when diving steeply in an airplane. Not necessarily that it was flying upward.
His perception may very well have been that it was flying upward. But again, he has zero experience with whatever this was, and his brain is used to seeing flying, powered, maneuvering objects, so his brain is fitting the data it sees to that preconceived experience, and not thinking about a falling slab of ice. So in this way his experience was actually working against him understanding what he was seeing.
>1 is false. It didn't disintegrate at ocean surface, it vanished after spiraling up toward him and jamming radar.
I never said it was at the surface though. Yes it vanished, we all agree on that. Can't speak to the jamming but I don't recall him mentioning that. In any case it could have been his radar buddy trolling him, I don't see any reason not to keep that possibility in play.
>Then reappeared later at the designated rendezvous point.
His good buddy who went to his wedding was trolling him. Or the radar operator was in on it and also trolling him.
>There are videos released from Navy aviators recorded using cell phones.
There was a series of incidents last summer (2020) with supposedly 3 days of drone sightings.
Not one video. (If you disagree, please provide links.)
They even anticipated more sightings on day 3 and intentionally, deliberately, with planning, brought in a camera crew with, inexplicably, a single camera apparently and what did they film? They pointed the camera down onto the radar screen while they claim the things were buzzing the ships outside. The resulting footage is so fuzzy you can't even make out the text on the radar screen.
While this was going on for three nights, we are to believe that not one single navy person walked outside on the deck or looked through a porthole and took even one single video of the drones that were swarming the ship… or, if they did, their discipline is so good that none of the videos have ever been posted.
Color me skeptical.
> Absolutely nothing human that is hypersonic can do that from a dead stop hover without a really unsubtle plume of rocket exhaust.
Or they're just small close objects moving much less violently. Don't discount the "bug on the lens"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
Or they're just small close objects moving much less violently. Don't discount the "bug on the lens"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
> and could easily evade basic radar technology from the early 1900s.
Only if they needed to. Wasn’t there a story with the SR-71 that it could show up on some radar and have missiles launched against it but the evasive move for that was to just accelerate because it was faster than the missiles.
Only if they needed to. Wasn’t there a story with the SR-71 that it could show up on some radar and have missiles launched against it but the evasive move for that was to just accelerate because it was faster than the missiles.
So are you suggesting E.T. has faster-than-light vehicles that can travel across the galaxy, breaking all known laws of physics in the process, and has intentionally avoided public contact, but still can’t dodge plain ol’ radio waves with radar?
There’s gotta be an XKCD comic somewhere that has an alien engineer telling his managers that the FTL engines work fine but they should probably do more testing on the radio cloaking device...
There’s gotta be an XKCD comic somewhere that has an alien engineer telling his managers that the FTL engines work fine but they should probably do more testing on the radio cloaking device...
Wait wait wait... The simplest answer is a super advanced drone exists and is being tested?
Extraordinary until proven otherwise. Extraordinary conservatism results in extraordinary ignorance.
I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy.
-- John Henry, Moneyball
What’s most frustrating about the U.F.O.s story is that it obscures the fact that scientists like me and my colleagues are on the threshold of gathering data that may be relevant to the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
-- This dude, real life
Translation: PWEASE don't take mah funding because ahm noloonger sexy enough
I think his fear is overblown. There's room for both. RT arrays are another form of sensor. Money will not dry up. Surprises me tho that if objects are ETs no RT array data has leaked. Super coverup? No data?
Common-sense objections arguable from both sides. Why no White House Lawn big reveal? Maybe they big-revealed in People's Park in Shanghai...or Red Square in Moscow, or Phoenix, AZ. Or Prime Directive. Why anyhow would they go through our government, when we're, as "Joe Rogan" says, "chimps with nukes", why would "elected officials" mean anything to them?
The woo-fringe likes to say the "benevolent ETs" are "seeding out consciousness" for eventual "mass disclosure" and "human evolution". What if it's more like there's no open contact because that's not their point, they get seen sometimes because it's not that important (we can't do shit anyway), and we're actually an agricultural product or a science experiment (to them, at least)? What if the government "knew" that. They'd never fucking say it. What a big fucking let down and popping the bubble of our "great civilization" and our "fantastic fucking egos". No one in power is going to "spill the beans" on the "real inside track" of people with more power than them. The only chance they got is to cling to the mystery, like the priest caste of old (that Jesus beat the shit out of in the temple, and accused of hypocrisy), and get power by being the "mediators" to real power.
Or what if it all happened like the SSP-whistleblowers want you to believe. Vatican had contact in the past. Nazi Germany built a craft through ET telepathic instructions to the Vrill society. Co-opted by Hitler. Secret Antarctic base. Operation Highjump. Operation Paperclip. Breakaway civilizations. Mars Germans. CIA Dark Fleet. Secret space program. We have anti-gravity craft and age-regression and time-travel tech hewn from the reversed-engineered carcasses of ET trojan horses, developed in collusion with aliens in exchange for "treaties" for them to continue their "shady dealings" on Earth. A massive secret society. We've already colonized the solar system. Earth is a backwater of humanity that has already reached the stars. Why not clue us in?
Aliens, Burke: Okay, look. What if that ship didn't even exist, huh? Did you ever think about that? I didn't know! So now, if I went in and made a major security issue out of it, everybody steps in. Administration steps in, and there are no exclusive rights for anybody; nobody wins. So I made a decision and it was... wrong. It was a bad call, Ripley. It was a bad call.
Why not clue us in? Why keep Earth in the dark? It's easier to control. Why surrender your corporate monopoly on interstellar trade? Why does the CIA have security clearances? Why does DoD (etc) keep information in siloed SAPs? Protects their secrets. Protects their advantage. Why read in the whole of the Earth population? No fucking way. No way would we risk out bottom line. Simple corporate economics. Fuck you, Earth. We don't care about telling you the truth. We only care how we can squeeze every goddamned dollar out of every goddamned opportunity. Fuck humanity. It's all about the Benjamins.
Why not like that? So many other things are. Even if "chimps with nukes" got anti-grav tech and codes for the cosmic intergalactic portals so we can jump to other stars, why would you assume we'd be operating in a way that was more advanced, more enlightened, less corrupt, less greedy, than we do in a place like Burma? in HK? In anyway there's a buck to be made, and laws not yet made.
The truth is a sad reflection of our worst characteristics. And the finger of blame can be pointed squarely back at the government and the big corporates in secret advanced tech who collude with them. That truth is never coming out. Because there's "too much to lose". Fuck the public. The only thing that matters is the "people who matter."
This is all a controlled narrative. You'll never get the truth.
The best we're gonna get a rained-down, rosey-glassed, disinformed, fantasy. And that's all we'll ever be trusted with. Sad, sad, sad, sad sad. But what can you expect from humanity? Not a fucking iota more, that's for sure.
Sorry for the defeatist cynicism: hope you take it as a motivator: don't accept the story you get fed. Find a way to work it out for yourself. Whatever it takes. It's worth it.
I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy.
-- John Henry, Moneyball
What’s most frustrating about the U.F.O.s story is that it obscures the fact that scientists like me and my colleagues are on the threshold of gathering data that may be relevant to the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
-- This dude, real life
Translation: PWEASE don't take mah funding because ahm noloonger sexy enough
I think his fear is overblown. There's room for both. RT arrays are another form of sensor. Money will not dry up. Surprises me tho that if objects are ETs no RT array data has leaked. Super coverup? No data?
Common-sense objections arguable from both sides. Why no White House Lawn big reveal? Maybe they big-revealed in People's Park in Shanghai...or Red Square in Moscow, or Phoenix, AZ. Or Prime Directive. Why anyhow would they go through our government, when we're, as "Joe Rogan" says, "chimps with nukes", why would "elected officials" mean anything to them?
The woo-fringe likes to say the "benevolent ETs" are "seeding out consciousness" for eventual "mass disclosure" and "human evolution". What if it's more like there's no open contact because that's not their point, they get seen sometimes because it's not that important (we can't do shit anyway), and we're actually an agricultural product or a science experiment (to them, at least)? What if the government "knew" that. They'd never fucking say it. What a big fucking let down and popping the bubble of our "great civilization" and our "fantastic fucking egos". No one in power is going to "spill the beans" on the "real inside track" of people with more power than them. The only chance they got is to cling to the mystery, like the priest caste of old (that Jesus beat the shit out of in the temple, and accused of hypocrisy), and get power by being the "mediators" to real power.
Or what if it all happened like the SSP-whistleblowers want you to believe. Vatican had contact in the past. Nazi Germany built a craft through ET telepathic instructions to the Vrill society. Co-opted by Hitler. Secret Antarctic base. Operation Highjump. Operation Paperclip. Breakaway civilizations. Mars Germans. CIA Dark Fleet. Secret space program. We have anti-gravity craft and age-regression and time-travel tech hewn from the reversed-engineered carcasses of ET trojan horses, developed in collusion with aliens in exchange for "treaties" for them to continue their "shady dealings" on Earth. A massive secret society. We've already colonized the solar system. Earth is a backwater of humanity that has already reached the stars. Why not clue us in?
Aliens, Burke: Okay, look. What if that ship didn't even exist, huh? Did you ever think about that? I didn't know! So now, if I went in and made a major security issue out of it, everybody steps in. Administration steps in, and there are no exclusive rights for anybody; nobody wins. So I made a decision and it was... wrong. It was a bad call, Ripley. It was a bad call.
Why not clue us in? Why keep Earth in the dark? It's easier to control. Why surrender your corporate monopoly on interstellar trade? Why does the CIA have security clearances? Why does DoD (etc) keep information in siloed SAPs? Protects their secrets. Protects their advantage. Why read in the whole of the Earth population? No fucking way. No way would we risk out bottom line. Simple corporate economics. Fuck you, Earth. We don't care about telling you the truth. We only care how we can squeeze every goddamned dollar out of every goddamned opportunity. Fuck humanity. It's all about the Benjamins.
Why not like that? So many other things are. Even if "chimps with nukes" got anti-grav tech and codes for the cosmic intergalactic portals so we can jump to other stars, why would you assume we'd be operating in a way that was more advanced, more enlightened, less corrupt, less greedy, than we do in a place like Burma? in HK? In anyway there's a buck to be made, and laws not yet made.
The truth is a sad reflection of our worst characteristics. And the finger of blame can be pointed squarely back at the government and the big corporates in secret advanced tech who collude with them. That truth is never coming out. Because there's "too much to lose". Fuck the public. The only thing that matters is the "people who matter."
This is all a controlled narrative. You'll never get the truth.
The best we're gonna get a rained-down, rosey-glassed, disinformed, fantasy. And that's all we'll ever be trusted with. Sad, sad, sad, sad sad. But what can you expect from humanity? Not a fucking iota more, that's for sure.
Sorry for the defeatist cynicism: hope you take it as a motivator: don't accept the story you get fed. Find a way to work it out for yourself. Whatever it takes. It's worth it.
If you are going to make the claim that they are Russian or Chinese drones, please explain how they flew all the way to the US coast and then hung out for hours. That sort of fuel life is less believable than aliens.
This is what I generally see happening any time these things come up. A dismissive half-answer that does not address the physical requirements of the phenomenon. I am not in the "it's aliens" crowd. But I am also not shutting down half my brain so as to ignore the the materials science and exotic energy requirements that would be necessary to reproduce these phenomena.
I am a strong proponent of Occam's Razor. But in order to use Occam's Razor, you have to account for all observations, not dismiss half of them.
As to their being drones: almost certainly. And that's actually the scariest thought. If they are, in fact, hypersonic drones (whatever the origin), then we are in deep shit.
I am a strong proponent of Occam's Razor. But in order to use Occam's Razor, you have to account for all observations, not dismiss half of them.
As to their being drones: almost certainly. And that's actually the scariest thought. If they are, in fact, hypersonic drones (whatever the origin), then we are in deep shit.
Given that in a century or two it seems possible we would be incentivized and capable enough to cobble together intergalactic autonomous probes to blanket the galaxy and prevent any external civilization from wiping us all out, it seems most likely to me we should expect to find such a system already exists first.
Launch them from small naval vessels (or submarines maybe?) that don't show up on radar, a la Millennium Challenge 2002
Better yet - why aren't people claiming or thinking hard that these are U.S. drones and capabilities? Maybe they're showing them off to Russia and China?
I'm paywalled from the article but it's pretty well known that both Russian and China have subs close to, or even in, US territorial waters on a fairly regular basis.
Do you know why they do this? Outside of wartime, I don’t see an obvious benefit.
How do you know your super-quiet sub is undetectable by the most likely adversary?
You send in the super-quiet sub on a series of probes, each time getting closer, until there's contact and possibly an incident. Now you know how good the adversary is!
You send in the super-quiet sub on a series of probes, each time getting closer, until there's contact and possibly an incident. Now you know how good the adversary is!
They don't count on being "outside of wartime" when they need them.
Also, for the big powers, it's really always wartime. Some times are just colder than others.
Also, for the big powers, it's really always wartime. Some times are just colder than others.
Tapping undersea cables is a major use of submarines in peacetime.
Were you alive during the cold war? That's what I think this is. A kind of cold war against a terrestrial foe, in this case one with superior technology.
> But scientifically speaking, there is little to warrant that connection.
Nothing more annoying than people pretending they are open minded about extraterrestrial life when they are not. Plus the need to defend one’s "credibility".
Nobody talking about ufos as non-scientists pretends they are doing science. Just excitement, and interesting questions. A very healthy exercise, essential part of philosophy, metaphysics in particular... Questions which open our mind and help reconsider the "mundane" also, by reframing it.
Who is this guy writing for? Nobody. Or himself. "Look at me I am a very rational person, that does not believe in fairytales".
As Alan Watts said: "science is the art of prediction".
edit:
Perhaps explaining my thinking better:
- a lot of science is in fact predictions aka theories / models based on what is deemed sufficient, correlated observations
- as long as the model fits with the data, it is an acceptable explanation, it still is not "truth"... and if the model doesn’t fit anymore than just discard it, that’s how science progresses
So in light of that, if/when we have sufficient observations, why would a theory that we may be visited by extraterrestrial life, ie. that these UAP may be crafts of extra terrestrial origin, why should such a theory be more problematic or less "scientific" than any other?
The article reminds me of the rejection and resistance even physicists receive as in the Oumuamua story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻOumuamua#Alien_object_hypothe...
He was on Joe Rogan explaining how much resistance he met even among his peers but thankfully he doesn’t care about social media... because lets call it for what it is : what the author ofthe article does indirectly is continue a long line of shaming others who dare put theories (aka predictions) that are unconventional.
Nothing more annoying than people pretending they are open minded about extraterrestrial life when they are not. Plus the need to defend one’s "credibility".
Nobody talking about ufos as non-scientists pretends they are doing science. Just excitement, and interesting questions. A very healthy exercise, essential part of philosophy, metaphysics in particular... Questions which open our mind and help reconsider the "mundane" also, by reframing it.
Who is this guy writing for? Nobody. Or himself. "Look at me I am a very rational person, that does not believe in fairytales".
As Alan Watts said: "science is the art of prediction".
edit:
Perhaps explaining my thinking better:
- a lot of science is in fact predictions aka theories / models based on what is deemed sufficient, correlated observations
- as long as the model fits with the data, it is an acceptable explanation, it still is not "truth"... and if the model doesn’t fit anymore than just discard it, that’s how science progresses
So in light of that, if/when we have sufficient observations, why would a theory that we may be visited by extraterrestrial life, ie. that these UAP may be crafts of extra terrestrial origin, why should such a theory be more problematic or less "scientific" than any other?
The article reminds me of the rejection and resistance even physicists receive as in the Oumuamua story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ʻOumuamua#Alien_object_hypothe...
He was on Joe Rogan explaining how much resistance he met even among his peers but thankfully he doesn’t care about social media... because lets call it for what it is : what the author ofthe article does indirectly is continue a long line of shaming others who dare put theories (aka predictions) that are unconventional.
"Open minded" is not necessarily a virtue. Sometimes it's a weakness. QAnon adherents are, in ways, open minded.
If open mindedness is a weakness, then you’re talking about something else.
Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with open mindedness. The latter is about asking questions, not outright rejecting established ideas.
Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with open mindedness. The latter is about asking questions, not outright rejecting established ideas.
Having chatted to a few folks who believe in QAnon -- if there's one thing I wouldn't describe them as, it's open minded.
Conspiracy theories are basically just modern day religions. They prey on people who like to think of themselves as open minded but who actually just want to be reassured that their paranoid delusions are justified.
Conspiracy theories are basically just modern day religions. They prey on people who like to think of themselves as open minded but who actually just want to be reassured that their paranoid delusions are justified.
open-minded and critical thinking skills are orthogonal.
In Confrontation, he describe his try to find proofs that UFOs are from an ET origin, only to be swallowed in a maelstrom of cults, governement disinfo campaigns, high-strangeness, bullshit artists, and all around memetic pollution making the field opaque to scientific inquiry. The conclusion of this book is that studying UFOs is not a scientific problem as much as an intelligence one, where getting access to reliable data is almost impossible.
In the Invisible College, he provides a lot of data compiled by him and peers from UFO encounters cases he studied, most of them never appearing in the media for preventing witness testimony contamination, and show that this data doesn't fit any simple to digest narrative, such as "aliens", the psychosocial hypothesis or "advanced human tech prototypes".