UFOs exist in the low information zone(metabunk.org)
metabunk.org
UFOs exist in the low information zone
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-just-in-the-low-information-zone-the-liz.10921/
129 comments
Why trolls? Maybe they just want to learn about us. I don't see the reason to assume they have godlike sensors with unlimited range - they need to come closer to see detail.
Them being able to travel here doesn't imply they have significantly better technology than we do - it just means they had more time, perhaps their civilization is older than ours. 100k years older would be enough to send out a probe from some nearby stars. 1M years older would be enough to travel from thousands of not-so-nearby stars around.
Them being able to travel here doesn't imply they have significantly better technology than we do - it just means they had more time, perhaps their civilization is older than ours. 100k years older would be enough to send out a probe from some nearby stars. 1M years older would be enough to travel from thousands of not-so-nearby stars around.
Yeah. These all seem like things a peer-ish human adversary might want to do - if only to see what they could get away with - rather than a vastly more sophisticated alien race capable of interstellar travel.
Yeah. And note that the military is heavily optimized (people, procedures, training, equipment, you name it) for dealing with peer-ish human adversaries, and things which such adversaries might try to get away with.
If your day job is at the nail factory, then you may not be the best judge of those pointy things growing on hawthorn trees.
If your day job is at the nail factory, then you may not be the best judge of those pointy things growing on hawthorn trees.
I've been a UFO enthusiast since I was a kid, always excited to hear about the real, hidden truth which is surely just around the corner, about to be revealed. (I like the slightly sinister sense of mystery, I think). But I have to admit, it is suspicious that given the super high res. cameras we all carry around, every UFO video we see these days is just a few blurry pixels.
It's hard to get a good photo in the moment. If you tried to take a picture of a helicopter overhead before it got out of your view, I bet the photo would turn out like junk too. These things do turn up pretty well on certain cameras, like the ones on military jets trying to follow these objects.
Oddly long winded semantic argument about the literal definition of Unidentified Flying Objects. Yes, they're unidentified, yes, they're hard to see which is why they're unidentified.
Did we read the same post? That was not at all my takeaway. The post was actually about "cameras have a range of effective identification, UFOs 'just so happen' to be always just outside this range even after it has expanded, the likeliest explanation for this coincidence is that they are not alien spaceships."
Which means you cant identify them, which makes them unidentified, regardless of why.
Calling it a Low Information Zone doesn't really satisfy anything, outside of a new designation for something we can't identify. We've solved nothing outside of adding a semantic qualifier.
Calling it a Low Information Zone doesn't really satisfy anything, outside of a new designation for something we can't identify. We've solved nothing outside of adding a semantic qualifier.
The point is that if the only alien spacecraft candidates are in the "too far away and fuzzy to positively identify" zone, and then you improve your detection abilities and all your new candidates are again in that fuzzy zone (which is just further out), one might conclude that there aren't any alien spacecraft.
That is, there are always going to be objects that are too fuzzy to positively identify, no matter how good your sensors are. So you can always find some weird readings at the edge of intelligibility that could be anything. That's why Bigfoot videos are always blurry: clear videos are always not Bigfoot.
That is, there are always going to be objects that are too fuzzy to positively identify, no matter how good your sensors are. So you can always find some weird readings at the edge of intelligibility that could be anything. That's why Bigfoot videos are always blurry: clear videos are always not Bigfoot.
[deleted]
If I was an alien spaceship I'd try to stay just outside the current identification range on purpose.
Also a reasonable take. If you're sufficiently advanced to cover interstellar distances, avoiding detection (for the most part) is probably trivial in comparison.
You don't need to be much more advanced than we are. You only need time - perhaps the alien civilization is millions of years older than ours. That would allow them to use peer-level technology to travel here.
That would mean they use rockets and jet engines. Which, if we're accepting (for the sake of argument) UFO sightings as evidence, they obviously do not. Naively, and as described, they demonstrate traits which strongly suggest technology far in advance of our own, to the point of harnessing physics we don't even understand.
It would also be very easy to see them coming, because there is no stealth in space and they would need to be burning fuel and giving off heat, and doing so for tens of thousands of years or more.
It would also be very easy to see them coming, because there is no stealth in space and they would need to be burning fuel and giving off heat, and doing so for tens of thousands of years or more.
[deleted]
Why don't they just stay totally outside detection range, instead?
To see as much detail as possible without confirming they are here. Sensors aren't unlimited, aliens would be constrained by the same physics as we are.
Why? Teaser theory from H2G2? Just tease people with your presence without giving them any firm proof of what they saw?
To be able to observe their reaction to unknown without confirming I am there.
And maybe I don't have unlimited sensors - so I want to see as much detail as possible.
And maybe I don't have unlimited sensors - so I want to see as much detail as possible.
In other words, uncertainty exists at the edge of certainty.
I get the point, but it just doesn't solve anything as much as it just dismisses it. "It's a UFO because its hard to see, if we could see it, we'd know it was a helicopter that moves in 4 dimensions."
I don’t think you get the point.
That UFOs always are outside the identifiable camera range even as that range expands suggests that they are nothing special. It’s actual good (indirect) evidence for UFOs being nothing special.
That UFOs always are outside the identifiable camera range even as that range expands suggests that they are nothing special. It’s actual good (indirect) evidence for UFOs being nothing special.
It seems telling that as camera and detection equipment has gotten better, presumed "alien" UFO elusiveness has advanced precisely in lockstep: not too much to stop being detected altogether, but not so little as to be definitively identifiable.
As our sensors got better, objects which would previously be UFOs turned into "oh, it's a balloon" and forgotten. Objects that previously wouldn't be visible at all, but are now marginally visible, turn into UFOs.
We've actually gotten more UAPs than ever as our detection capabilities have increased. We are picking up more things than ever that we can't explain. You'd think that would be the opposite, implying that previously unknown objects became known with better optics, radar and detection systems, but that's not the case.
Well, they're different objects. The lost weather balloon that would have been unidentified before is now identified. You don't hear about those though, since they're boring.
The weather balloon that would not be detected at all before can now be detected as a UFO. As the range of sensors expands the LIV probably gets bigger too just because the radius is larger. The more sensitive and numerous the sensors, the more false positives you get.
The weather balloon that would not be detected at all before can now be detected as a UFO. As the range of sensors expands the LIV probably gets bigger too just because the radius is larger. The more sensitive and numerous the sensors, the more false positives you get.
I don't think you get the point of applying the entirety of the evidence together outside of just saying "well its still blurry, case dismissed." There is hard, credible evidence from reputable eye witnesses. There is hard, credible evidence of these objects moving in a manner that's inconsistent with any known technology we have.
That evidence is utterly unconvincing.
Please pull yourself out of this mirage and away from falling prey to disinformation.
Please pull yourself out of this mirage and away from falling prey to disinformation.
Disinformation? That would imply we're being intentionally misled about what the objects are. In which case, nothing I've said contradicts that, regardless if it's terrestrial based or otherwise.
I’ve never seen this framed as a disinformation campaign. It seems like the opposite, with all of the agencies now taking it seriously: a “get information” campaign.
Something being unidentifiable doesn't necessarily mean that it's in the LIZ. It could be a real alien space ship, clearly viewed from close up with of information and detail, but nevertheless unidentified because it's not from this planet.
But none of the videos are like that. They're all from the LIZ, and the most likely explanation for this 'coincidence' is: they're unidentifiable because they're in the LIZ.
But none of the videos are like that. They're all from the LIZ, and the most likely explanation for this 'coincidence' is: they're unidentifiable because they're in the LIZ.
The "LIZ" also doesn't really exist. There's no quantifiable way to measure it outside of just agreeing that something is hard to make out. Some of these newer videos are well within the range of whatever the camera's capability is.
Targeting systems also don't have "Low Information Zones" for known objects. They enter a "Low Information Zone" when the craft they're targeting starts doing things that are unexplainable. Is the craft creating the LIZ in that case?
Targeting systems also don't have "Low Information Zones" for known objects. They enter a "Low Information Zone" when the craft they're targeting starts doing things that are unexplainable. Is the craft creating the LIZ in that case?
None of the Navy videos depict anything clearly. That's not a coincidence.
I don't think anyone has cared so much about what they look like as opposed to how and what they're doing when they do see them. There's also numerous first hand accounts from extremely reputable people that sort of do away with the need for high resolution photos. Taking everything together, the case is a lot more compelling than just "UFO because zoom can't zoom any better, the end".
You've completely missed the point of the article, and numerous times again when others tried to explain it to you. So I'll try one last time: If the aliens were real, at least some of the videos would show them clearly. None of the videos show them clearly, and that's not a coincidence. The only reason the videos are discussed at all is because the objects in the videos are not clear.
> what they're doing when they do see them.
They aren't shown to be doing anything strange. All of the videos show mundane movement. You're being tricked by parallax.
> extremely reputable people
It all boils down to "navy pilots wouldn't lie to me". It's a complete joke.
> what they're doing when they do see them.
They aren't shown to be doing anything strange. All of the videos show mundane movement. You're being tricked by parallax.
> extremely reputable people
It all boils down to "navy pilots wouldn't lie to me". It's a complete joke.
>If the aliens were real, at least some of the videos would show them clearly.
Says who? Did I miss the memo?
>It's a complete joke.
The Pentagon seems to take it seriously enough, even creating the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to track "anomalous, unidentified space, airborne, submerged and transmedium objects." Least they're having a laugh with it!
Says who? Did I miss the memo?
>It's a complete joke.
The Pentagon seems to take it seriously enough, even creating the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office to track "anomalous, unidentified space, airborne, submerged and transmedium objects." Least they're having a laugh with it!
Yeah but more importantly the post suggests there are likely terrestrial explanations which obey the laws of physics as we understand them contrary to what's been depicted in the media recently.
I want to believe, but I agree with the author of the post that we need to see some evidence that's outside of the "Low Information Zone"
I want to believe, but I agree with the author of the post that we need to see some evidence that's outside of the "Low Information Zone"
There's always been possible terrestrial explanations, but those explanations are as concerning (if not more concerning) than actual aliens, which is why these things remain so compelling.
> but those explanations are as concerning (if not more concerning) than actual aliens
did you not read the article? what is "concerning" about "relatively high object doing 50 knots in one direction like a bird or a balloon"?
did you not read the article? what is "concerning" about "relatively high object doing 50 knots in one direction like a bird or a balloon"?
This article isn't even accounting for all the UAP information that has come out in the last 2 years.
The YouTube video on the UFO parallax illusion was particularly illuminating for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYqVa59VRRc
I actually thought it was a very astute observation. Something could be very close and still be unknown, eg. a secret model of plane, or new weather phenomenon.
Reading between the lines, his point is that it's unlikely that ET only flys in people's LIZ.
Reading between the lines, his point is that it's unlikely that ET only flys in people's LIZ.
This seems like a bad take. If aliens can traverse lightspeed distances with sufficient ease to stop here, it seems trivial they'd also be able to analyse comparatively primitive sensor technology and navigate out of range to avoid identification.
So to address this, I need to take a detour for a second.
Let's suppose there are two competing theories to explain the cause of the seasons. To the ancient Greeks, spring and summer signified the six months when Persephone returned from the Underworld, and her mother Demeter made the Earth bloom and grow bountiful after her absence. When Persephone left the company of the gods and returned to the Underworld, Demeter’s loss was expressed in the barrenness of autumn and winter.
Another theory is that Earth's axial tilt causes the seasons.
Now try to come at this for a second pretending you don't know the answer. Each accounts for the observations in different ways.
But the former is a malleable theory. Not because it's wrong--but because it's very malleable. For instance, the Greeks may not have known that the seasons are reversed between northern and southern hemispheres. If they observed this though, they wouldn't need to discard the theory. They can simply modify it to suit the new observation (perhaps Demeter visits the Southern hemisphere for six months and the northern hemisphere the other six).
In contrast, the Earth's tilt theory is strong. It accounts for the reason the seasons are different in the hemispheres. It explains why the sun's angle changes each day. It explains why the days get short in the winter.
If any single one of those observations were different, the theory would have to be discarded. It's a very fragile theory not because it's correct--but because if any of those observations were different, the theory would have to be discarded.
Now I think you know where I am going with this. The problem with the alien theory is exactly the same problem with Persephone. Any observation can be explained away or even taken as further proof. The theory is malleable. If the UFOs appear on RADAR, then it's proof they exist. If they don't appear on RADAR, it just shows they must be using alien technology to conceal. If they are in photos it's because they exist. If there are lack of photos, it's because they have invisibility technology. If they are only in blurry photos, it's because they only go where cameras are blurry, etc. That is, there really isn't any observation which can disprove them.
Consider also that there is nothing alien about the theory. Why can't they be angels? Or ghosts? I could easily replace every instance of 'alien' with 'ghost' and nothing would change.
(I first heard this distinction between fragile and malleable theories from Michael Shermer, though I cannot find a reference right now.)
Let's suppose there are two competing theories to explain the cause of the seasons. To the ancient Greeks, spring and summer signified the six months when Persephone returned from the Underworld, and her mother Demeter made the Earth bloom and grow bountiful after her absence. When Persephone left the company of the gods and returned to the Underworld, Demeter’s loss was expressed in the barrenness of autumn and winter.
Another theory is that Earth's axial tilt causes the seasons.
Now try to come at this for a second pretending you don't know the answer. Each accounts for the observations in different ways.
But the former is a malleable theory. Not because it's wrong--but because it's very malleable. For instance, the Greeks may not have known that the seasons are reversed between northern and southern hemispheres. If they observed this though, they wouldn't need to discard the theory. They can simply modify it to suit the new observation (perhaps Demeter visits the Southern hemisphere for six months and the northern hemisphere the other six).
In contrast, the Earth's tilt theory is strong. It accounts for the reason the seasons are different in the hemispheres. It explains why the sun's angle changes each day. It explains why the days get short in the winter.
If any single one of those observations were different, the theory would have to be discarded. It's a very fragile theory not because it's correct--but because if any of those observations were different, the theory would have to be discarded.
Now I think you know where I am going with this. The problem with the alien theory is exactly the same problem with Persephone. Any observation can be explained away or even taken as further proof. The theory is malleable. If the UFOs appear on RADAR, then it's proof they exist. If they don't appear on RADAR, it just shows they must be using alien technology to conceal. If they are in photos it's because they exist. If there are lack of photos, it's because they have invisibility technology. If they are only in blurry photos, it's because they only go where cameras are blurry, etc. That is, there really isn't any observation which can disprove them.
Consider also that there is nothing alien about the theory. Why can't they be angels? Or ghosts? I could easily replace every instance of 'alien' with 'ghost' and nothing would change.
(I first heard this distinction between fragile and malleable theories from Michael Shermer, though I cannot find a reference right now.)
The problem is they have been tracked on radar, multiple times and even the same event independently on different radar as well as other instrumentation. Doesn't prove Greek Gods, but possibly not Earth's tilt in this case.
But they wouldn't go a little further to avoid being seen at all?
Maybe they are, and we're just catching glimpses of the ones that slip through the proverbial cracks?
god of the gaps, but for aliens.
[deleted]
It's pretty obvious by now that UFOs have advanced ElectroMagnetic Warfare (EW) equipment capable of interfering with optical devices in such a way that all photos are low resolution.
Basically next-next-next-next generation of current car camouflage patterns (but active, not passive) or anti-surveillance streetwear.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/fords-new-car-camouflage-...
One obvious solution is to fly a two seater plane, and put in the back seat a highly skilled fast pen artist so he can sketch a pen and paper detailed drawing of the UFO.
Basically next-next-next-next generation of current car camouflage patterns (but active, not passive) or anti-surveillance streetwear.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/fords-new-car-camouflage-...
One obvious solution is to fly a two seater plane, and put in the back seat a highly skilled fast pen artist so he can sketch a pen and paper detailed drawing of the UFO.
And the pictures where UFOs are clearly visible are rapidly dismissed as CGI. There is no picture that would convince a hardcore skeptic, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but it needs to be clear to everyone.
Extraordinary disbelief calls for extraordinary evidence, and that likely means repeated observations by multiple credible observers -- credible to the person in question, that is. It is a tall order without systematic funding to collect that data a la Project Galileo.
I remain on the fence. On the one hand, the publicly-available data is entirely unconvincing, while on the other hand the testimonies from high ranking officials to pilots are intriguing.
Extraordinary disbelief calls for extraordinary evidence, and that likely means repeated observations by multiple credible observers -- credible to the person in question, that is. It is a tall order without systematic funding to collect that data a la Project Galileo.
I remain on the fence. On the one hand, the publicly-available data is entirely unconvincing, while on the other hand the testimonies from high ranking officials to pilots are intriguing.
I think the biggest argument against UFOs (or at least, against UFOs being aliens) is the set of claims that need to be true for it to hold up.
* Aliens (which in fairness, is the easy thing to accept here)
* Aliens that have the technology and means to travel vast distances to our solar system, and then on to earth
* (Alternatively) Aliens that have the technology and means to hide their presence in nearby solar systems and also still pretty good technology for traveling long distances
* A desire in these aliens to regularly and specifically visit earth (otherwise we wouldn't have sightings over such a long period of time)
* A desire to avoid being spotted by humans (otherwise we should surely expect far more of these sightings)
* A consistent inability in these aliens to avoid being spotted despite the aforementioned desire and technological capability (otherwise we would have no sightings at all)
* A very heterogenous set of equipment, vehicles, creatures, and patterns to account for the wide range of different reported sightings
* A desire by the government to keep this information hushed up (in fairness, this might not be required, but it seems insisted upon by every UFO believer I've ever heard)
* An inability by the government to keep this information hushed up
* A conscious choice by experts and the media to be sceptical of this story even when evidence is leaked or released
In fairness, all of this stuff could be true. If the evidence points to it, we should be willing to accept crazy claims like "this particle is actually also a wave" and "black holes exist". But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and repeated, consistent evidence. And that's what the whole "UFOs are aliens" lacks. There is a handful of circumstantial, fuzzy evidence from photos and videos that show wild things but aren't consistent with each other, and at best support one or two of the claims made above.
For me, that's the biggest issue here. It's not just accepting that some shiny ball of light might be an extraterrestrial vessel, it's also building a full theory out of that assumption that actually makes sense. Every interpretation I've seen requires so many crazy assumptions that it's very difficult to take the whole thing seriously at the end.
* Aliens (which in fairness, is the easy thing to accept here)
* Aliens that have the technology and means to travel vast distances to our solar system, and then on to earth
* (Alternatively) Aliens that have the technology and means to hide their presence in nearby solar systems and also still pretty good technology for traveling long distances
* A desire in these aliens to regularly and specifically visit earth (otherwise we wouldn't have sightings over such a long period of time)
* A desire to avoid being spotted by humans (otherwise we should surely expect far more of these sightings)
* A consistent inability in these aliens to avoid being spotted despite the aforementioned desire and technological capability (otherwise we would have no sightings at all)
* A very heterogenous set of equipment, vehicles, creatures, and patterns to account for the wide range of different reported sightings
* A desire by the government to keep this information hushed up (in fairness, this might not be required, but it seems insisted upon by every UFO believer I've ever heard)
* An inability by the government to keep this information hushed up
* A conscious choice by experts and the media to be sceptical of this story even when evidence is leaked or released
In fairness, all of this stuff could be true. If the evidence points to it, we should be willing to accept crazy claims like "this particle is actually also a wave" and "black holes exist". But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and repeated, consistent evidence. And that's what the whole "UFOs are aliens" lacks. There is a handful of circumstantial, fuzzy evidence from photos and videos that show wild things but aren't consistent with each other, and at best support one or two of the claims made above.
For me, that's the biggest issue here. It's not just accepting that some shiny ball of light might be an extraterrestrial vessel, it's also building a full theory out of that assumption that actually makes sense. Every interpretation I've seen requires so many crazy assumptions that it's very difficult to take the whole thing seriously at the end.
On the other hand, it might seem most likely that aliens should be here, given:
- the vastness of space
- the abundance of habitable worlds
- the age of the universe
- the speed with which tools like von Neumann probes could proliferate the galaxy
- the likelihood that somebody somewhere over millions of years would create a von Neumann probe (computer viruses didn't take long to make)
- the observation that we are here so why is no one else?
If we look around and see that we are alone, are we to assume no one else is there, or is it more likely they are and are hiding? There are good reasons to assume the group that comes to survive longest in the galaxy is also the one that is good at hiding. I think all these considerations more or less answer your first 5 points.
For some of the remaining points, maybe there are very few real alien sightings in the UFO reports but they are very few. The vast majority are hoaxes / confused. Government is not involved but maybe covering up the fact that they have detected some things they can't explain.
- the vastness of space
- the abundance of habitable worlds
- the age of the universe
- the speed with which tools like von Neumann probes could proliferate the galaxy
- the likelihood that somebody somewhere over millions of years would create a von Neumann probe (computer viruses didn't take long to make)
- the observation that we are here so why is no one else?
If we look around and see that we are alone, are we to assume no one else is there, or is it more likely they are and are hiding? There are good reasons to assume the group that comes to survive longest in the galaxy is also the one that is good at hiding. I think all these considerations more or less answer your first 5 points.
For some of the remaining points, maybe there are very few real alien sightings in the UFO reports but they are very few. The vast majority are hoaxes / confused. Government is not involved but maybe covering up the fact that they have detected some things they can't explain.
> - the speed with which tools like von Neumann probes could proliferate the galaxy
> - the likelihood that somebody somewhere over millions of years would create a von Neumann probe (computer viruses didn't take long to make)
The problem with this is no one has demonstrated any technology that can be used to make a von Neumann probe, and if you look at it from an engineering perspective, it's not clear that it's feasible at all. We are nowhere close to building machines that can build machines, much less ones that can do so when the inputs are "mine this rock", much less ones that can identify the rocks to be so mined, much less ones that are capable of being launched onto another planet, much less ones that can land on exoplanets, much less ones that can identify said exoplanets, much less ones that can remain in good working order for the entire journey.
That's... a lot of steps that need to be met for a von Neumann probe to be possible in the first place, almost none of which are demonstrable anytime soon. Should any one of those things be impossible, or merely impracticable, then that means von Neumann probes themselves are so. Until it's demonstrated that there's a good reason to think that von Neumann probes should be possible to construct, I don't think it's reasonable to argue that we should assume they already exist.
> - the likelihood that somebody somewhere over millions of years would create a von Neumann probe (computer viruses didn't take long to make)
The problem with this is no one has demonstrated any technology that can be used to make a von Neumann probe, and if you look at it from an engineering perspective, it's not clear that it's feasible at all. We are nowhere close to building machines that can build machines, much less ones that can do so when the inputs are "mine this rock", much less ones that can identify the rocks to be so mined, much less ones that are capable of being launched onto another planet, much less ones that can land on exoplanets, much less ones that can identify said exoplanets, much less ones that can remain in good working order for the entire journey.
That's... a lot of steps that need to be met for a von Neumann probe to be possible in the first place, almost none of which are demonstrable anytime soon. Should any one of those things be impossible, or merely impracticable, then that means von Neumann probes themselves are so. Until it's demonstrated that there's a good reason to think that von Neumann probes should be possible to construct, I don't think it's reasonable to argue that we should assume they already exist.
Humans, animals, plants, microbes, etc are that technology. Life is self-replicating nanotechnology machines. If synthetic biology works - and we know it does, we have already created a synthetic cell - it's perfectly possible. Not to mention it could evolve on its own. Humans are Von Neumann probes in our environment.
Like I say, I'm all in board with accepting that aliens are likely to exist, that's the easy part of my list. And accepting that aliens can travel vast distances is also plausible, we just need to make them very technologically advanced in order to do so in reasonable time scales. And then possibly these very advanced aliens want to come to earth specifically out of curiosity or something?
But the problem is with each premise you're making more assumptions, and as you get further those assumptions start contradicting each other. The aliens aren't making their presence known so clearly they want to hide in some way. But these super advanced aliens keep on getting spotted, so maybe they don't want to hide, or they're not that good at hiding? So maybe they don't have all that good technology? But now how do we get them to fly between solar systems to make the start of the theory work?
And the further down the list you go, the more assumptions start to contradict each other, or become a step to far. But all of the assumptions are necessary because otherwise there's a gaping flaw in the whole idea.
But the problem is with each premise you're making more assumptions, and as you get further those assumptions start contradicting each other. The aliens aren't making their presence known so clearly they want to hide in some way. But these super advanced aliens keep on getting spotted, so maybe they don't want to hide, or they're not that good at hiding? So maybe they don't have all that good technology? But now how do we get them to fly between solar systems to make the start of the theory work?
And the further down the list you go, the more assumptions start to contradict each other, or become a step to far. But all of the assumptions are necessary because otherwise there's a gaping flaw in the whole idea.
> But these super advanced aliens keep on getting spotted, so maybe they don't want to hide, or they're not that good at hiding? So maybe they don't have all that good technology?
But I addressed this by saying they're not getting spotted. This is an orthogonal discussion to the UFO discussion which started this thread. I think the vast majority of UFO sightings have a terrestrial explanation.
But I addressed this by saying they're not getting spotted. This is an orthogonal discussion to the UFO discussion which started this thread. I think the vast majority of UFO sightings have a terrestrial explanation.
If you calculate and come up with the answer that it's really likely we should be seeing life, is it more likely that life is hiding or that one of your assumptions is wrong? Maybe try adding confidence levels to your estimates or changing them to ranges? It might be that von Neumann probes are harder to make or slower than you're expecting. If you're really confident in all the values then your conclusion still makes sense.
There's other factors that contribute to not seeing life in the universe. We have extremely limited ability to obverse exoplanets, my understanding is an exoplanet we're looking at could have life and we wouldn't know it. I think we're best suited to detecting life that outputs recognizable radio signals in our direction, which should be rare among all life.
There's other factors that contribute to not seeing life in the universe. We have extremely limited ability to obverse exoplanets, my understanding is an exoplanet we're looking at could have life and we wouldn't know it. I think we're best suited to detecting life that outputs recognizable radio signals in our direction, which should be rare among all life.
It's probably extremely likely that if there are other intelligent life out there it is hiding. Risks of things like contamination and extermination are massive, and one need only to look at our own history. Transoceanic trade was havoc enough on our own species when it emerged a few centuries ago, both in terms of loss of human life from violence and disease as well as native flora and fauna that was either exploited, cut out in favor of a cash crop, or outcompeted by an invasive species that came aboard those ships. Even today you can't do things like transport firewood due to the risk of spreading disease to different populations. I think we are in an especially dangerous position since we are just blaring out "Look at me!!!" with our radio emissions into the universe. Hopefully another species doesn't consider this as some brutish chesthumping of our confidence against conquest.
Not to mention that there has to be something they would get from visiting earth and flying around for decades that they couldn't get by passively observing or landing a few times centuries ago.
* Decade after decade of the aliens at-most flirting with small numbers of isolated observers, generally in situations (like flying) where humans senses are far from their best. And never, ever doing something really slow, close, and obvious - say, 20 feet above an Xmas Parade, at 20 miles an hour, lower hatch on their saucer open, and mooning the crowd. Maybe catching Santa in the face with a couple Saturnberry cream pies, too.
> UFOs (or at least, against UFOs being aliens)
This right here is a huge issue. You get UFO believers who can't talk about UFOs without mentioning aliens.
But then you get disbelievers with the same problem! It's ridiculous and automatically calls into question individuals' claims of rationality or scientific intentions.
This right here is a huge issue. You get UFO believers who can't talk about UFOs without mentioning aliens.
But then you get disbelievers with the same problem! It's ridiculous and automatically calls into question individuals' claims of rationality or scientific intentions.
I don't think anyone doubts that some non-alien flying objects built by humans happen to be both flying, and unidentified by someone taking video of them.
It's not an interesting thing to discuss. In fact, it's the most obvious, mundane, simple, and unsurprising explanation for UFO videos. It's so banal, it's not even worth mentioning.
That's why skeptics talk about how the alien-ufo conspiracies are bunk, and why conspiracists talk about little green men at Roswell. It's way more interesting then 'The Air Force is testing weird air-frames at Area 51' or 'Some pilot somewhere saw some Russian aircraft but couldn't identify it.' Everyone already knows they are testing weird air-frames at Area 51, and that Russians occasionally fly around in airplanes.
It's not an interesting thing to discuss. In fact, it's the most obvious, mundane, simple, and unsurprising explanation for UFO videos. It's so banal, it's not even worth mentioning.
That's why skeptics talk about how the alien-ufo conspiracies are bunk, and why conspiracists talk about little green men at Roswell. It's way more interesting then 'The Air Force is testing weird air-frames at Area 51' or 'Some pilot somewhere saw some Russian aircraft but couldn't identify it.' Everyone already knows they are testing weird air-frames at Area 51, and that Russians occasionally fly around in airplanes.
> non-alien flying objects built by humans
I get the feeling you think "ET/alien" or "human-made" are the only two possible choices?
I get the feeling you think "ET/alien" or "human-made" are the only two possible choices?
There's also bubbles of swamp gas, birds, weird atmospheric optical phenomena, miscalibrated radars, and hoaxes.
I'm not hugely interested in figuring out which one of a million different, mundane explanations is responsible for any particular UFO sighting. There's a never-ending stream of those sightings, all of them very low-quality, and they never amount to anything interesting. Maybe some spy wonk somewhere three stories underneath the Pentagon has looking at them as his OKR, but I don't get paid for it!
I'm not hugely interested in figuring out which one of a million different, mundane explanations is responsible for any particular UFO sighting. There's a never-ending stream of those sightings, all of them very low-quality, and they never amount to anything interesting. Maybe some spy wonk somewhere three stories underneath the Pentagon has looking at them as his OKR, but I don't get paid for it!
> There's also bubbles of swamp gas, birds, weird atmospheric optical phenomena, miscalibrated radars, and hoaxes.
Damn, some of my favorites aren't even here!
I think the never-amount-to perspective is interesting. It's very outcome-focused. IMO this psychology is not normally a great fit for UFO research, which is rather income-focused and outcome-distracted. So you get a diffusing effect and the most promising work is to be found in pockets and almost never in the big-picture view.
Damn, some of my favorites aren't even here!
I think the never-amount-to perspective is interesting. It's very outcome-focused. IMO this psychology is not normally a great fit for UFO research, which is rather income-focused and outcome-distracted. So you get a diffusing effect and the most promising work is to be found in pockets and almost never in the big-picture view.
What third category could there be? God?
I don't want to share my list after reading that category. Please keep going! Maybe my list is more boring than I give it credit.
Animals
Weather
Airborne rubbish (in the form of plant or land material if you consider 'human made' already covered)
Etc.
Etc.
> And the pictures of UFOs that are clearly visible are rapidly dismissed as CGI.
The UFO hoaxers should probably spend some more time learning how to use Blender well. The most compelling videos are the real videos of LIZ objects. The videos which show anything clearly are uniformly laughably bad. I challenge you to link some videos that depict an apparent alien craft clearly which aren't obviously fake.
The UFO hoaxers should probably spend some more time learning how to use Blender well. The most compelling videos are the real videos of LIZ objects. The videos which show anything clearly are uniformly laughably bad. I challenge you to link some videos that depict an apparent alien craft clearly which aren't obviously fake.
Currently unresolved sighting of a UAP
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/video/Middle...
disclosed during the AARO public hearing
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-te...
on April 19th, 2023. Obviously not definitive proof, but high res footage of an anomalous craft with no visible means of propulsion.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/video/Middle...
disclosed during the AARO public hearing
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-te...
on April 19th, 2023. Obviously not definitive proof, but high res footage of an anomalous craft with no visible means of propulsion.
Looks like a child's balloon blowing in the wind. It's not a large object lower down, it's a small object closer to the camera. That's why it appears to be moving so quickly and why it doesn't cast a shadow in the initial shot.
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/135revf/amazing_foota...
Raw footage is linked there, too.
Raw footage is linked there, too.
Again, just looks like something that's blown up into a cloud and is now being blown around in the turbulence. It's reflective enough that the sun shining through the clouds makes it look bright. Probably flat rather than a cylinder.
I'd love to see a UFO, but I'm always disappointed by the footage.
I'd love to see a UFO, but I'm always disappointed by the footage.
It'd have to be a pretty big object, I think. Your reasoning alone is not enough for me to consider it not-weird. If there was evidence that there was a windstorm in the area at the time and/or that a big piece of sheet metal fell in some field, that would probably be enough to make it less-weird.
Edit: comments in the thread suggest it might be camera distortion, which seems more reasonable to me, but doesn't account for it appearing to go behind clouds.
Edit: comments in the thread suggest it might be camera distortion, which seems more reasonable to me, but doesn't account for it appearing to go behind clouds.
Looks similar to a 'Roswell Rod' which turned out to be insects.
In general, if you are invested in believing something, you dismiss any evidence to the contrary with a variety of rationalizations. It's just how humans work psychologically and even scientists and other people who "should know better" can get caught up in this.
Mick West is perhaps the most popular UFO debunker, he is good faith but has a pretty large conflict of interest he has developed now given the stakes of any of these phenomena being shown to be non human created technology. That said, this is an old post, so less of an issue and it can probably stand on its own. (It's also written before the UAP reports that have come out, which influence the way you ought to think about the disclosures the government has made.)
My favorite post of his about these videos was when he simply worked the trigonometry shown on the FLIR display, and worked out that these things weren’t traveling nearly as fast as described.
The problem is there does seem to be a selection bias problem, where Mick gets a lot of distribution on these kinds of thing, and people do not hear the subsequent refutations from true experts about flaws in his analysis. He speaks very authoritatively, often over his skis imo. He also has a tendency to overemphasize forensics against things like video in a way that just ignores completely the surrounding context.
Also curious for any links to Mick West refutations.
I've found him to be methodical and well-thought, though occasionally "reaching", like his claim that the four F-18 fighter pilots all mistook the "tic-tac" actually being a balloon, or something to that effect.
I've found him to be methodical and well-thought, though occasionally "reaching", like his claim that the four F-18 fighter pilots all mistook the "tic-tac" actually being a balloon, or something to that effect.
In all honesty, those tic tac videos are so blown out with zero definition, the object could literally be anything.
And of course, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
And of course, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
Do you have an example of this? UFOs, like every grand conspiracy theory, attract bad faith proponents with a million whatabouts.
I read about how he met a prominent flat earther and had some really interesting takeaways from his conversation, namely saying, "She is not unintelligent." He seemed shockingly open-minded while fascinated more by the path of reasoning that leads to flat earth thinking. I wish I could find this again.
The author ignores what many find most compelling about those videos. Namely, the domain experts (navy pilots) who filmed the videos and discussed them at length[1].
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=5207s&pp=ygUWam9...
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=5207s&pp=ygUWam9...
I think you are referring to the "Trained Observer." I feel like this was already debunked that many trained observers have been discovered to be wrong about many sightings. I'm happy to be wrong though so please cite anything to correct me.
You are asking the op to prove a negative. You are making the claim that this is a "Trained Observer" which has been debunked, the burden of evidence has fallen to you to show that it has been debunked. Op can't exactly cite something saying that it has not been debunked. They cited a video with evidence and people who have some large authority on things in the air.
Fair point and my comment was more of a drive by than something to put a stake in the sand. If there was some easily cited article that OP could point me to, i would take a look. I'm by no means making a strong claim.
here an exemple of what you say https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQUaXxHEYo
I've known a few Navy pilots. I absolutely defer to them in all questions regarding keeping a plane in the air, getting it safely on and off the ground, and denying those capabilities to others. On questions of what a weird thing they saw in the sky might be, I give their knowledge just about as much weight as anyone who sees a weird thing in the sky.
The first thing we teach pilots is that they have to get comfortable with the fact that their eyes play tricks on them in flight. Our visual perception wasn't tuned for high speeds, high altitudes, and truly three-dimensional relationship assessment, and they're as prone to misinterpretation of things they didn't train on as everyone else is. If they say "That blob is a fighter-jet near the horizon's edge," I believe them; but if they say "I think that blob is a space alien," I don't because nobody knows what a space alien looks like (and "That doesn't look like anything I know" still doesn't imply "space alien").
The first thing we teach pilots is that they have to get comfortable with the fact that their eyes play tricks on them in flight. Our visual perception wasn't tuned for high speeds, high altitudes, and truly three-dimensional relationship assessment, and they're as prone to misinterpretation of things they didn't train on as everyone else is. If they say "That blob is a fighter-jet near the horizon's edge," I believe them; but if they say "I think that blob is a space alien," I don't because nobody knows what a space alien looks like (and "That doesn't look like anything I know" still doesn't imply "space alien").
| Namely, the domain experts (navy pilots)
I don't think this is accurate - "navy pilots" are domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.
What you are maybe getting confused here is that the three examples in the article are actually part of several domains, each of which is very different from aviation expertise.
The domains we're talking about include topics such as optical physics, radar physics (transmitters & receivers), optical sensor technology (and attendant physics), and digital processing including chipset hardware and software stack (and implementation of specific physics). Each of these are their own 'domain', which is important here because faulty implementation in any one of them can lead to such anomalies.
In general, navy pilots do not have that expertise, though I would very much like to hear the opinions of a navy pilot that is indeed 'expert' with all of these 'domains'.
I don't think this is accurate - "navy pilots" are domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.
What you are maybe getting confused here is that the three examples in the article are actually part of several domains, each of which is very different from aviation expertise.
The domains we're talking about include topics such as optical physics, radar physics (transmitters & receivers), optical sensor technology (and attendant physics), and digital processing including chipset hardware and software stack (and implementation of specific physics). Each of these are their own 'domain', which is important here because faulty implementation in any one of them can lead to such anomalies.
In general, navy pilots do not have that expertise, though I would very much like to hear the opinions of a navy pilot that is indeed 'expert' with all of these 'domains'.
> domain experts in operation of navy aircraft.
getting a degree in aeronautics is not like passing a driving exam or heavy machinery license.
though I reject analyses that lean towards LGM, i recognise that people flying these aircraft have necessarily demonstrated enough advanced math and physics competency to understand well the boundary between known vs inexplicable physical phenomena. they are either deliberately ignoring their own training or else have some undiagnosed amnesia, instigated by sudden exposure to celebrity status.
getting a degree in aeronautics is not like passing a driving exam or heavy machinery license.
though I reject analyses that lean towards LGM, i recognise that people flying these aircraft have necessarily demonstrated enough advanced math and physics competency to understand well the boundary between known vs inexplicable physical phenomena. they are either deliberately ignoring their own training or else have some undiagnosed amnesia, instigated by sudden exposure to celebrity status.
> Domain experts
They are domain experts in what they saw with their own eyes in their domain (the sky). The videos are just corroborating evidence.
They are domain experts in what they saw with their own eyes in their domain (the sky). The videos are just corroborating evidence.
Not to mention that Nimitz/TicTac was detected and tracked by multiple different systems from different sources. Ship-based radar, aircraft-based radar (of multiple aircraft) as well as FLIR.
I'm not a true believer by any means, but the claims are much more compelling than this post gives them credit for.
I'm not a true believer by any means, but the claims are much more compelling than this post gives them credit for.
I can confirm for anyone interested that pilots, Navy or otherwise, can also be cranks. They lie, misinterpret, and make mistakes at the same rate as the rest of the population. There is no special moral code issued to you in flight school.
I've seen pilots with their head down in the targeting system saying some really really silly things that were obviously wrong when they got their eyes up and got some SA.
I've seen pilots with their head down in the targeting system saying some really really silly things that were obviously wrong when they got their eyes up and got some SA.
Yeah pilots can totally be wrong. I was once an engineer in flight test, and pilots are your endusers and can speculate all sorts of weird stuff. They are not engineers. That said, in this particular case, the fact that the pilots admitted to joking around / pranks in the past adds credibility. If they were dishonest, they would have tried to conceal this in their past.
I would absolutely not consider them domain experts on anything that's not directly related to flying a jet.
People tend to fall back on these videos as "expert proof" as if military witnesses are more reliable in some way... but they're not at all experts on atmospheric phenomenon, optics, UFOs, or a multitude of other things that could potentially explain these. When it comes to what they're seeing here the expertise ends at "not a plane"
People tend to fall back on these videos as "expert proof" as if military witnesses are more reliable in some way... but they're not at all experts on atmospheric phenomenon, optics, UFOs, or a multitude of other things that could potentially explain these. When it comes to what they're seeing here the expertise ends at "not a plane"
Well, in ten years when the cameras and radars are much improved, we'll be able to identify these things, right? Everybody in such a rush, why not just wait and see?
/s, perhaps? It seems like that argument could have been used 10 years ago (and yet here we are), or 20 years ago (similar), or 30 years ...
Whomever the witness, the fact remains; they are unidentified.
By definition there’s low information. Where I grew up there was a ton of 1980s UFO sightings, generating lots of speculation. Later, we learned they were test Tomahawk cruise missiles that used to develop their terrain navigation system.
By definition there’s low information. Where I grew up there was a ton of 1980s UFO sightings, generating lots of speculation. Later, we learned they were test Tomahawk cruise missiles that used to develop their terrain navigation system.
Not just the navy pilots. USAF has files going back to 1946. My uncles were on the staff of the blue book project. General Joseph D Moore.
They are indeed real, UFOs, but that’s where it ends. We know of several different kinds, but we know not of their origin or how they work. Or at least that information is still sealed. The pentagon knows. Maybe not their communications department but the top brass knows, or at least has access to, the blue book files.
They are indeed real, UFOs, but that’s where it ends. We know of several different kinds, but we know not of their origin or how they work. Or at least that information is still sealed. The pentagon knows. Maybe not their communications department but the top brass knows, or at least has access to, the blue book files.
There are no UFOs in the sense of alien or off-world intelligence. UFOs are created by humans to describe things they can't identify in the moment.
The Joe Rogan Experience video is such speculation that I cannot take any of it as fact. He jumps around in speculative ideas, descriptions and theories. Using titles or rank as a means of factual integrity is thin. It's still hearsay.
People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
The Joe Rogan Experience video is such speculation that I cannot take any of it as fact. He jumps around in speculative ideas, descriptions and theories. Using titles or rank as a means of factual integrity is thin. It's still hearsay.
People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
> The Joe Rogan Experience video is such speculation that I cannot take any of it as fact. He jumps around in speculative ideas, descriptions and theories. Using titles or rank as a means of factual integrity is thin. It's still hearsay
Speculation is speculation, but he also methodically goes through exactly what he and others saw on the day the video was recorded.
> People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
I agree, but this is a compelling case of something, that according to multiple witnesses, seems to defy the laws of physics as we understand them. Saying it is aliens is speculation, saying it is something we do not understand is not.
Speculation is speculation, but he also methodically goes through exactly what he and others saw on the day the video was recorded.
> People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.
I agree, but this is a compelling case of something, that according to multiple witnesses, seems to defy the laws of physics as we understand them. Saying it is aliens is speculation, saying it is something we do not understand is not.
What is the scientific meaning of "undisputed evidence"?
People are paychologically inclined to dispute, dismiss and deride things conflicting with their convictions.
The crucial point is, few are distinguishing between "sombeody is against this" and "somebody has a rational argument against it". Arguments do not count more just by many repeating them. That is, they shouldn't.
People are paychologically inclined to dispute, dismiss and deride things conflicting with their convictions.
The crucial point is, few are distinguishing between "sombeody is against this" and "somebody has a rational argument against it". Arguments do not count more just by many repeating them. That is, they shouldn't.
> zero undisputed evidence
Why would this ever be a useful qualification for any kind of evidence?
Seems like a simple troll with questionable intentions could in such a case easily undermine useful evidence of any quality.
Why would this ever be a useful qualification for any kind of evidence?
Seems like a simple troll with questionable intentions could in such a case easily undermine useful evidence of any quality.
yeah, Joe Rogan's video on it was just pure entertainment. No value. By definition, it's an unidentified flying object. So by nature, it's alien, but not in the little green men sense. It's unknown. Could be man, could be hallucinations, could be drones, could be meteors, each case is unique. However, my family was involved so I know some things the public doesn't. I'm a believer. Without a doubt.
So… they couldn’t keep Clinton‘s blowjob a secret for a few months, but somehow manage to do that for a super-secret report on extraterrestrials visiting earth, for almost 80 years and going?
I doubt it :)
I doubt it :)
So, you think it's impossible for the US to have maintained the integrity of any of its classification levels above public, for more than a few months, and also impossible it could have done so for decades for anything secret at all?
I think the government has been working hard to maintain that aura of superiority, of being the omniscient power that rules it all.
But despite this, there’s budget planning, whistle blowers, leaks to the press, corruption, and political struggle. I’m completely positive that no human organisation can keep something so far reaching secret for a prolonged amount of time.
But despite this, there’s budget planning, whistle blowers, leaks to the press, corruption, and political struggle. I’m completely positive that no human organisation can keep something so far reaching secret for a prolonged amount of time.
The problem is that leaks prove, every time they happen, that there definitively is a given amount of successfully-hidden information, up until that time. We may also safely assume leaks are the exception not rule, and so not complete.
It'd be interesting to see a "time to disclosure" metric, of average times from classification to leak, to get a lower bound on secrecy, but it could only be reasonably considered a lower bound, the upper could be anywhere.
It's also possible agencies responsible for secrets may have worked hard to maintain an aura of being incompetent at keeping them, in order to hold an advantage over their adversaries by misdirecting efforts to the wrong areas.
It'd be interesting to see a "time to disclosure" metric, of average times from classification to leak, to get a lower bound on secrecy, but it could only be reasonably considered a lower bound, the upper could be anywhere.
It's also possible agencies responsible for secrets may have worked hard to maintain an aura of being incompetent at keeping them, in order to hold an advantage over their adversaries by misdirecting efforts to the wrong areas.
UFOs are the sort of the thing that you could easily leak for something like "street cred," and as we just saw last month, there's a lot of people who would be willing to leak something just for the street cred.
they are not domain experts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQQUaXxHEYo
When they are unidentified they exist in a low information zone. Then if they are ever identified they move to a higher information zone.
When they are unidentified and still discussed online, they constitute an information pothole on the information superhighway.
Such potholes are sometimes more like utility trenches, however. And, well-meaning folks occasionally attempt to fill them in, more out of personal frustration than accurate perception of the circumstances, and are later discovered to be kind of dumb for doing so.
Such potholes are sometimes more like utility trenches, however. And, well-meaning folks occasionally attempt to fill them in, more out of personal frustration than accurate perception of the circumstances, and are later discovered to be kind of dumb for doing so.
Shouldn't "metabunk" be about debunking the debunks? Not the best choice of name :)
2019, but not much has changed since then.
I like this response:
> The military complex is only going to release information to the public on a “need to know” basis. Does the public need to know? No. The reason. Because these objects posed no threat to the public, or to the military. [...] The military isn’t going to admit that their pilots pranked the media.
I like this response:
> The military complex is only going to release information to the public on a “need to know” basis. Does the public need to know? No. The reason. Because these objects posed no threat to the public, or to the military. [...] The military isn’t going to admit that their pilots pranked the media.
But not too long ago there was a flurry of media stories sensationalizing these videos and basically concluding that they were UFOs, and the military was going along with the story.. no doubt in order to scare the populace and increase the military budget
If these are being released in order to raise military funding, why were they not released when they were filmed a decade ago? The military is always looking to increase funding.
If anything the military has been very quiet about things in the sky, because if they went public they'd have to admit that probably adversary nations have been getting the drop on them.
> The gross inaction and the stigma surrounding unexplained aerial phenomena as a whole has led to what appears to be the paralyzation of the systems designed to protect us and our most critical military technologies, pointing to a massive failure in U.S. military intelligence. This is a blind spot we ourselves literally created out of cultural taboos and a military-industrial complex that is ill-suited to foresee and counter a lower-end threat that is very hard to defend against.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones...
> The gross inaction and the stigma surrounding unexplained aerial phenomena as a whole has led to what appears to be the paralyzation of the systems designed to protect us and our most critical military technologies, pointing to a massive failure in U.S. military intelligence. This is a blind spot we ourselves literally created out of cultural taboos and a military-industrial complex that is ill-suited to foresee and counter a lower-end threat that is very hard to defend against.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones...
From missiles to subs to jets, the US military has never been shy about pointing at an adversary's strengths (accurate or not) to justify increased budgets.
However, I'll continue to argue that the main evidence against extra terrestrial explanations for UFOs is how the creditability of sightings always seem to depend on first accepting that extra terrestrials are intergalactic trolls.
"It was playing with us that's why we couldn't get a good shot". "They have been interfering with technology at military bases for years". "They show up on our radar then they disappeared". "They lit up the night sky then sped off".