Unidentified Aerial Phenomena(arxiv.org)
arxiv.org
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11215
96 comments
>Edit: really curious if any of the downvoters could mention their rationale.
Unless Elon tweets about this or VCs start funding UFO startups, average programmer is gonna say BS on anything that challenges the status quo especially in ideology department.
Unless Elon tweets about this or VCs start funding UFO startups, average programmer is gonna say BS on anything that challenges the status quo especially in ideology department.
Excellent deducktion
Personally, I 100% believe that UFOs and alien life both exist. After all, it would be hubris of the highest order to claim that we could identify every aerial visual phenomenon. And I find it extremely hard to believe that in the vastness of the universe, this infinitesimal speck we live on is the only place that the thing we call "life" exists. What I don't believe is that UFOs and aliens are connected, or that aliens routinely visit this planet.
First of all, if aliens did visit this planet, why here? There have to be many more interesting planets to go look at than Earth. If they stumbled on this planet by accident at some point, why would they bother to come back? Even if there aren't more interesting places, what's the probability that an alien being could even breathe the air here? I'm not willing to go full on Signs and speculate that contact with water might be deadly to them, but it's pretty reasonable to guess that aliens would have evolved in places with significantly different atmospheres than Earth has.
And, of course, none of this even touches on the vast distances in interstellar space and the level of technology that it would take to come here. It's certainly conceivable that aliens who are 5 million years ahead of us in societal development might have such technology, but how probable is it? And if they had that level of technology, why not just send a stealthy probe with the alien equivalent of a Really Damn Big Telescope(tm) and park it somewhere out in the asteroid belt if they're that interested in the antics of 7.7 billion primitive bipeds? Nothing really seems to add up for me in the direction of "aliens visit the Earth frequently and UFOs are evidence of those visitations."
First of all, if aliens did visit this planet, why here? There have to be many more interesting planets to go look at than Earth. If they stumbled on this planet by accident at some point, why would they bother to come back? Even if there aren't more interesting places, what's the probability that an alien being could even breathe the air here? I'm not willing to go full on Signs and speculate that contact with water might be deadly to them, but it's pretty reasonable to guess that aliens would have evolved in places with significantly different atmospheres than Earth has.
And, of course, none of this even touches on the vast distances in interstellar space and the level of technology that it would take to come here. It's certainly conceivable that aliens who are 5 million years ahead of us in societal development might have such technology, but how probable is it? And if they had that level of technology, why not just send a stealthy probe with the alien equivalent of a Really Damn Big Telescope(tm) and park it somewhere out in the asteroid belt if they're that interested in the antics of 7.7 billion primitive bipeds? Nothing really seems to add up for me in the direction of "aliens visit the Earth frequently and UFOs are evidence of those visitations."
> First of all, if aliens did visit this planet, why here? There have to be many more interesting planets to go look at than Earth. If they stumbled on this planet by accident at some point, why would they bother to come back?
Where does this idea come from that we are "uninteresting" or less interesting than other places? Also why would these advanced beings not be able to canvas the entire galaxy? What if other places are more interesting, and teaming with alien craft, like Yellowstone is teaming with tourists, and we just see the occasional craft because we are a backwater.
> Even if there aren't more interesting places, what's the probability that an alien being could even breathe the air here? I'm not willing to go full on Signs and speculate that contact with water might be deadly to them, but it's pretty reasonable to guess that aliens would have evolved in places with significantly different atmospheres than Earth has.
Why does that matter? We can't breath in the ocean or space but we explore there.
> And, of course, none of this even touches on the vast distances in interstellar space and the level of technology that it would take to come here. It's certainly conceivable that aliens who are 5 million years ahead of us in societal development might have such technology, but how probable is it?
We have no idea whether it's possible or probable, and thus we also have no idea whether it's impossible or improbable.
> And if they had that level of technology, why not just send a stealthy probe with the alien equivalent of a Really Damn Big Telescope(tm) and park it somewhere out in the asteroid belt if they're that interested in the antics of 7.7 billion primitive bipeds? Nothing really seems to add up for me in the direction of "aliens visit the Earth frequently and UFOs are evidence of those visitations."
Why do we send people in person into the jungle to monitor animals instead of just cameras to record everything remotely? Why do people go to Yellowstone to see the sites instead of just looking at pictures?
Where does this idea come from that we are "uninteresting" or less interesting than other places? Also why would these advanced beings not be able to canvas the entire galaxy? What if other places are more interesting, and teaming with alien craft, like Yellowstone is teaming with tourists, and we just see the occasional craft because we are a backwater.
> Even if there aren't more interesting places, what's the probability that an alien being could even breathe the air here? I'm not willing to go full on Signs and speculate that contact with water might be deadly to them, but it's pretty reasonable to guess that aliens would have evolved in places with significantly different atmospheres than Earth has.
Why does that matter? We can't breath in the ocean or space but we explore there.
> And, of course, none of this even touches on the vast distances in interstellar space and the level of technology that it would take to come here. It's certainly conceivable that aliens who are 5 million years ahead of us in societal development might have such technology, but how probable is it?
We have no idea whether it's possible or probable, and thus we also have no idea whether it's impossible or improbable.
> And if they had that level of technology, why not just send a stealthy probe with the alien equivalent of a Really Damn Big Telescope(tm) and park it somewhere out in the asteroid belt if they're that interested in the antics of 7.7 billion primitive bipeds? Nothing really seems to add up for me in the direction of "aliens visit the Earth frequently and UFOs are evidence of those visitations."
Why do we send people in person into the jungle to monitor animals instead of just cameras to record everything remotely? Why do people go to Yellowstone to see the sites instead of just looking at pictures?
1- Those "aliens" and UAPs could be terrestrial. Imagine an underwater civilization evolved independently from humans in a time scale much larger than our written history.
2- They can have all sorts of agendas. There are discussions that they have visited or interacted with human civilization since thousands of years ago. They may want to affect the course of our development for example.
2- They can have all sorts of agendas. There are discussions that they have visited or interacted with human civilization since thousands of years ago. They may want to affect the course of our development for example.
> really curious if any of the downvoters could mention their rationale.
Not downvoting, but I used to be a huge "UFO fan" around the ages of 8-11. I read book after book, all breathlessly outlining the "reams of evidence" available. I watched documentaries on television, saw UFO topics covered in the newspaper, and I had a shelf full of books all in agreement. Must be true, right?
Except that even as young child I started noticing that all of the photos were blurry. All of them. Focus dispels UFOs just like turning on the light dispels the monster in the bedroom.[0]
Years later I read a book by a "UFO fan" who remained a fan into his adulthood, and got the opportunity to research them as his day job. He was looking into crop circles and cattle mutilation specifically around the time of their peak popularity[1] but as a result of his investigations he rapidly converted from a life-long believer to a sceptic.
Why?
Because he noticed that that evidence of UFO visitations respected state borders. Specifically, there are state-level laws[2] in the USA related to things such as insurance claims related to dead livestock. Cows are stupid, eat poisonous or dangerous things all the time and die. One dead cow represent a loss of hundreds to thousands of dollars. Many dead cows could be a serious financial problem, so there is insurance available for lifestock. The policies apply differently in different jurisdictions, and some would cover "unexplained external causes" such as little green men anally probing cattle for mysterious reasons, and in some areas the policies would not cover this. Unsurprisingly, cattle mutilations and the associated evidence like crop circles would only turn up in areas where the insurance covered it, and never in areas where it wouldn't, even if that was across the road in a paddock owned by the same farmer. Odd huh?
One theory -- that sells books -- is that little green or grey men visit our planet across interstellar distances and amuse themselves by cutting holes into cattle. But not low-value livestock like chickens. Just the high-value ones, like cattle.
The other theory is that selling books and making insurance claims is the only reason anyone talks about any of this seriously. That people see a dozen dead cows, have nothing they can legitimately put on an insurance claim, and are staring down the barrel of financial ruin. What to do? Just drive the tractor in circles over still green crops, bending them down, call Janice from the local news, claim that the circle is impossible, and point at the dead cows you cut a few times with a sharp box cutter a few hours before the news crew turned up. Suddenly, there's "evidence" that you can put on an insurance claim and your farm will survive until the next year.
> many official and declassified sources
The word "declassified" makes UFO fans excited because it's got all the elements of an official secret that they uncovered through their intelligence and sleuthing. It's the same addictive narrative that made QAnon popular.
Most (all?) military observations of potential enemy aircraft are classified! That means nothing. The value of these observations isn't particularly higher than anyone else's either. If one young pilot sees a splotch on the IR feed that "moves oddly", people run off with that and claim that "government has evidence of UFOs!" This recent one is the best example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO_M0hLlJ-Q
At first blush that looks exactly like an optical effect such as Glory [3] that appears to move only because the observer is moving with respect to nearby clouds. The background is moving, and Glory remains stationary relative to the observer because the Sun doesn't move in the sky like the clouds do. It "accelerates away" because the IR camera is on a gimbal on the tip of a Javeline missile and reached its limit. It stops tracking the "target" which then seems to "shoot away" in the picture.
This and similar "evidence" is about as good as it gets. I've never seen anything even remotely convincing. Nonetheless, book after book just collates and rehashes the same evidence, including pictures long since discredited[0] as clear fakes. The authors get paid and can feed their families. The readers get to be entertained just like I was when I was a kid.
Everyone gets something, but we don't get to invite visiting alien dignitaries to speak at a UN convention in much the same way that Air Traffic Control doesn't schedule flights differently on Christmas Eve to avoid hitting Santa.
[0] Several famous UFO photos that adorned book covers published by legitimate print houses turned out to be chandeliers that the photographer had thrown into the sky like a frisbee and then quickly snapped an out-of-focus picture of. On commission for the print house.
[1] Speaking of which, isn't that odd all by itself? Crop circles weren't a "thing" until they were. And then vanished again. While they were popular, like a meme on Reddit, there were all sorts of interesting variations. Similarly, the aliens themselves evolve just like bad Fifty Shades of Grey fan art. Some traits are never mentioned by any "witnesses" until after a particular story, and then it's a common trait many people claim to have seen.
[2] I read this over 15 years ago so I might be confusing a legal boundary with a corporate "coverage area" boundary in a contract, but the gist of the story is the same either way.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(optical_phenomenon)
Not downvoting, but I used to be a huge "UFO fan" around the ages of 8-11. I read book after book, all breathlessly outlining the "reams of evidence" available. I watched documentaries on television, saw UFO topics covered in the newspaper, and I had a shelf full of books all in agreement. Must be true, right?
Except that even as young child I started noticing that all of the photos were blurry. All of them. Focus dispels UFOs just like turning on the light dispels the monster in the bedroom.[0]
Years later I read a book by a "UFO fan" who remained a fan into his adulthood, and got the opportunity to research them as his day job. He was looking into crop circles and cattle mutilation specifically around the time of their peak popularity[1] but as a result of his investigations he rapidly converted from a life-long believer to a sceptic.
Why?
Because he noticed that that evidence of UFO visitations respected state borders. Specifically, there are state-level laws[2] in the USA related to things such as insurance claims related to dead livestock. Cows are stupid, eat poisonous or dangerous things all the time and die. One dead cow represent a loss of hundreds to thousands of dollars. Many dead cows could be a serious financial problem, so there is insurance available for lifestock. The policies apply differently in different jurisdictions, and some would cover "unexplained external causes" such as little green men anally probing cattle for mysterious reasons, and in some areas the policies would not cover this. Unsurprisingly, cattle mutilations and the associated evidence like crop circles would only turn up in areas where the insurance covered it, and never in areas where it wouldn't, even if that was across the road in a paddock owned by the same farmer. Odd huh?
One theory -- that sells books -- is that little green or grey men visit our planet across interstellar distances and amuse themselves by cutting holes into cattle. But not low-value livestock like chickens. Just the high-value ones, like cattle.
The other theory is that selling books and making insurance claims is the only reason anyone talks about any of this seriously. That people see a dozen dead cows, have nothing they can legitimately put on an insurance claim, and are staring down the barrel of financial ruin. What to do? Just drive the tractor in circles over still green crops, bending them down, call Janice from the local news, claim that the circle is impossible, and point at the dead cows you cut a few times with a sharp box cutter a few hours before the news crew turned up. Suddenly, there's "evidence" that you can put on an insurance claim and your farm will survive until the next year.
> many official and declassified sources
The word "declassified" makes UFO fans excited because it's got all the elements of an official secret that they uncovered through their intelligence and sleuthing. It's the same addictive narrative that made QAnon popular.
Most (all?) military observations of potential enemy aircraft are classified! That means nothing. The value of these observations isn't particularly higher than anyone else's either. If one young pilot sees a splotch on the IR feed that "moves oddly", people run off with that and claim that "government has evidence of UFOs!" This recent one is the best example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO_M0hLlJ-Q
At first blush that looks exactly like an optical effect such as Glory [3] that appears to move only because the observer is moving with respect to nearby clouds. The background is moving, and Glory remains stationary relative to the observer because the Sun doesn't move in the sky like the clouds do. It "accelerates away" because the IR camera is on a gimbal on the tip of a Javeline missile and reached its limit. It stops tracking the "target" which then seems to "shoot away" in the picture.
This and similar "evidence" is about as good as it gets. I've never seen anything even remotely convincing. Nonetheless, book after book just collates and rehashes the same evidence, including pictures long since discredited[0] as clear fakes. The authors get paid and can feed their families. The readers get to be entertained just like I was when I was a kid.
Everyone gets something, but we don't get to invite visiting alien dignitaries to speak at a UN convention in much the same way that Air Traffic Control doesn't schedule flights differently on Christmas Eve to avoid hitting Santa.
[0] Several famous UFO photos that adorned book covers published by legitimate print houses turned out to be chandeliers that the photographer had thrown into the sky like a frisbee and then quickly snapped an out-of-focus picture of. On commission for the print house.
[1] Speaking of which, isn't that odd all by itself? Crop circles weren't a "thing" until they were. And then vanished again. While they were popular, like a meme on Reddit, there were all sorts of interesting variations. Similarly, the aliens themselves evolve just like bad Fifty Shades of Grey fan art. Some traits are never mentioned by any "witnesses" until after a particular story, and then it's a common trait many people claim to have seen.
[2] I read this over 15 years ago so I might be confusing a legal boundary with a corporate "coverage area" boundary in a contract, but the gist of the story is the same either way.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(optical_phenomenon)
Neither the comment your responding to nor the paper the submission is on deal with either cattle mutilation nor crop circles
The linked paper on arXiv[1] starts off with: " We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected" (emphasis mine)
The word "ships" is a bit of a stretch to say the least without some really good evidence.
What's their "scientific" evidence? In the synopsis they say: "Adobe colour system" which... umm... how can I put this politely... they looked at the pictures in Photoshop!
The calibrated scientific instrument that they used to quantitively gather evidence for visiting aliens is the eyedropper tool.[3]
This is what I'm talking about. There's no evidence, just people promoting themselves to make a buck, get published, make insurance claims, or just have a laugh. Call me when they have an in-focus picture that's not just a splotch a few pixels across.[2]
[1] There is no special requirement, peer review, or any of the actual scientific process required for publishing a pre-print on arXiv. It's just a dumping ground for students, and is about as authoritative as GitHub.
[2] They have their photos in the paper. Go have a look, they're hilarious! These could be anything, such as airliners, satellites, or whatever your imagination can come up with: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215.pdf
[3] This feels like kicking a puppy, but I have to point out that in all PC colour systems, including Adobe RGB are non-linear and require gamma correction to obtain scientifically-relevant linear light intensity levels. The Photoshop eyedropper tool specifically does not do this, returning the encoded non-linear values. The paper mentions none of this, yet they use the RGB values directly in formulas to estimate metrics like distance. They also mention "RGB spectrum" as if that means anything without the context of the camera filters, sensor response curves, etc...
The word "ships" is a bit of a stretch to say the least without some really good evidence.
What's their "scientific" evidence? In the synopsis they say: "Adobe colour system" which... umm... how can I put this politely... they looked at the pictures in Photoshop!
The calibrated scientific instrument that they used to quantitively gather evidence for visiting aliens is the eyedropper tool.[3]
This is what I'm talking about. There's no evidence, just people promoting themselves to make a buck, get published, make insurance claims, or just have a laugh. Call me when they have an in-focus picture that's not just a splotch a few pixels across.[2]
[1] There is no special requirement, peer review, or any of the actual scientific process required for publishing a pre-print on arXiv. It's just a dumping ground for students, and is about as authoritative as GitHub.
[2] They have their photos in the paper. Go have a look, they're hilarious! These could be anything, such as airliners, satellites, or whatever your imagination can come up with: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215.pdf
[3] This feels like kicking a puppy, but I have to point out that in all PC colour systems, including Adobe RGB are non-linear and require gamma correction to obtain scientifically-relevant linear light intensity levels. The Photoshop eyedropper tool specifically does not do this, returning the encoded non-linear values. The paper mentions none of this, yet they use the RGB values directly in formulas to estimate metrics like distance. They also mention "RGB spectrum" as if that means anything without the context of the camera filters, sensor response curves, etc...
I don't think they are using Photoshop, but that would be hilarious :D
It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB).
Anyway, gamma correction should be problem, unless they shoot raw images and in this case the color space gets out of the equation.
I was curious, so I found another paper by the original authors and the color correction is more carefully considered, since they seem to take into account the sensor response too [0].
[0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf
I was curious, so I found another paper by the original authors and the color correction is more carefully considered, since they seem to take into account the sensor response too [0].
[0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf
This paper also doesn't mention "gamma" and uses the word "linear" only in other contexts.
Even if they're using RAW photos, the response curve is still non-linear because the individual pixels "saturate" as they get closer to the maximum exposure. This shifts colours, because a bright colourful source will saturate the pixels of the matching colour first, and then the other colours a bit later. A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue.
Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analysing the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails.
These guys are so unscientific it's almost a parody of science. It reads like a bunch of high school students doing "science" with their dad's camera, and then a kind professor submits their homework to arXiv to make them feel like they're Just Like The Big Boys.
Having said that, there is some amazing real scientific research being done with CotS camera equipment!
Examples:
https://astronomytechnologytoday.com/2018/06/28/miniwasp-par...
https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/telescope-made-from-multipl...
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1561833
That last one is a beautiful example of how to do science right, with detailed calibration data and characterisation of every aberration in the system.
Even if they're using RAW photos, the response curve is still non-linear because the individual pixels "saturate" as they get closer to the maximum exposure. This shifts colours, because a bright colourful source will saturate the pixels of the matching colour first, and then the other colours a bit later. A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue.
Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analysing the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails.
These guys are so unscientific it's almost a parody of science. It reads like a bunch of high school students doing "science" with their dad's camera, and then a kind professor submits their homework to arXiv to make them feel like they're Just Like The Big Boys.
Having said that, there is some amazing real scientific research being done with CotS camera equipment!
Examples:
https://astronomytechnologytoday.com/2018/06/28/miniwasp-par...
https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/telescope-made-from-multipl...
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1561833
That last one is a beautiful example of how to do science right, with detailed calibration data and characterisation of every aberration in the system.
>These guys are so unscientific...
Naaaaa, this is not my field, so I assume I'm missing some crucial pieces of information (which the paper apparently lack too, I agree on that).
>A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue.
Here I assume that they can do their job, but maybe you are right. Since they are doing their observations at two "meteor stations", maybe they know what they are talking about though.
>Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analisying the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails.
They use a simple mathematical model, with even other obvious limitations, like considering the atmosphere homogenous, so?
Here I'm citing the calibration part (which is a bit disappointing, true :) at the end of page 4:
...The color chart in Fig. 10 allows us to evaluate the color characteristics of the Moon and check the calibration of our cameras. The Moon has a color relative to the sky background: B - G = -2.5 log (1.7 / 2.7) = 0.5. We take into account the color correction in the Jhonson B - V system according to [x] due to Rayleigh scattering equal to 0.14 magnitude. Let’s get the estimate B - V of the Moon: B - V = 0.50 + 0.60 - 0.14 = 0.96. The actual color of the Moon is B - V = 0.91 according to [1] and differs from our estimate by 0.05 magnitudes within the photometric error. In Figure 9 we can see a local feature (water tower). The color diagram of the tower in Fig. 12 gives a distance estimate of 0 ± 1 km. The actual distance is about 300 meters. Thus, colorimetric measurements confirm our estimates...
EDIT: page 4 of the UAP paper
Naaaaa, this is not my field, so I assume I'm missing some crucial pieces of information (which the paper apparently lack too, I agree on that).
>A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue.
Here I assume that they can do their job, but maybe you are right. Since they are doing their observations at two "meteor stations", maybe they know what they are talking about though.
>Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analisying the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails.
They use a simple mathematical model, with even other obvious limitations, like considering the atmosphere homogenous, so?
Here I'm citing the calibration part (which is a bit disappointing, true :) at the end of page 4:
...The color chart in Fig. 10 allows us to evaluate the color characteristics of the Moon and check the calibration of our cameras. The Moon has a color relative to the sky background: B - G = -2.5 log (1.7 / 2.7) = 0.5. We take into account the color correction in the Jhonson B - V system according to [x] due to Rayleigh scattering equal to 0.14 magnitude. Let’s get the estimate B - V of the Moon: B - V = 0.50 + 0.60 - 0.14 = 0.96. The actual color of the Moon is B - V = 0.91 according to [1] and differs from our estimate by 0.05 magnitudes within the photometric error. In Figure 9 we can see a local feature (water tower). The color diagram of the tower in Fig. 12 gives a distance estimate of 0 ± 1 km. The actual distance is about 300 meters. Thus, colorimetric measurements confirm our estimates...
EDIT: page 4 of the UAP paper
They're not accounting for exposure levels anywhere that I can see, but to be honest I just skimmed it quickly looking for the expected formulas.
It's easy to write garbage in the style of a scientific paper. Use LaTeX, the right fonts, layout, and tone and most people will immediately stop questioning the content. Pepper it with formulas and it starts to look like wisdom delivered by serious men in white lab coats.
I studied physics with a particular focus on optics because I wanted (and achieved) a career in computer graphics. I wanted a good solid background on light transport and physically accurate rendering techniques.
This paper covers about 5% of what you would expect to see in a serious publication, if that. The calibration "technique" they use is hilariously bad. The assumptions are invalid. Obvious instrument limitations aren't even mentioned let alone corrected for.
Compare to the last link in my previous post. The difference is night and day.
Similarly, for a vaguely related recent example, take a look at how the JWST telescope calibration is done: https://jwst-pipeline.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jwst/linearit...
Take a look at the menu on the left! There's section after section after section that covers every aspect of this instrument! Fundamentally, it's "just" a fancy camera with a CCD/CMOS sensor, optics, and similar limits. It's the same problem space, so it's a good example of how this can be done properly.
Admittedly, JWST has a huge budget, but even amateurs do similar things when performing "image stacking", and that's just for making pretty pictures, not for scientific publication: http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/theory.htm#Calibration
If I were given a budget of just a few thousand dollars and a year to write a PhD or something, I would:
- Get a few identical cameras and lenses, ideally prime lenses. Budget permitting, the best kind are the B&W digital ones, like this one: https://leica-camera.com/en-AU/photography/cameras/m/m10-mon...
- Mount three or more of them on something sturdy facing the same patch of sky, at least a hundred meters apart in a large triangle or other similar shape. Ideally, several at each spot aligned in parallel but using different, well-characterised filters. Or a single camera with rapidly swappable filters, which would be within reach of a student's budget using 3D printing.
- At each location have a GPS receiver as a timing source. Handheld receivers suffice, and many Arduino-type boards have modules for this. Also have a "weather station" measuring wind speed, humidity, and temperature. Also have a thermal probe stuck to the sensor of the camera, or very near it.
- Perform detailed lab calibration of each camera and lens pair. Repeat for each filter if using filters. Use a proper instrument like a spectrophotometer, which every physics lab will most likely have lying around somewhere. This need to be performed at the same focus ("infinity") and across a range of intensities. Ideally at different temperatures also.
- Calibrate in the field. E.g.: align the photos using stars or perform similar cross-checks between each camera. Use GPS data relayed from airliners to verify the altitude computation from stereopsis. Use aircraft that you know are "white" to cross-check atmospheric conditions. Fly drones up a few kilometres with blinking LED lasers on them of various wavelengths. Etc...
- Use manual focus, synchronized camera settings, and take photos every second or so using GPS timing for accurate sync. Ensure to stay well within the "middle" of the dynamic range of the sensors.
- Collect the information for analysis, ideally over weeks or months. Multiple cameras with different perspectives allows massively more accurate estimates of a range of parameters, especially height, speed, size, etc... It simultaneously helps eliminate spurious sensor problems, bugs, birds, raindrops, and other confounding factors.
This could be done with a few thousand dollars and the data could keep many students busy publishing good papers for years. You could write papers on cloud formation, bird migration, raptor hunting statistics, accuracy of aircraft transponders, lightning frequency, meteors, satellites, and even cover military topics such as spotting drones! Computer Science students could get involved with AI analysis of the data, efficient storage, real-time analysis and tracking with longer telephoto lenses, etc...
This is what real science looks like, even if done on a budget. There are teams out there basically doing this or some variant right now!
It's easy to write garbage in the style of a scientific paper. Use LaTeX, the right fonts, layout, and tone and most people will immediately stop questioning the content. Pepper it with formulas and it starts to look like wisdom delivered by serious men in white lab coats.
I studied physics with a particular focus on optics because I wanted (and achieved) a career in computer graphics. I wanted a good solid background on light transport and physically accurate rendering techniques.
This paper covers about 5% of what you would expect to see in a serious publication, if that. The calibration "technique" they use is hilariously bad. The assumptions are invalid. Obvious instrument limitations aren't even mentioned let alone corrected for.
Compare to the last link in my previous post. The difference is night and day.
Similarly, for a vaguely related recent example, take a look at how the JWST telescope calibration is done: https://jwst-pipeline.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jwst/linearit...
Take a look at the menu on the left! There's section after section after section that covers every aspect of this instrument! Fundamentally, it's "just" a fancy camera with a CCD/CMOS sensor, optics, and similar limits. It's the same problem space, so it's a good example of how this can be done properly.
Admittedly, JWST has a huge budget, but even amateurs do similar things when performing "image stacking", and that's just for making pretty pictures, not for scientific publication: http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/theory.htm#Calibration
If I were given a budget of just a few thousand dollars and a year to write a PhD or something, I would:
- Get a few identical cameras and lenses, ideally prime lenses. Budget permitting, the best kind are the B&W digital ones, like this one: https://leica-camera.com/en-AU/photography/cameras/m/m10-mon...
- Mount three or more of them on something sturdy facing the same patch of sky, at least a hundred meters apart in a large triangle or other similar shape. Ideally, several at each spot aligned in parallel but using different, well-characterised filters. Or a single camera with rapidly swappable filters, which would be within reach of a student's budget using 3D printing.
- At each location have a GPS receiver as a timing source. Handheld receivers suffice, and many Arduino-type boards have modules for this. Also have a "weather station" measuring wind speed, humidity, and temperature. Also have a thermal probe stuck to the sensor of the camera, or very near it.
- Perform detailed lab calibration of each camera and lens pair. Repeat for each filter if using filters. Use a proper instrument like a spectrophotometer, which every physics lab will most likely have lying around somewhere. This need to be performed at the same focus ("infinity") and across a range of intensities. Ideally at different temperatures also.
- Calibrate in the field. E.g.: align the photos using stars or perform similar cross-checks between each camera. Use GPS data relayed from airliners to verify the altitude computation from stereopsis. Use aircraft that you know are "white" to cross-check atmospheric conditions. Fly drones up a few kilometres with blinking LED lasers on them of various wavelengths. Etc...
- Use manual focus, synchronized camera settings, and take photos every second or so using GPS timing for accurate sync. Ensure to stay well within the "middle" of the dynamic range of the sensors.
- Collect the information for analysis, ideally over weeks or months. Multiple cameras with different perspectives allows massively more accurate estimates of a range of parameters, especially height, speed, size, etc... It simultaneously helps eliminate spurious sensor problems, bugs, birds, raindrops, and other confounding factors.
This could be done with a few thousand dollars and the data could keep many students busy publishing good papers for years. You could write papers on cloud formation, bird migration, raptor hunting statistics, accuracy of aircraft transponders, lightning frequency, meteors, satellites, and even cover military topics such as spotting drones! Computer Science students could get involved with AI analysis of the data, efficient storage, real-time analysis and tracking with longer telephoto lenses, etc...
This is what real science looks like, even if done on a budget. There are teams out there basically doing this or some variant right now!
Absolutely 100% agree with you on how the calibration could be done and that the methods seems sloppy. There are lots of implicit assumptions (but maybe the paper is less lacking for those people doing similar jobs).
The way I interpreted the pre-print:
- They optimized the capture for very fast moving objects (and large FOVs? Maybe using a spectrophotometer is not as straightforward as it seems)
- They are making estimates more than precise measurements, using error bars that are "good enough" for them, for the specific domain and taking into consideration the constraints given by the assumptions and the equipment. Not that I see those errors bars, though :D
- Now that I'm re-reading: ...Frames were recorded using the ser format with 14 and 16 bits... (ser is an astronomical file format)
- Paper's exposition could be better
- They are not building the JWST. They are doing something like lambertian reflectance when you are asking for global illumination. Let's wait for (the negative results of) NASA's study. I share your skepticism btw, not a believer.
Just saying that they are not using Photoshop. The paper is lacking in details though, that's uncontroversial.
Been a pleasure talking with you, have a nice day!
The way I interpreted the pre-print:
- They optimized the capture for very fast moving objects (and large FOVs? Maybe using a spectrophotometer is not as straightforward as it seems)
- They are making estimates more than precise measurements, using error bars that are "good enough" for them, for the specific domain and taking into consideration the constraints given by the assumptions and the equipment. Not that I see those errors bars, though :D
- Now that I'm re-reading: ...Frames were recorded using the ser format with 14 and 16 bits... (ser is an astronomical file format)
- Paper's exposition could be better
- They are not building the JWST. They are doing something like lambertian reflectance when you are asking for global illumination. Let's wait for (the negative results of) NASA's study. I share your skepticism btw, not a believer.
Just saying that they are not using Photoshop. The paper is lacking in details though, that's uncontroversial.
Been a pleasure talking with you, have a nice day!
>It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB)
Sensors don't have a color space. It's a transformation applied in the camera software. Unfortunately no commercially available camera either exposes using the sensor data output itself, leading to often considerable non linearity between the measurable output values and the actual exposure. This is applied to the raw file for exposure and post processing raw conversion. You need to analyse the non de-bayered raw files directly to assess what's happening in the captured data.
Sensors don't have a color space. It's a transformation applied in the camera software. Unfortunately no commercially available camera either exposes using the sensor data output itself, leading to often considerable non linearity between the measurable output values and the actual exposure. This is applied to the raw file for exposure and post processing raw conversion. You need to analyse the non de-bayered raw files directly to assess what's happening in the captured data.
What if UFOs blur images taken from them? We already have similar technology that blocks cameras using laser.
Then detect the interference.
It's a similar problem to "jamming" in military radar systems. You might be half-blind while jammed, but you're aware that you are being jammed in the same way that you won't miss someone shining a torch in your face.
Multiple cameras across a wide range of wavelengths (UV-Visible-IR) would be fantastically difficult to hide from, for a range of parameters such as UFO size, altitude, speed, etc... To the point where it starts to become physically impossible, irrespective of technology level.
For example, various militaries have looked into tracking high-altitude spy planes via the disturbance they make in the air. You can camouflage the plane all you want, but you can't stop air from existing.
It's a similar problem to "jamming" in military radar systems. You might be half-blind while jammed, but you're aware that you are being jammed in the same way that you won't miss someone shining a torch in your face.
Multiple cameras across a wide range of wavelengths (UV-Visible-IR) would be fantastically difficult to hide from, for a range of parameters such as UFO size, altitude, speed, etc... To the point where it starts to become physically impossible, irrespective of technology level.
For example, various militaries have looked into tracking high-altitude spy planes via the disturbance they make in the air. You can camouflage the plane all you want, but you can't stop air from existing.
A lot of UFO videos seem to be some kind of optical effect. The object rotates exactly in tune to when the HUD shows that the camera is rotating. The object suddenly zips away as soon as the HUD shows that the camera has suddenly stopped rotating to track the object. You see these obvious things in some of the most famously regularly brought up videos like the Tic Tac and Gimbal UFO videos, and almost nobody picks up on these. Seeing UFO fans still bring up those videos is the best evidence they just want to play make-believe instead of understand anything.
How do you explain the visual confirmation by the pilots as well as the objects showing up on radar? It's fine to be skeptical but don't be so dismissive when you yourself are leaving out important details that negate your claim.
Many of those videos with "eyewitness" corroboration have to be taken in context.
For example, the video clips typically show a small blurry splotch a few pixels in size. What's not always obvious is what level of magnification is used. In many cases its a digital zoom on top of a telephoto lens. The unaided human eye would see just a tiny speck, which could be anything, and may not even be the same "object"!
The other context is pilots rarely fly in empty skies, especially military aviators. Many "sightings" have been in the context of drills, war games, or similar. The pilots may not be aware of things such as small drones used by officers for monitoring, or secret testing of UAVs. E.g.: A question that designers would like to answer is: "Can this stealth drone be spotted in realistic scenarios by pilots not told about its presence?"
Etc...
For example, the video clips typically show a small blurry splotch a few pixels in size. What's not always obvious is what level of magnification is used. In many cases its a digital zoom on top of a telephoto lens. The unaided human eye would see just a tiny speck, which could be anything, and may not even be the same "object"!
The other context is pilots rarely fly in empty skies, especially military aviators. Many "sightings" have been in the context of drills, war games, or similar. The pilots may not be aware of things such as small drones used by officers for monitoring, or secret testing of UAVs. E.g.: A question that designers would like to answer is: "Can this stealth drone be spotted in realistic scenarios by pilots not told about its presence?"
Etc...
> Except that even as young child I started noticing that all of the photos were blurry. All of them. Focus dispels UFOs just like turning on the light dispels the monster in the bedroom.
Not exactly. Jacques Vallée and others have spent a lot of time addressing the question of why UFO photos are always blurry and out of focus. His ideas about it are fascinating. There’s also a lot of photos that aren’t blurry, such as the 1971 Cote UFO. It doesn’t mean they are alien, but there’s definitely something real getting photographed that’s still unidentified. I’ve also been interested in how writers like Arthur C. Clarke and Liu Cixin address the topic of how an advanced alien species could control physics, the noosphere, and the human mind itself.
Not exactly. Jacques Vallée and others have spent a lot of time addressing the question of why UFO photos are always blurry and out of focus. His ideas about it are fascinating. There’s also a lot of photos that aren’t blurry, such as the 1971 Cote UFO. It doesn’t mean they are alien, but there’s definitely something real getting photographed that’s still unidentified. I’ve also been interested in how writers like Arthur C. Clarke and Liu Cixin address the topic of how an advanced alien species could control physics, the noosphere, and the human mind itself.
> 1971 Cote UFO
That could be anything. Damage to the film negative is a simple explanation!
Any single picture is basically just fan-art. I and many others with a reasonable level of scepticism wouldn't accept anything other than the same UFO or "design" of UFO turning up in many photos, ideally from some sort of scientific sky survey array run by non-UFO-fanatic astronomer types.
In fact, several such survey systems are being built right now, and a few are already operational.
The operational ones have not found anything.
Strange, isn't it that the better the quality of the survey, the less likely UFOs are to turn up in the data?
That could be anything. Damage to the film negative is a simple explanation!
Any single picture is basically just fan-art. I and many others with a reasonable level of scepticism wouldn't accept anything other than the same UFO or "design" of UFO turning up in many photos, ideally from some sort of scientific sky survey array run by non-UFO-fanatic astronomer types.
In fact, several such survey systems are being built right now, and a few are already operational.
The operational ones have not found anything.
Strange, isn't it that the better the quality of the survey, the less likely UFOs are to turn up in the data?
You’re preaching to the choir. I am very much a skeptical materialist. The problem is that there are a significant number of unknowns and unidentified reports that have never been explained. And those are the ones we are talking about.
I've been a UFO skeptic for quite some time, but the Ariel School Incident [1] is one that lives rent-free in my head. The eyewitness accounts make it even more convincing, because
1. They don't exactly agree with each other (which is to be expected since eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, it would be more suspicious if they id)
2. Many of these people repeat the story years after the incident, as grown adults. As far as I know, they haven't received a single cent for their troubles.
3. It's not like these kids had much exposure to the pop culture idea of UFOs - yet their drawings are very similar to what we think of when we think UFO.
[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_School_UFO_incident
1. They don't exactly agree with each other (which is to be expected since eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, it would be more suspicious if they id)
2. Many of these people repeat the story years after the incident, as grown adults. As far as I know, they haven't received a single cent for their troubles.
3. It's not like these kids had much exposure to the pop culture idea of UFOs - yet their drawings are very similar to what we think of when we think UFO.
[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_School_UFO_incident
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The fascination around UAP has been around for decades and basically each decade there's new reporting and new pictures or even videos. And also, every decade, once actual scientists and debunkers get their hands on the material, those phenomena are readily explained. It takes a certain expertise and a Navy pilot simply doesn't have that.
These stories make great clickbait though.
The fascination around UAP has been around for decades and basically each decade there's new reporting and new pictures or even videos. And also, every decade, once actual scientists and debunkers get their hands on the material, those phenomena are readily explained. It takes a certain expertise and a Navy pilot simply doesn't have that.
These stories make great clickbait though.
This comment thread is attached to an article by “actual scientists”
Blah, blah, blah. The usual rebuttal.
Like climate deniers, debunkers gonna debunk.
It's strange that these people are trusted to handle and launch nukes, but apparently when squadrons of UAPs show up simultaneously on the most advanced sensor systems in the world they suddenly can't be trusted.
Like climate deniers, debunkers gonna debunk.
It's strange that these people are trusted to handle and launch nukes, but apparently when squadrons of UAPs show up simultaneously on the most advanced sensor systems in the world they suddenly can't be trusted.
At that level, trust and skill are specialisms, not generic statements.
By analogy, I'm a skilled software developer, graduated 2006, learned to read from a Commodore 64 user manual etc., but I make iOS apps, put me on a Rust project and don't even know the syntax.
I trust a fighter pilot to be really good at spotting potential hazards in the air, and also things which are not responding to the appropriate IFF signals. While I know too little about what they do to guess much of what else they're good at, I suspect that suggesting they're too good to make mistakes is like suggesting I'm too good to write bugs.
By analogy, I'm a skilled software developer, graduated 2006, learned to read from a Commodore 64 user manual etc., but I make iOS apps, put me on a Rust project and don't even know the syntax.
I trust a fighter pilot to be really good at spotting potential hazards in the air, and also things which are not responding to the appropriate IFF signals. While I know too little about what they do to guess much of what else they're good at, I suspect that suggesting they're too good to make mistakes is like suggesting I'm too good to write bugs.
No, but in aggregate, I trust them to be able to collectively say "something weird is going on". 100+ ex-service personnel testified in front of Congress about UFOs interfering with and disabling nukes in siloes over several decades. Can't find a link ATM but it's on Youtube somewhere I think.
"Weird" describes far more options than just ETs.
My dad worked in the defence sector, on IFF transponders; Plessy when I was young, Marconi bought them out, I think his division was bought by BA around the time he retired. Not sure who before Plessy.
But I digress: one of his stories was about a light in the workshop that would not switch off. Eventually they got a technician in, who saw the switch did nothing to the light, measured the thing with an ammeter and confirmed that the switch both worked and was connected to the light, traced the wires to the light and confirmed they were the only ones.
Nothing made sense. The light stayed lit even without power.
He took the light out of the fixture and the light stayed lit.
Weird story, right? Can you work out what was going on from that description? My only hints are that it's a true story and that it wasn't aliens.
My dad worked in the defence sector, on IFF transponders; Plessy when I was young, Marconi bought them out, I think his division was bought by BA around the time he retired. Not sure who before Plessy.
But I digress: one of his stories was about a light in the workshop that would not switch off. Eventually they got a technician in, who saw the switch did nothing to the light, measured the thing with an ammeter and confirmed that the switch both worked and was connected to the light, traced the wires to the light and confirmed they were the only ones.
Nothing made sense. The light stayed lit even without power.
He took the light out of the fixture and the light stayed lit.
Weird story, right? Can you work out what was going on from that description? My only hints are that it's a true story and that it wasn't aliens.
Exactly. If something's weird, it should be investigated. Not curtail the careers of people who do report it to discourage others reporting weird things. However, when those weird things are backed up by multiple sensors, and relate to multiple objects flying in formation maneuvering in ways far beyond technology we know about, there are only a few possibilities, and they should all be seriously considered.
The US government/military (and probably still large parts of the secret side) has been actively FUDding over the years (e.g. curtailing careers of people who report UFOs, project Blue Book), so you have to weigh things up on the balance of what evidence you can find. Short of little green men landing in front of a news crew, some people won't accept anything, even now the US is admitting to investigating them.
The US government/military (and probably still large parts of the secret side) has been actively FUDding over the years (e.g. curtailing careers of people who report UFOs, project Blue Book), so you have to weigh things up on the balance of what evidence you can find. Short of little green men landing in front of a news crew, some people won't accept anything, even now the US is admitting to investigating them.
> and they should all be seriously considered.
They are. And the various airforces have always investigated unidentified flying objects simply because that's literally the point of having an airforce.
This generally comes in one of three conclusions:
1. We had a secret research project all along, and thanks to codeword-level classification the people who spotted our secret planes/drones/method for interfering with our own sensor data had no idea it was us all along.
2. Same but it was a foreign project.
3. Systematic flaw with our sensors or lack of general knowledge because the tech is new. (My dad had a few examples of that, one of which had the punchline "turns out the moon doesn't have an IFF transponder", another time it was "until they sent up the interceptors to check on them, we didn't realise geese ever flew that high").
Care to guess about the light? Another hint: no battery.
They are. And the various airforces have always investigated unidentified flying objects simply because that's literally the point of having an airforce.
This generally comes in one of three conclusions:
1. We had a secret research project all along, and thanks to codeword-level classification the people who spotted our secret planes/drones/method for interfering with our own sensor data had no idea it was us all along.
2. Same but it was a foreign project.
3. Systematic flaw with our sensors or lack of general knowledge because the tech is new. (My dad had a few examples of that, one of which had the punchline "turns out the moon doesn't have an IFF transponder", another time it was "until they sent up the interceptors to check on them, we didn't realise geese ever flew that high").
Care to guess about the light? Another hint: no battery.
Well hey, one possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that there isn't one.
This would be covered by the zoo hypotheses[1] I think.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis
The ZOO hypothesis is uncannily attractive, because it a) sort-of humbles our egos and b) would actually be plausible even within humanity itself.
If we discovered another human civilization with a living and technological standard of Europe of 1022 AD, we would be able to keep an eye on them without revealing ourselves much. An occassional slip-up would be possible (a crashed drone), but most of the time, we would be able to let them live as they wish without interfering with them much. Probably to the point that the targeted civilization might consider any hypothesis of our surveillance a hoax or heresy.
And that is mere 1000 years of technological development on Earth. If the gap between us and hypothetical aliens is, say, 100 million years, I can't even begin to imagine the difference.
If we discovered another human civilization with a living and technological standard of Europe of 1022 AD, we would be able to keep an eye on them without revealing ourselves much. An occassional slip-up would be possible (a crashed drone), but most of the time, we would be able to let them live as they wish without interfering with them much. Probably to the point that the targeted civilization might consider any hypothesis of our surveillance a hoax or heresy.
And that is mere 1000 years of technological development on Earth. If the gap between us and hypothetical aliens is, say, 100 million years, I can't even begin to imagine the difference.
Something similar exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island
> 100 million years
That's a lot of evolution, considering mammals is barely that old.
That's a lot of evolution, considering mammals is barely that old.
not necessarily. UFOs might not hide intentionally; maybe they don't care but happen to rarely hang out in populated areas.
for instance, maybe they just care about the sea floor, and only surface to beam data back. or they're preferentially attracted to fast-moving objects like fighter jets, or sources of unusual EM signatures.
if UFOs are alien drones trying to hide, why do they suck at it?
for instance, maybe they just care about the sea floor, and only surface to beam data back. or they're preferentially attracted to fast-moving objects like fighter jets, or sources of unusual EM signatures.
if UFOs are alien drones trying to hide, why do they suck at it?
Maybe they’re very good at it. We see them rarely and see them clearly or get good photos almost never but they’re actually all over the place. The ones we see are malfunctioning in some way or flukes caused by chance conditions of light, angle, etc.
Interesting points that I had completely overlooked!
By the way, without knowing how many there might be in total and how often they were seen/discovered, we can't really say if hiding from us is something they'd suck at :)
By the way, without knowing how many there might be in total and how often they were seen/discovered, we can't really say if hiding from us is something they'd suck at :)
I like to think the reason for non-detection is that an alien civilization already had their AGI moment. The AI proliferated throughout the galaxy, to several galaxies, and ultimately found a way to "break" our classical and limited understanding of physics.
That the reason we're not seeing them is because we're looking for industry and megastructures, waste gasses, EM spectrum activity, etc., but that their needs are well beyond any of these things. That they don't have massive material or energy needs. And that maybe they've already been here, but consider us to be too primitive to acknowledge.
Or that maybe they're actively here now reconstructing our light cone to learn about us (ie. we've already all long since passed, and now we're all just holographic shadows of something that once happened long ago).
Or that maybe it's future us / Earth-AI doing that archeology.
Or a future AI "Space Jesus" is resurrecting our neural connectomes from non-lossy backwards projection of photons.
Or the same thing, except we'll all be put into museums or played with for sport. An outcome somewhat adjacent to Roko's Basilisk.
Of course this is all just mortal fantasy.
Dark forest is my other frequently thought about scenario, but that one scares me.
That the reason we're not seeing them is because we're looking for industry and megastructures, waste gasses, EM spectrum activity, etc., but that their needs are well beyond any of these things. That they don't have massive material or energy needs. And that maybe they've already been here, but consider us to be too primitive to acknowledge.
Or that maybe they're actively here now reconstructing our light cone to learn about us (ie. we've already all long since passed, and now we're all just holographic shadows of something that once happened long ago).
Or that maybe it's future us / Earth-AI doing that archeology.
Or a future AI "Space Jesus" is resurrecting our neural connectomes from non-lossy backwards projection of photons.
Or the same thing, except we'll all be put into museums or played with for sport. An outcome somewhat adjacent to Roko's Basilisk.
Of course this is all just mortal fantasy.
Dark forest is my other frequently thought about scenario, but that one scares me.
Or they are so advanced that their “bodies” are made up of individual units teeming with nanotechnology components, most of which are atoms wide, working to generate power from atoms absorbed from external environment, self repair and more. Units take on different roles. Advanced energy transport system that stores hydrocarbons and carries around highly volatile elements on iron structures in a liquid directly to the site needed for energy. Billions of these nano machine units take on a form to create an ultra low power, powerful neural network capable of self learning as well as passing on learned behaviours.
Oh wait that’s humans.
Oh wait that’s humans.
It's an exceedingly slow to adapt algorithm. Extinction is a fairly common result for stumbling upon an ecological niche, maximizing fit, and then having that niche disappear.
Novel information sharing is slow, lossy, and the information stores themselves quickly degrade.
Incredibly poor solution in the limit.
Novel information sharing is slow, lossy, and the information stores themselves quickly degrade.
Incredibly poor solution in the limit.
I think AGI would love to keep increasing its storage and computation power. Unless the very fabric of the universe serves as that, I don't know how an AGI would "break" our classical understanding of physics and not make a super giant computer the size of galaxies... But if that's the case, does it mean we're living in a matrix made by an AGI?
If dark forest were true I doubt we would be here. Earth has been broadcasting that it is a likely biosphere since the atmosphere became oxidizing. This much free oxygen is not likely to exist without some process constantly replenishing it and I’m not aware of any natural options for that at planetary scale.
I think there is one very powerful argument against the idea that any alien life form has visited Earth since the humanity existed: the humanity still exists.
That makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about the nature of advanced alien life.
Maybe, but it fits 100% with all of the advanced life we have observed so far.
There's certain topics on HN you have to pay the karma tax for broaching. It wasn't always this way but it is where we are.
> The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts an independent study of unidentified phenomena in the atmosphere.
To me this sends up a couple of thoughts: (1) this sounds like a way to spy on Russia and (2) quite possibly could be technology from Russia (such as hypersonic missiles).
Then I read the speed:
> An object contrast makes it possible to estimate the distance using colourimetric methods. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 - 12 km. We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s.
... that's 33,500 mph ... Re-entry speed from something out of the atmosphere is something like 8km/s; or 19,000 mph. Of course that generates an insane amount of heat and is still half the reportedly measured speed.
TBH it seems like a possible sampling error for the speed calculations. If we assume that to be the case, then it seems likely (if real) that these are some sort of hypersonic test craft / missile system.
To me this sends up a couple of thoughts: (1) this sounds like a way to spy on Russia and (2) quite possibly could be technology from Russia (such as hypersonic missiles).
Then I read the speed:
> An object contrast makes it possible to estimate the distance using colourimetric methods. Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 - 12 km. We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s.
... that's 33,500 mph ... Re-entry speed from something out of the atmosphere is something like 8km/s; or 19,000 mph. Of course that generates an insane amount of heat and is still half the reportedly measured speed.
TBH it seems like a possible sampling error for the speed calculations. If we assume that to be the case, then it seems likely (if real) that these are some sort of hypersonic test craft / missile system.
> 15 km/s
That's over mach 40 and would allow you to circumnavigate the globe in 45 minutes.
There are flight vehicles that travel mach 20+, but 40 sounds insane. Mach also isn't the best numbers to use. The HTV-2 goes Mach 20+ but that's 5.7 km/s. Granted it is 2010 technology (first flight) but it would be insane to think we've doubled the speed and are testing these vehicles. It isn't like you can fly vehicles that fly that fast secretly. They make A LOT of noise.
Measurement errors sounds like a better explanation. Especially when we have such strong evidence of other things (like tic-tac) being measurement errors.
That's over mach 40 and would allow you to circumnavigate the globe in 45 minutes.
There are flight vehicles that travel mach 20+, but 40 sounds insane. Mach also isn't the best numbers to use. The HTV-2 goes Mach 20+ but that's 5.7 km/s. Granted it is 2010 technology (first flight) but it would be insane to think we've doubled the speed and are testing these vehicles. It isn't like you can fly vehicles that fly that fast secretly. They make A LOT of noise.
Measurement errors sounds like a better explanation. Especially when we have such strong evidence of other things (like tic-tac) being measurement errors.
That's what I thought too. Why not create a bit of distance to a possible reputational damage and spy on Russia at the same time too?
Not many data points, but fig. 4 (page 3) is interesting: a linear relation between luminosity and speed. For meteors should be, as intuitively expected, proportional to kinetic energy, hence quadratic.
Does this relation holds for missiles too?
EDIT: they are not related to NASA, it's in the second sentence of the abstract (ops)
...The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts an independent study of UAP also...
Not many data points, but fig. 4 (page 3) is interesting: a linear relation between luminosity and speed. For meteors should be, as intuitively expected, proportional to kinetic energy, hence quadratic.
Does this relation holds for missiles too?
EDIT: they are not related to NASA, it's in the second sentence of the abstract (ops)
...The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts an independent study of UAP also...
I was listening to a fun podcast episode about a couple of folks who founded a UFO-related political third party:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/760511/11204787-gabriel-green-the...
And it mentioned there was a flying saucer craze in 1947- Roswell wasn't even the most interesting story then.
It made me think, these myths and legends are highly historically and culturally contextual. Alien UFOs replaced phantom airships replaced fairies and so forth. Perhaps in just a century, the idea of anthropomorphic aliens will be as dated and quaint as changelings are to us now. Wonder what will be the future myth then? Simulation glitches?
https://www.buzzsprout.com/760511/11204787-gabriel-green-the...
And it mentioned there was a flying saucer craze in 1947- Roswell wasn't even the most interesting story then.
It made me think, these myths and legends are highly historically and culturally contextual. Alien UFOs replaced phantom airships replaced fairies and so forth. Perhaps in just a century, the idea of anthropomorphic aliens will be as dated and quaint as changelings are to us now. Wonder what will be the future myth then? Simulation glitches?
The most interesting story was the flying saucer invasion of Washington DC in the early 60s.
Seems to be ghosts in dem machines
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/23/business/google-ai-engineer-f...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/23/business/google-ai-engineer-f...
There are a few interesting documentaries online. Check out unacknowledged, disclosure and close encounters of the fifth kind.
What's interesting to me is that the ce5 protocol meditation is almost identical to some Taoist meditation I learnt 20 years ago.
Of course there's also loads of bullshit too, but for me the UFO question was answered years ago. They're here.
The AATIP/UAP angle is a good one to rebrand the subject and make it more palatable to the mainstream after decades of mockery, allowing governments a way to research it seriously too.
What's interesting to me is that the ce5 protocol meditation is almost identical to some Taoist meditation I learnt 20 years ago.
Of course there's also loads of bullshit too, but for me the UFO question was answered years ago. They're here.
The AATIP/UAP angle is a good one to rebrand the subject and make it more palatable to the mainstream after decades of mockery, allowing governments a way to research it seriously too.
Where did you learn this taoist meditation? Do you recall the name?
Yeah it was in Mantak Chia's books. Healing Light of the Tao IIRC
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Light-Tao-Foundational-Prac...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Healing-Light-Tao-Foundational-Prac...
Fun topic because the question of under what conditions would we as humans would contact another less advanced civilization in space opens up some pretty interesting but simple criteria.
We would need for that civilization to not be a danger to us, not only from a technology angle, but from an ontological perspective. When you look at how insane other creatures in nature are and the biological economics of their survival, we wouldn't adopt them into our own societies, and the ones we do are cats and dogs and other pets. This is how much we can trust another being we can only share a small part of our experience with by keeping them confined or on leashes. We probably don't want rich aliens to breed us in captivity and buy us as pets for their kids to ride. So there's a bar we would need to meet to not become that.
The question I have would be, what would we as a species need to demonstrate to be allowed "off leash," in a community of other spacefaring civilizations? What consistent understanding would each person as a random human need to have to be able to be relied upon to interact safely with a spacefaring being?
What would we equip a civilization with to evolve with those tools before arranging to meet them without destroying the equillibrium of their societies as they compete for our favour and become dependent on us? Reciprocity of respect for life and the ability to apprehend some universal shared truth seems like the only thing that would separate an animal from another conscious being capable of reason.
I would wonder what that prerequisites or criteria for us as humans encountering a new civilization would be.
We would need for that civilization to not be a danger to us, not only from a technology angle, but from an ontological perspective. When you look at how insane other creatures in nature are and the biological economics of their survival, we wouldn't adopt them into our own societies, and the ones we do are cats and dogs and other pets. This is how much we can trust another being we can only share a small part of our experience with by keeping them confined or on leashes. We probably don't want rich aliens to breed us in captivity and buy us as pets for their kids to ride. So there's a bar we would need to meet to not become that.
The question I have would be, what would we as a species need to demonstrate to be allowed "off leash," in a community of other spacefaring civilizations? What consistent understanding would each person as a random human need to have to be able to be relied upon to interact safely with a spacefaring being?
What would we equip a civilization with to evolve with those tools before arranging to meet them without destroying the equillibrium of their societies as they compete for our favour and become dependent on us? Reciprocity of respect for life and the ability to apprehend some universal shared truth seems like the only thing that would separate an animal from another conscious being capable of reason.
I would wonder what that prerequisites or criteria for us as humans encountering a new civilization would be.
> The question I have would be, what would we as a species need to demonstrate to be allowed "off leash," in a community of other spacefaring civilizations? What consistent understanding would each person as a random human need to have to be able to be relied upon to interact safely with a spacefaring being?
I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. answered this question in 1967:
> Modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit, which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance. We've learned to fly the air like birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish. And yet we haven't learned to walk the earth like brothers and sisters.
I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. answered this question in 1967:
> Modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of the spirit, which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance. We've learned to fly the air like birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish. And yet we haven't learned to walk the earth like brothers and sisters.
It's almost as though every person already has the tools and a manual, and we each have the individual choice whether to become it or not. :)
I agree, but there are also strong societal forces at work keeping us divided and in constant conflict. I think it’s really hard for most people to navigate through this morass, and they either become bogged down in it or end up on one side of the opposing division. The trick is not to give in to one side or the other and to choose equanimity.
Honestly? Not to be such savages. With which I mean is that we are hilariously incompetent when it comes to basic rights, freedoms and most of all structuring society.
If we worked together in true unison, we have enough riches/resources to feed, clothe and give a home to anyone who needs it. Just for a moment imagine if the military budgets didn’t need to be spend.
Note I am not advocating any ideology or political structure here, but just the basic observation that we are indeed underdeveloped savages.
If we worked together in true unison, we have enough riches/resources to feed, clothe and give a home to anyone who needs it. Just for a moment imagine if the military budgets didn’t need to be spend.
Note I am not advocating any ideology or political structure here, but just the basic observation that we are indeed underdeveloped savages.
> we are indeed underdeveloped savages
We really are. I’ve been trying to improve myself, and I’ve been practicing a form of cultivating metta. If anyone reading this wants to experiment with their mind, this is a truly difficult practice. The next time someone wrongs you or hurts you, intentionally or unwittingly, try to show some compassion and understanding for them. That act goes against our very nature, and undermines our savagery at a very deep level. I did this last week to someone who accidentally wronged me at work, and it was an amazing experience. My anger completely disappeared and I felt terrible for this person once I began to understand what was going on inside their mind. I think that this and other practices hold the key to our uplift.
We really are. I’ve been trying to improve myself, and I’ve been practicing a form of cultivating metta. If anyone reading this wants to experiment with their mind, this is a truly difficult practice. The next time someone wrongs you or hurts you, intentionally or unwittingly, try to show some compassion and understanding for them. That act goes against our very nature, and undermines our savagery at a very deep level. I did this last week to someone who accidentally wronged me at work, and it was an amazing experience. My anger completely disappeared and I felt terrible for this person once I began to understand what was going on inside their mind. I think that this and other practices hold the key to our uplift.
Metta is very good, and I hope we all find this way of seeing! I honestly feel that if we all practiced it, wars would cease to exist. It’s not important to be right or wrong, it’s important to feel reciprocated and seen as a human being. It’s an attitude we could all benefit from and integrate in our culture.
A third rate civilization on a backwater spiral arm. It is what it is.
One thing that sets humans and animals apart is language. The ability to transfer abstract thoughts and ideas between individuals.
Would you adopt an alien creature capable of reasoning and and expressing its thoughts as a pet? Or would you consider that enslavement?
Would you adopt an alien creature capable of reasoning and and expressing its thoughts as a pet? Or would you consider that enslavement?
It's all a matter of degrees. My cat certainly is able to communicate with me and there are smarter animals around that we keep in captivity (e.g. dolphins).
There is a clear line between "the cat says meow and you figure out what it wants based on the context" and "someone thinks something and says it out loud such that you now have the same thought". It's this process of transfer of abstract thoughts between people, and later the ability to preserve those thoughts on paper, that made our civilization possible.
So were is the line? Is an Ape using sign language on our side of the line, or on the cat's side? At what age does a child cross the line?
On the cat's side. They don't use it to represent abstract ideas.
I can describe to you something you've never seen and have no idea about, yet you'll be able to imagine it and reason about it from my description alone. Apes or dolphins or crows or dogs or other animals we consider smart can't do that. If they could do it, they'd have their own civilization by now. It's a uniquely human trait among all life forms we're aware of.
I can describe to you something you've never seen and have no idea about, yet you'll be able to imagine it and reason about it from my description alone. Apes or dolphins or crows or dogs or other animals we consider smart can't do that. If they could do it, they'd have their own civilization by now. It's a uniquely human trait among all life forms we're aware of.
>Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected
So they are now calling them literal ships, not ufo or uap
Also, from their methodology and instrumentation (color cameras) it seems they could have done it in like 80s. Why coming out now?
So they are now calling them literal ships, not ufo or uap
Also, from their methodology and instrumentation (color cameras) it seems they could have done it in like 80s. Why coming out now?
This exactly, seems like this could have been done from the 80s and entirely automated from the mid-90's.
I'm all for setting up something like this [1], it's just good science to have automated cameras recording the sky to keep an eye on things. In the very simplest straightforward business case, three synchronized cameras detecting a meteor can trace its path through the athmosphere and help locate anything that hits the ground. For more niche use cases include tracking aircraft flying around with their transponders turned off, just to keep everyone honest. After a few dozen more scientic use cases, then, maybe, some UFO tracking.
Sky Hub [2] tried it, combining recording with some ML detection, but they went bust last year.
[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275829635_Project_f...
[2] - https://www.space.com/spotting-ufos-sky-hub-surveillance
I'm all for setting up something like this [1], it's just good science to have automated cameras recording the sky to keep an eye on things. In the very simplest straightforward business case, three synchronized cameras detecting a meteor can trace its path through the athmosphere and help locate anything that hits the ground. For more niche use cases include tracking aircraft flying around with their transponders turned off, just to keep everyone honest. After a few dozen more scientic use cases, then, maybe, some UFO tracking.
Sky Hub [2] tried it, combining recording with some ML detection, but they went bust last year.
[1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275829635_Project_f...
[2] - https://www.space.com/spotting-ufos-sky-hub-surveillance
The paper is by three Ukranian astro photogrammetrypeople .. I was going to comment on "ships" for the bias but figured I can mark that down to non native English speakers and some translation issue.
Nothing in the eight pages screams "we believe in aliens", it's essentially about not yet catogorised observed phenomona high up in the troposphere.
With limited data on fast objects that appear in only a few frames they write about two classes of "things".
The earth, of course, sees an infall of roughly 48.5 tons of material per day of various sizes and composition, much of which never reaches the surface directly, instead breaking up and falling as dust.
Nothing in the eight pages screams "we believe in aliens", it's essentially about not yet catogorised observed phenomona high up in the troposphere.
With limited data on fast objects that appear in only a few frames they write about two classes of "things".
The earth, of course, sees an infall of roughly 48.5 tons of material per day of various sizes and composition, much of which never reaches the surface directly, instead breaking up and falling as dust.
The phrase “squadron of ships” seems like deliberate word choice. And to me, “squadron” is a more alarming word than “ships,” because it implies cooperation between multiple intelligent entities. But the paper does not describe much compelling evidence for any intelligent “swarming” behavior, so I interpreted the word choice as bias.
The crescent shape looks like it could be side view of the ionized part of a shock wave (maybe there’s a better word for it).
The paper isn’t clear about this, but the crescent in that image is the moon, AFAIU. They’re using it as a baseline for luminosity of the UAPs, which are the multiple (less bright) white speckles in the image.
"moon"?
> Also, from their methodology and instrumentation (color cameras) it seems they could have done it in like 80s. Why coming out now?
The 80s were mostly about DSLR cameras with film (whether colour or black and white).
These three are currently focused on what can be determined from CMOS cameras using more recent techniques.
eg:
Meteor colorimetry with CMOS cameras
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf
treats digital captures as a limited range spectrogram in the visible spectrum normalises values and attempts to determine estimates for "the characteristics of meteors such as temperature, chemical composition, and others".
As this approach is based upon "new algorithms for estimating temperature, heat radiation emitted by a fireball, and spectra of meteors containing emission lines using a new approach based on colourimetry" it seems they are publishing now as they had neither the cameras nor the algorithm some 40 years ago, and perhaps were not yet born.
The 80s were mostly about DSLR cameras with film (whether colour or black and white).
These three are currently focused on what can be determined from CMOS cameras using more recent techniques.
eg:
Meteor colorimetry with CMOS cameras
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf
treats digital captures as a limited range spectrogram in the visible spectrum normalises values and attempts to determine estimates for "the characteristics of meteors such as temperature, chemical composition, and others".
As this approach is based upon "new algorithms for estimating temperature, heat radiation emitted by a fireball, and spectra of meteors containing emission lines using a new approach based on colourimetry" it seems they are publishing now as they had neither the cameras nor the algorithm some 40 years ago, and perhaps were not yet born.
Reason to be skeptical:
For the last 10 years (?) or so most everybody has a mobile phone with high-quality camera in it and most people carry their phone with them all the time.
Shouldn't that mean that the quality and quantity of UFO evidence should have exploded since about 10-15 years ago? But I haven't seen any articles about how much more and how much better quality UFO evidence we have now that anybody whose sees a UFO can take a snapshot or video of it. Further when a group of people see a UFO, they could each take their own video of it taken with their different cameras.
If I saw a UFO I would certainly try to take a video of it.
For the last 10 years (?) or so most everybody has a mobile phone with high-quality camera in it and most people carry their phone with them all the time.
Shouldn't that mean that the quality and quantity of UFO evidence should have exploded since about 10-15 years ago? But I haven't seen any articles about how much more and how much better quality UFO evidence we have now that anybody whose sees a UFO can take a snapshot or video of it. Further when a group of people see a UFO, they could each take their own video of it taken with their different cameras.
If I saw a UFO I would certainly try to take a video of it.
Do this as an execerise:
Take your phone outside, find an airplane. Try to take a photo.
Take your phone outside, find an airplane. Try to take a photo.
I did once. It turned out nice.
But there is video. It just looks crap or CGI because it's hand held, because who expects to see a UFO, and shot by amateurs.
There is video, there is evidence. I'm juts wondering why the evidence isn't accumulating many times faster now that everybody has a cell-phone and they have good cameras in them?
They are not the best possible equipment for taking pictures of UFOs, but surely they are much much better than what average person had with them 20 years ago. So that means in my calculation that the quality and quantity evidence should be much better now. So really my question is, is there any evidence that the evidence about UFOs is much better now that it was 20 years ago?
They are not the best possible equipment for taking pictures of UFOs, but surely they are much much better than what average person had with them 20 years ago. So that means in my calculation that the quality and quantity evidence should be much better now. So really my question is, is there any evidence that the evidence about UFOs is much better now that it was 20 years ago?
Could it be that phone cameras just aren't even remotely optimized for videos being taken in the dark. I'd imagine that's when most sightings happen.
Could be but I don't understand why UFOs would only show up at night? Is that what the existing evidence shows?
Or is it just that in the dark it is much harder to identify an object and therefore there are more un-identified objects at night?
Or is it just that in the dark it is much harder to identify an object and therefore there are more un-identified objects at night?
> most everybody has a mobile phone with high-quality camera in it and most people carry their phone with them all the time.
I feel like a small craft in the sky is hardly going to look good on even the best phone cameras. Ever try to take a photo of a plane. These cameras suck at anything past 2x zoom. The overall point though I think is sound, filmed incidence rates (even if still in crappy quality) should be plentiful and thus far I'm not aware of any footage that is remotely interesting (from amateurs at least)
I feel like a small craft in the sky is hardly going to look good on even the best phone cameras. Ever try to take a photo of a plane. These cameras suck at anything past 2x zoom. The overall point though I think is sound, filmed incidence rates (even if still in crappy quality) should be plentiful and thus far I'm not aware of any footage that is remotely interesting (from amateurs at least)
[deleted]
"Our astronomical work is daytime observations of meteors and space invasions."
Just a day in the life. Watching for falling rocks and space invaders.
Just a day in the life. Watching for falling rocks and space invaders.
They’re relying heavily on illumination. I can’t help think that they could be bugs, front illuminated by whatever is around the telescopes.
As Mick West suggests, unless you can rule out things like insects flying past the camera, then further proof is necessary.
Did you read the paper?
Show me where they discuss sources of error - as a paper it's poorly written, I mean what kind of academic whacks this into an abstract and decides it's OK.
"We present a broad range of UAPs. We see them everywhere."
Everywhere? In the cupboard at home? In the local movie theatre?
Nowhere they discuss sources of error - it's a description of their setup, and then a straight dive into here's a taxonomy of all the UAPs. Plus, there's not enough there to reproduce their rig if indeed UAPs are "everywhere".
"We present a broad range of UAPs. We see them everywhere."
Everywhere? In the cupboard at home? In the local movie theatre?
Nowhere they discuss sources of error - it's a description of their setup, and then a straight dive into here's a taxonomy of all the UAPs. Plus, there's not enough there to reproduce their rig if indeed UAPs are "everywhere".
I did some quick googling to put things in perspective:
Mach1 is ~ 0.3 km/s (+/- 0.1 varies with altitude) Artillery is ~ 1 km/s Earth orbital escape velocity is ~ 11 km/s
6km high is 20,000 ft, around low regional turboprop aircraft. 10km high is 32,000 ft, around airliner cruise altitude. 15km high is 50,000 ft, where Elon Musks private jet sits. 20km high is more where U2 and SR71 start to operate and require space suits.
ISS orbit is ~ 400 km Elon's Starlink is 550km
Mach1 is ~ 0.3 km/s (+/- 0.1 varies with altitude) Artillery is ~ 1 km/s Earth orbital escape velocity is ~ 11 km/s
6km high is 20,000 ft, around low regional turboprop aircraft. 10km high is 32,000 ft, around airliner cruise altitude. 15km high is 50,000 ft, where Elon Musks private jet sits. 20km high is more where U2 and SR71 start to operate and require space suits.
ISS orbit is ~ 400 km Elon's Starlink is 550km
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/57734614
Edit: really curious if any of the downvoters could mention their rationale.