Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Flight characteristics of anomalous unidentified aerial vehicles (2019)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7514271/
117 comments
The sightings like yours (saw a distant light or dot moving in the distance) are typically not the interesting ones, for the reasons you describe. There are just so many unfalsifiable prosaic explanations, and just a dozen or so will account for 95% of accounts from reliable observers.
The interesting ones are "close encounters" like the Nimitz incident with multiple observers, where either the observers are making an exceptional effort to lie, or something extraordinary was truly witnessed. Extra point for those including multiple data points like radar tracks, visual recordings, or radiation burns.
Also, nit: the "flying saucer" phenomenon was popularized by the Rainier Kenneth Arnold sighting, but it was far from the first recorded sighting [0] [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter
The interesting ones are "close encounters" like the Nimitz incident with multiple observers, where either the observers are making an exceptional effort to lie, or something extraordinary was truly witnessed. Extra point for those including multiple data points like radar tracks, visual recordings, or radiation burns.
Also, nit: the "flying saucer" phenomenon was popularized by the Rainier Kenneth Arnold sighting, but it was far from the first recorded sighting [0] [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter
Yes, I understand your nit picking about the "first" UFO sighting being Mt Rainier, although, I feel like it was pretty clear that wasn't the main point I was making.
As for 1561, I am wondering if they had better optics and telescopes maybe it would have revealed what the phenomenon was. Maybe it was an Ancient Alien visitation, or maybe not, we don't know. And probably never will. So, it might be interesting, but it is not proof.
Foo Fighters (good band BTW), maybe if they had better radar or other tools maybe they could have detected what it was, maybe not. So, again, interesting but, just that.
For now, I remain a skeptic. Believe me, when I saw what looked like a disc, it looked like a lot more than just a dot of light, and a lot of other people thought so too, I was excited. I was hoping it was a visitation of nice aliens coming to save us from ourselves and not predators with a cookbook.
But, it turns out it was just a guy in a hang glider with a motor on it. Had I not had a lot of good optical equipment, I might have been convinced I saw a flying saucer.
I am a skeptic, but with proper proof of course I can be convinced, I am even hoping for it (I just hope they aren't bearing cookbooks).
As for 1561, I am wondering if they had better optics and telescopes maybe it would have revealed what the phenomenon was. Maybe it was an Ancient Alien visitation, or maybe not, we don't know. And probably never will. So, it might be interesting, but it is not proof.
Foo Fighters (good band BTW), maybe if they had better radar or other tools maybe they could have detected what it was, maybe not. So, again, interesting but, just that.
For now, I remain a skeptic. Believe me, when I saw what looked like a disc, it looked like a lot more than just a dot of light, and a lot of other people thought so too, I was excited. I was hoping it was a visitation of nice aliens coming to save us from ourselves and not predators with a cookbook.
But, it turns out it was just a guy in a hang glider with a motor on it. Had I not had a lot of good optical equipment, I might have been convinced I saw a flying saucer.
I am a skeptic, but with proper proof of course I can be convinced, I am even hoping for it (I just hope they aren't bearing cookbooks).
Wow, so all you need to cause a whole bunch of UFO sightings is a paramotor with a reflective wing? Interesting...
And a big mountain with weird atmospheric anomalies around it. There are a lot of myths about Mt. Tahoma, the Native American name for Mt. Ranier. Probably because of the various atmospheric anomalies, or... who knows :)
Just kidding around, I see strange cloud formations and other odd looking things wafting off the top or side of it. I can see where someone could mistake some of those things for something super natural. IMO, Nature is pretty super!
Just kidding around, I see strange cloud formations and other odd looking things wafting off the top or side of it. I can see where someone could mistake some of those things for something super natural. IMO, Nature is pretty super!
In my experience, Mt. Rainier is king of the lenticular cloud formations.
Ya, in fact, I see very interesting formations all the time. One morning while making my coffee I looked out and saw what looked like a perfect flying saucer docked to the peak of the mountain. I snapped a photo and texted it to my BFF. She was cracking up about it. We thought for sure we could get it on that Ancient Aliens program for sure.
Or a bunch of birds floating above football floodlights
https://old.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/rqc69n/i_thought_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/rqc69n/i_thought_...
It was news to me that in the Nimitz event ballistic missile defense radar was actually observing the UAVs in low Earth orbit days before the fighter jet encounter. Truly wild stuff. If I had to hazard a guess, these are unmanned (unaliened?) probes, the same ones that have been here for centuries or more. They may not even know or care what humans are or what we're up to. Maybe they keep dipping to the water to take algae samples or something similarly banal. And the reason they "run away" when the fighter jets get too close is just their onboard flight AI following a generic self-preservation script. However, none of this comports with the report of the fleeing tic-tac "appearing" directly at the fighters' pre-determined, secret CAP point.
"Unaliened" probes are far more likely than EBEs given the extreme distances between stars. Hundreds to thousands of years flight time is a problem for any biology even close to ours but an AI can just turn itself off during the trip.
It could be programmed to just observe and occasionally sample interesting biology and stream data back to home base.
It could be programmed to just observe and occasionally sample interesting biology and stream data back to home base.
The study addresses this. If the objects can maintain their observed performance in space, then they could reach relativistic speeds so quickly that shipboard transit time between here and Alpha Centauri would be in the range of days to weeks.
I had not caught that bit before, either:
> The main incident occurred on 14 November 2004, but several days earlier, radar operators on the USS Princeton were detecting UAPs appearing on radar at about 80,000+ feet altitude to the north of CSG11 in the vicinity of Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands. Senior Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar systems had detected the UAPs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet. The objects would arrive in groups of 10 to 20 and subsequently drop down to 28,000 feet with a several hundred foot variation, and track south at a speed of about 100 knots.
> The main incident occurred on 14 November 2004, but several days earlier, radar operators on the USS Princeton were detecting UAPs appearing on radar at about 80,000+ feet altitude to the north of CSG11 in the vicinity of Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands. Senior Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar systems had detected the UAPs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet. The objects would arrive in groups of 10 to 20 and subsequently drop down to 28,000 feet with a several hundred foot variation, and track south at a speed of about 100 knots.
What a coincidence:
https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/navbas...
One of the primary military function of San Clemente Island has been to support research and development of many of the Navy's weapon systems
…
This integrated set of ranges and operational areas covers approximately 2,620 square nautical miles (nm). The SCIRC consists of more than six dozen ranges and operational areas. The extent of these areas range from the ocean floor to an altitude of 80,000 feet.
https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrsw/installations/navbas...
One of the primary military function of San Clemente Island has been to support research and development of many of the Navy's weapon systems
…
This integrated set of ranges and operational areas covers approximately 2,620 square nautical miles (nm). The SCIRC consists of more than six dozen ranges and operational areas. The extent of these areas range from the ocean floor to an altitude of 80,000 feet.
In the "GIMBAL" video the second operator mentions something similar, "there's a whole fleet of them, look on the ASA"
> the same ones that have been here for centuries or more
HN. Shark. Jumping now..
HN. Shark. Jumping now..
Assuming this is all true, I wonder if this is how wild dolphins feel when they have an encounter with friendly human beings? It almost feels like playful behavior. Like the UAPs are flying alongside the fighters the way we might swim with dolphins. Tweaking our noses a bit too. "Look how much faster than you we are. Look how we know your secret little patrol point." It would be sinister and deeply threatening if paired with any demonstration of ill-intent, and perhaps it should be read as such. But it doesn't feel that way to me. It feels very much like the brief fun little games people play during incidental encounters with non-dangerous wild animals sometimes. Imagine a man hiking along a trail in a line with a dozen friends, who notices an interesting lizard on a log and stops to look as his friends continue on without him. The man pokes the lizard a little, to see how it reacts, and it predictably scurries off. He then follows his friends, soon disappearing into what is an impossible-to-reach distance from the lizard's perspective, and he never gives the little lizard another thought. We are lizards compared to any intelligence capable of achieving these levels of power output (1100GW in seconds!), if this study's estimates are correct. Maybe we just got poked in passing.
My favorite theory comes from Douglas Adams where the UFO sightings are the alien equivalent of teenagers going for a joy ride making fun of the weird animals.
There's a good twilight zone episode where some alien kids come to earth to go camping. They get discovered, hunted to their death by humans and in their last move they activate a distress beacon. The closing shot is a alien craft dwarfing earth.
The Navy pilots report being jammed by the silver tic tac's, so one day there may be an escalation.
Or it could all be lens flare.
The Navy pilots report being jammed by the silver tic tac's, so one day there may be an escalation.
Or it could all be lens flare.
Lens flares are a possibility, but my favorite is swamp gas. If it's not aliens, then it might as well be swamp gas.
There are a lot of radars tracking objects in low earth orbit. If there were objects the Nimitz radar could see in orbit "for centuries or more" we'd have seen them a very long time ago.
Radars are probabilistic systems, and with military radars these days the processing is quite complex and sophisticated. There's a going on to reject clutter. This sometimes goes haywire for perfectly banal natural reasons. Assuming alien probes should be item 10 thousand something on your list of likely causes, if not way lower.
Radars are probabilistic systems, and with military radars these days the processing is quite complex and sophisticated. There's a going on to reject clutter. This sometimes goes haywire for perfectly banal natural reasons. Assuming alien probes should be item 10 thousand something on your list of likely causes, if not way lower.
> There are a lot of radars tracking objects in low earth orbit. If there were objects the Nimitz radar could see in orbit "for centuries or more" we'd have seen them a very long time ago.
I'm struggling to make sense of your argument here. People have reported seeing them for a very long time. The core elements of the "ufo phenomenon" appear to be pretty well-conserved across space and time.
>Radars are probabilistic systems, and with military radars these days the processing is quite complex and sophisticated. There's a going on to reject clutter. This sometimes goes haywire for perfectly banal natural reasons.
you are ignoring the fact that the pilots saw these objects with their eyes. Unless the radar systems on multiple planes and the eye-brain systems of multiple humans all failed exactly at the same time and in the same way?
I'm struggling to make sense of your argument here. People have reported seeing them for a very long time. The core elements of the "ufo phenomenon" appear to be pretty well-conserved across space and time.
>Radars are probabilistic systems, and with military radars these days the processing is quite complex and sophisticated. There's a going on to reject clutter. This sometimes goes haywire for perfectly banal natural reasons.
you are ignoring the fact that the pilots saw these objects with their eyes. Unless the radar systems on multiple planes and the eye-brain systems of multiple humans all failed exactly at the same time and in the same way?
I can't get my head around why the govt. is now talking openly about this subject after casting it into the "basement" after project blue book. You have these patents the Navy recently applied for and received that indicate(if believed)[1] that the govt. now has craft that can also achieve stuff like what was described by OP. So for me it really comes down to 3 scenarios:
1 - The crafts are non-human technology, the US knows what they are(non-human technology) and at first ridiculed anyone who confirmed a sighting, and now is putting out phony patents to save face.
2 - The US or some other earthly government created these objects and is running dis-info by stating they are unknown, and now talking about these patents to scare other countries about this technology.
3 - The US has no idea what they are and hence why they shelved project blue book as the idea of a craft that can penetrate the US's defenses at any time is uncomfortable, they are now playing statecraft games by these patents and now getting interested in UAPs.
1 - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-g...
1 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
1 - The crafts are non-human technology, the US knows what they are(non-human technology) and at first ridiculed anyone who confirmed a sighting, and now is putting out phony patents to save face.
2 - The US or some other earthly government created these objects and is running dis-info by stating they are unknown, and now talking about these patents to scare other countries about this technology.
3 - The US has no idea what they are and hence why they shelved project blue book as the idea of a craft that can penetrate the US's defenses at any time is uncomfortable, they are now playing statecraft games by these patents and now getting interested in UAPs.
1 - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-g...
1 - https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
I came across an interesting theory on why the gov’t is being more open about UAV observations in a HN comment a while back - paraphrasing:
Pilots may be under-reporting UAV sitings due to the fear of being labeled as crackpots and or dismissed. By speaking more openly about the subject the gov’t is signaling that it’s okay to talk about and shouldn’t be ridiculed.
Pilots may be under-reporting UAV sitings due to the fear of being labeled as crackpots and or dismissed. By speaking more openly about the subject the gov’t is signaling that it’s okay to talk about and shouldn’t be ridiculed.
From the study:
>Collectively, these observations strongly suggest that these UAVs should be carefully studied by scientists [9,10,11,12,13].
>Unfortunately, the attitude that the study of UAVs (UFOs) is “unscientific” pervades the scientific community, including SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) [34], which is surprising, especially since efforts are underway to search for extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system [35,36,37,38,39], particularly, on the Moon, Mars, asteroids [40], and at Earth-associated Lagrange points. Ironically, such attitudes inhibit scientific study, perpetuating a state of ignorance about these phenomena that has persisted for well over 70 years, which is now especially detrimental, since answers are presently needed [41,42,43,44,45,46].
>Collectively, these observations strongly suggest that these UAVs should be carefully studied by scientists [9,10,11,12,13].
>Unfortunately, the attitude that the study of UAVs (UFOs) is “unscientific” pervades the scientific community, including SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) [34], which is surprising, especially since efforts are underway to search for extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system [35,36,37,38,39], particularly, on the Moon, Mars, asteroids [40], and at Earth-associated Lagrange points. Ironically, such attitudes inhibit scientific study, perpetuating a state of ignorance about these phenomena that has persisted for well over 70 years, which is now especially detrimental, since answers are presently needed [41,42,43,44,45,46].
I find this hilarious and poignant with regards to science, its ideals, and the flawed humans involved in it. Kind of hard to ask honest questions when some of those questions suffer logical fallacies like appeals to shame
Here's my most recent thought. Pilots spent years up there and the only thing they see are other planes. If they see something it must be a plane, from the size they can estimate the distance.
But when they suddenly see smaller drone, their pilot-brain thinks it's a plane, but because it is much smaller than a plane, they think it must be far away. And when it flys same speed as plane, in "projected" large distance those speeds are enormous. And their agility is amplified in the same way.
The result is that pilots see "planes" doing impossible manoeuvres at impossible speeds.
But when they suddenly see smaller drone, their pilot-brain thinks it's a plane, but because it is much smaller than a plane, they think it must be far away. And when it flys same speed as plane, in "projected" large distance those speeds are enormous. And their agility is amplified in the same way.
The result is that pilots see "planes" doing impossible manoeuvres at impossible speeds.
The odd thing about the Nimitz story is that it wasn't just pilots, but an entire carrier group, which was undergoing initial training/practical operation of it's brand new Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)[1], which essentially allows various ships and aircraft to combine or fuse and radar data.. A plane for example could radar lock and fire a missile at something it's radar doesn't see.
Pilot error is definitely possible, but multiple systems also failing at the same time seems less likely. If it is a sensor issue, it seems to have persisted into more recent versions of the system and their exercises.[2] On one hand it's possible it's due to working out kinks with new systems. On the other if you had craft and you wanted to see how well it could perform against CEC radar it would have been a pretty good time to do so. Of course it's possible even given all that the whole thing is bogus.
[1]https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA471258.pdf Page 19
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28305/carrier-group-in...
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28231/multiple-f-a-18-...
Pilot error is definitely possible, but multiple systems also failing at the same time seems less likely. If it is a sensor issue, it seems to have persisted into more recent versions of the system and their exercises.[2] On one hand it's possible it's due to working out kinks with new systems. On the other if you had craft and you wanted to see how well it could perform against CEC radar it would have been a pretty good time to do so. Of course it's possible even given all that the whole thing is bogus.
[1]https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA471258.pdf Page 19
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28305/carrier-group-in...
[2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28231/multiple-f-a-18-...
1. (US) military pilots are trained to recognize the shortcomings of their sensory perceptions in this exact regard.
2. This doesn't explain the many, separate close-up encounters, such at the Nimitz and east coast/Atlantic Ocean encounters.
PS: FWIW, I don't think these things are extra-terrestrial.
2. This doesn't explain the many, separate close-up encounters, such at the Nimitz and east coast/Atlantic Ocean encounters.
PS: FWIW, I don't think these things are extra-terrestrial.
On 1, Yep, just like commercial pilots re trained to recognise somatogravic illusion, but there's still perfectly good planes falling out of the sky due to it - training is one thing, successful application is another.
1. They are trained to estimate the sizes of featureless flying tic-tacs?
They are trained in identifying aircraft and grok flight characteristics, and for the lack of better phrasing because I'm eating a taco at lunch, how one's senses can be wrong or skewed.
But some of those pilots made critical mistakes describing the tic tac, things like FOV changes on the camera were interpreted by them publicly as velocity changes of the object.
The information from multiple different radar signals tracking the same objects would seem to rule such things out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
I'm only talking about the pilots' description of that part of the video, where the zoom level changes and Fraver says something like look at it accelerate here.
The study addresses this: the cases selected for analysis include multi-modal observation (e.g. visual + radar).
> But when they suddenly see smaller drone, their pilot-brain thinks it's a plane, but because it is much smaller than a plane, they think it must be far away.
I think this neglects the training and capability of the pilot to the point of being insulting. You're basically saying that a (let's say) 15 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force can't tell the difference between a small drone and a plane, doesn't understand basic physics / optics, and when uncertain, assumes that anything observed must be a plane because "all we see are planes". Preposterous.
Also, even if that were the case, it's pretty hard to explain away when the same object is being observed from multiple angles, with multiple humans, and multiple high precision sensors, with all observations confirming the same conclusions.
I think this neglects the training and capability of the pilot to the point of being insulting. You're basically saying that a (let's say) 15 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force can't tell the difference between a small drone and a plane, doesn't understand basic physics / optics, and when uncertain, assumes that anything observed must be a plane because "all we see are planes". Preposterous.
Also, even if that were the case, it's pretty hard to explain away when the same object is being observed from multiple angles, with multiple humans, and multiple high precision sensors, with all observations confirming the same conclusions.
When stabilized against the ocean some of the things the pilots said were pulling impossible G levels of acceleration were actually flying in a straight line:
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/49d95870dca331...
Some of the other high g-force examples turned out to be an FOV change of the camera footage when toggling IR.
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/49d95870dca331...
Some of the other high g-force examples turned out to be an FOV change of the camera footage when toggling IR.
what does traveling in a straight line have to do with acceleration?
Straight line with continuous speed has no acceleration. They were saying it violently swerved around inducing acceleration/g-forces from turning.
That doesn't seem to be the claim the paper is analyzing, they are looking at the forces when gaining elevation to the flight level of the pilots and in circling around the pilots at a several-mile delta as confirmed by radar data.
These VFX artists have a fun video where they analyze some Pentagon UFO footage, one of the hypothesis they have is that is just parallax.
https://youtu.be/jHDlfIaBEqw?t=274
https://youtu.be/jHDlfIaBEqw?t=274
Which leads me to the question: why isn’t the Pentagon/Navy doing basic analyses and arriving at conclusions such as simple optical effects vs. UAP (aliens!?)
If you assume the Pentagon/Navy is not incredibly incompetent and can indeed understand things such as parallax, I’m led to think this entire change in stance around UFOs is some sort of shitty psyops campaign designed to obscure information around secret/next-gen aircraft that are being developed.
If you assume the Pentagon/Navy is not incredibly incompetent and can indeed understand things such as parallax, I’m led to think this entire change in stance around UFOs is some sort of shitty psyops campaign designed to obscure information around secret/next-gen aircraft that are being developed.
Another rung down the psyops tier, perhaps it's intended to make "near-peers" think there's next gen aircraft that is being obscured.
The radar and FLIR aren't as easy to 'trick' though.
They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors.
There are a lot of gotchas to work out here, but it's my best guess, aside from "craft that defy physics."
Source: worked on such military equipment, back in the early 90s.
There are a lot of gotchas to work out here, but it's my best guess, aside from "craft that defy physics."
Source: worked on such military equipment, back in the early 90s.
> They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors.
How would such RF and laser equipment spoof sensors that are thousands of feet in the air and moving at hundreds of miles per hour and moving in unpredictable ways? Radar is off the table--that would presumably have been detected, right? How would our spoofer spoof multiple sensors, separated by significant distance? Remember that some of these events involved multiple aircraft and ships, all of which saw the same data on their sensors. How could the spoofer engage all of these targets without its physical presence being detected by the various players, with all their various systems constantly searching?
Spoofing seems possible, but it seems like some kind of pre-planned hack would be the least offensive flavor of that particular theory. But even then, some of the pilots swear they saw these things with their own eyes (sometimes multiple people in a single aircraft, sometimes multiple people in different aircraft), which casts doubt on the whole 'spoofing' idea.
Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them.
How would such RF and laser equipment spoof sensors that are thousands of feet in the air and moving at hundreds of miles per hour and moving in unpredictable ways? Radar is off the table--that would presumably have been detected, right? How would our spoofer spoof multiple sensors, separated by significant distance? Remember that some of these events involved multiple aircraft and ships, all of which saw the same data on their sensors. How could the spoofer engage all of these targets without its physical presence being detected by the various players, with all their various systems constantly searching?
Spoofing seems possible, but it seems like some kind of pre-planned hack would be the least offensive flavor of that particular theory. But even then, some of the pilots swear they saw these things with their own eyes (sometimes multiple people in a single aircraft, sometimes multiple people in different aircraft), which casts doubt on the whole 'spoofing' idea.
Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them.
>Of course, the most likely answer is that these reports are some simply untrue. If someone has an impossible story that you can't independently verify, there's no good reason to believe them.
As Carl Sagan (among others) pointed out, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Or, more recently, what Matt O'Dowd calls the "Space Time[0] Mantra": "It's never aliens. Until it is."
I'm going to wait for that "Klaatu barada nikto[1]" moment before I buy into any claims of intelligent aliens visiting our little world.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto
As Carl Sagan (among others) pointed out, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Or, more recently, what Matt O'Dowd calls the "Space Time[0] Mantra": "It's never aliens. Until it is."
I'm going to wait for that "Klaatu barada nikto[1]" moment before I buy into any claims of intelligent aliens visiting our little world.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto
Is this sufficiently extraordinary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive (This doesn't imply such a thing would be easy to build; but at least it's theoretically possible, maybe)
Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive (This doesn't imply such a thing would be easy to build; but at least it's theoretically possible, maybe)
>Is this sufficiently extraordinary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
I have no idea. I'm not going to watch some random video. Where is the associated published, peer-reviewed paper?
In the absence of hard data to support whatever the above purports to show, it's just as believable as this[0].
>Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive (This doesn't imply such a thing would be easy to build; but at least it's theoretically possible, maybe)
Is it? AIUI, the Alcubierre "drive" (it's not a propulsion system per se, but rather a mechanism for manipulating space-time, but that's something of a quibble) requires "negative mass/energy." From the Wikipedia article you linked:
Creating an Alcubierre drive isn't just a matter of engineering. There's science that needs to be done to confirm that it's possible to create such a mechanism.
The fields required for an Alcubierre drive is (at least for the moment) just as speculative as "white holes" or Einstein-Rosen bridges, which can also be described in the context of General Relativity.
Given the ubiquity of the materials for life (Water, complex organic chemistry, etc.) in the universe, it seems incredibly likely that life does exist elsewhere.
Given the enormity of the universe, it also seems possible that multi-cellular life exists elsewhere too.
That such life could evolve with intelligence and a technological civilization is a much more iffy proposition (we only have n=1 WRT both life, multi-cellular life and intelligence).
There's also the problem of scale. Given the time scales involved (~14 billion years), if (apparent) FTL locomotion (whether via an Alcubierre drive or some other mechanism) is feasible, and there are other, more advanced technological civilizations in our galaxy and/or the larger universe, there should be hordes of aliens everywhere (cf. Von Neumann probes[1]).
Since we don't see that, it points up our ignorance.
All that said, yes it is possible (although unlikely in the extreme given our current understanding) that we have been visited by intelligent, extra-solar aliens.
But in the physics we do understand (almost certainly flawed and incomplete), anything is possible, including time travel into the past (with certain constraints).
But what's possible isn't what actually is.
I would be fascinated and very excited if/when we discover the existence of life (even single-celled organisms or some facsimile thereof) somewhere other than the Earth. I believe that there's is almost certainly life elsewhere in our universe.
But what I believe != what I (or anyone else) can prove.
Unless and until such proof exists, I will remain (random youtube videos notwithstanding) skeptical.
And so I draw your attention back to what I said in the comment to which you replied[2]:
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30595469
I have no idea. I'm not going to watch some random video. Where is the associated published, peer-reviewed paper?
In the absence of hard data to support whatever the above purports to show, it's just as believable as this[0].
>Also, it's already conceptually possible to get around the spacetime problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive (This doesn't imply such a thing would be easy to build; but at least it's theoretically possible, maybe)
Is it? AIUI, the Alcubierre "drive" (it's not a propulsion system per se, but rather a mechanism for manipulating space-time, but that's something of a quibble) requires "negative mass/energy." From the Wikipedia article you linked:
...a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-
than-light travel if a configurable energy-
density field lower than that of vacuum (that is,
negative mass) could be created.
Creating an Alcubierre drive isn't just a matter of engineering. There's science that needs to be done to confirm that it's possible to create such a mechanism.
The fields required for an Alcubierre drive is (at least for the moment) just as speculative as "white holes" or Einstein-Rosen bridges, which can also be described in the context of General Relativity.
Given the ubiquity of the materials for life (Water, complex organic chemistry, etc.) in the universe, it seems incredibly likely that life does exist elsewhere.
Given the enormity of the universe, it also seems possible that multi-cellular life exists elsewhere too.
That such life could evolve with intelligence and a technological civilization is a much more iffy proposition (we only have n=1 WRT both life, multi-cellular life and intelligence).
There's also the problem of scale. Given the time scales involved (~14 billion years), if (apparent) FTL locomotion (whether via an Alcubierre drive or some other mechanism) is feasible, and there are other, more advanced technological civilizations in our galaxy and/or the larger universe, there should be hordes of aliens everywhere (cf. Von Neumann probes[1]).
Since we don't see that, it points up our ignorance.
All that said, yes it is possible (although unlikely in the extreme given our current understanding) that we have been visited by intelligent, extra-solar aliens.
But in the physics we do understand (almost certainly flawed and incomplete), anything is possible, including time travel into the past (with certain constraints).
But what's possible isn't what actually is.
I would be fascinated and very excited if/when we discover the existence of life (even single-celled organisms or some facsimile thereof) somewhere other than the Earth. I believe that there's is almost certainly life elsewhere in our universe.
But what I believe != what I (or anyone else) can prove.
Unless and until such proof exists, I will remain (random youtube videos notwithstanding) skeptical.
And so I draw your attention back to what I said in the comment to which you replied[2]:
I'm going to wait for that "Klaatu barada
nikto[1]" moment before I buy into any claims of
intelligent aliens visiting our little world.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30595469
The Von Neumann probe, or any indefinitely self-replicating machine, is only theoretical and has never been demonstrated in any plausible capacity, unless one assumes that the human body is just a squishy machine demonstrating the veracity of the idea, which becomes simply circular reasoning. It does remind me of that one 3D printer that can print itself, however (although it too needs human assistance).
> I'm not going to watch some random video. Where is the associated published, peer-reviewed paper?
Not all truth can be contained in papers. In fact (unfortunately), only a small amount of it can. Sometimes you need to actually hear someone speak their experience. Imagine conducting a relationship via papers alone, for example. (Ever get into an argument over text that had to move to voice or in-person in order to resolve it?) Anyway, I think it is worth watching.
That said, we live in a time when science is basically under fire, so I can't in good faith argue against you here.
> I'm not going to watch some random video. Where is the associated published, peer-reviewed paper?
Not all truth can be contained in papers. In fact (unfortunately), only a small amount of it can. Sometimes you need to actually hear someone speak their experience. Imagine conducting a relationship via papers alone, for example. (Ever get into an argument over text that had to move to voice or in-person in order to resolve it?) Anyway, I think it is worth watching.
That said, we live in a time when science is basically under fire, so I can't in good faith argue against you here.
>They could be, with RF and laser equipment running reasonably-advanced software to spoof such sensors.
Based on Occum's Razor, this doesn't seem likely to me.
However, to go along with the premise, this could be some interesting method of disrupting radar systems prior to attacks. In the design phase, so one was borded and made it do test patterns rather than full blinding. ??? Then, it just became a thing for those in the know to just mess with people as drills for testing your thing. Each new trainee learns to program it using the manuals until some 10x person gets a go and now we have an easy way to keep the UFO thing going. (doesn't explain the visual observatiosn though)
Based on Occum's Razor, this doesn't seem likely to me.
However, to go along with the premise, this could be some interesting method of disrupting radar systems prior to attacks. In the design phase, so one was borded and made it do test patterns rather than full blinding. ??? Then, it just became a thing for those in the know to just mess with people as drills for testing your thing. Each new trainee learns to program it using the manuals until some 10x person gets a go and now we have an easy way to keep the UFO thing going. (doesn't explain the visual observatiosn though)
If a system can reliably spoof the entire sensor arsenal of a carrier fleet remotely and without being detected then the U.S. has bigger problems than aliens.
> craft that defy physics
craft that defy KNOWN physics. Remember, the Alcubierre drive, as a mere concept (and not as an execution which is yet more complicated), was invented/discovered only a few years ago.
craft that defy KNOWN physics. Remember, the Alcubierre drive, as a mere concept (and not as an execution which is yet more complicated), was invented/discovered only a few years ago.
The analysis in this article is just plain bad; it came up in another UFO discussion about nine months ago. e.g. see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27355333
The article is published in a journal the subject matter of which has nothing to do with UFOs, or flight dynamics or anything similar. It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however; and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
The article is published in a journal the subject matter of which has nothing to do with UFOs, or flight dynamics or anything similar. It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however; and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
> It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal however
So you mean to tell me that a person who does not need to fear harm to their reputation used their own science-focused business to take on the analysis of a phenomenon that is wrought with fallacious appeals to shame?
> and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
MDPI? I don't have time to research this thoroughly but aren't they just a multidisciplinary republisher from other journals who are ostensibly the responsible parties for ensuring proper peer review?
> MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[13][15] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[14] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[16] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[
Jeffrey Beall has an obvious anti-open-access bias, and I believe that's why the "pressure on his employer" was successful. As an open-source developer, this makes it difficult for me to judge his claims fairly; the "ivory tower of accredited scientists working in secret and retaining sole access to prestigious journals while divvying out Truth From On High" is a model that I think needs to be put to bed (even if there are some drawbacks to that). What I can say is that capitalism does not seem to mesh well with basic science research and it can result in problems such as poor peer review.
So you mean to tell me that a person who does not need to fear harm to their reputation used their own science-focused business to take on the analysis of a phenomenon that is wrought with fallacious appeals to shame?
> and the publisher of the journal has been on-again-off-again the lists of predatory publishers for some years.
MDPI? I don't have time to research this thoroughly but aren't they just a multidisciplinary republisher from other journals who are ostensibly the responsible parties for ensuring proper peer review?
> MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[13][15] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[14] while applying pressure on Beall's employer.[16] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register, two major scientific bodies, for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice.[
Jeffrey Beall has an obvious anti-open-access bias, and I believe that's why the "pressure on his employer" was successful. As an open-source developer, this makes it difficult for me to judge his claims fairly; the "ivory tower of accredited scientists working in secret and retaining sole access to prestigious journals while divvying out Truth From On High" is a model that I think needs to be put to bed (even if there are some drawbacks to that). What I can say is that capitalism does not seem to mesh well with basic science research and it can result in problems such as poor peer review.
It's clear from your comment that you haven't seen this shortish 60 Minutes piece yet. You should. It would fairly quickly dissuade you of this theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
Even with the video evidence from the Nimitz incident, all the calculations rest on the pilot's estimate of the vehicle size.
At least those videos [1] are just birds, see for example this analysis [2]. Skip to the meat of it, if you dislike the style of the video.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPn-YMp9vI
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkPn-YMp9vI
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs
What kind of a freaking bird travels at fighter jet speeds and rotates like that?
I'm a photographer who loves watching birds, taking photos, I watch other bird photographers. It's never anything like that.
I'm a photographer who loves watching birds, taking photos, I watch other bird photographers. It's never anything like that.
It isn't. The bird is between the sea and the jet and for all practically purposes stationary. When the camera pod on the jet tracks the bird and keeps it in the center of the field of view, what you are seeing is a parallax motion of the sea in the background due to the motion of the jet. This refers to the second clip in the linked video which also also the focus of the linked analysis.
You need to listen to the interview with the pilots who filmed this. They were chasing it, and couldn't catch up.
Which is what you’d see of a bit of gum stuck to the sensor lens.
I’m not saying that’s what this is, I’m pointing out that what the pilots perceive is not to be taken at face value.
I’m not saying that’s what this is, I’m pointing out that what the pilots perceive is not to be taken at face value.
Completely discrediting the testimony of multiple pilots is just as ludicrous.
Are you sure it wasn't swamp gas?
the idea that not only the FLIR but the radar echoes from multiple radars (which all concurred on the high-speed aspect) is somehow explained by a bird flying in a perfectly straight line plus some parallax effects, is ludicrous
If you are willing to look at the actual evidence, I am willing to discuss this with you. One specific case, GOFAST.wmv [1], because it has relatively good quality and seems easy to analyze. For this case I am only aware of the video, but if there is additional evidence, we can also look at that, but I want to start with the video first.
My first point would be, that the size of the object, more specifically the area facing the camera, is no more than about 1.5 meters wide and 1.0 meters high. Would you agree?
[1] https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents?name=GOFAST
My first point would be, that the size of the object, more specifically the area facing the camera, is no more than about 1.5 meters wide and 1.0 meters high. Would you agree?
[1] https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents?name=GOFAST
Where are you getting that size information from?
My concerns:
1) I don't think the camera isn't stationary (the first few seconds make this pretty clear). Wouldn't a parallax speed illusion require a moving observer? and in this case a RAPIDLY moving observer? (Edit: It seems this was in fact on an F/A-18, just at very long range.)
2) I don't see any wings.
3) If this system trivially locked onto birds, I'm pretty sure it would get tossed out to sea due to all the false positives.
Here is an actual F/A-18 pilot discussing the ATFLIR videos with regards to these UFO sightings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQdksSakE0 including what every indicator on the display means. I tried to find the ATFLIR manual PDF but failed lol.
My concerns:
1) I don't think the camera isn't stationary (the first few seconds make this pretty clear). Wouldn't a parallax speed illusion require a moving observer? and in this case a RAPIDLY moving observer? (Edit: It seems this was in fact on an F/A-18, just at very long range.)
2) I don't see any wings.
3) If this system trivially locked onto birds, I'm pretty sure it would get tossed out to sea due to all the false positives.
Here is an actual F/A-18 pilot discussing the ATFLIR videos with regards to these UFO sightings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQdksSakE0 including what every indicator on the display means. I tried to find the ATFLIR manual PDF but failed lol.
I took one frame, frame 384 to be precise, where the system has locked onto the object and tracks it. The frame is 428 pixels wide and high. The AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR has three selectable fields of view and during the entire video it is set to NAR with zoom 1.0 wich means 0.7°. Dividing this by the frame dimension gives us the angular size of one pixel as 0.0016355°.
The system reports the distance to the object as 4.4 Nm or equivalently 8148.8 m. Here one could argue that the system may report an incorrect distance but for now I will assume that value is correct. Multiplying the tangent of the angular pixel size with this distance to the object gives us the pixel size at this distance as 0.233 m.
Finally we see that the locked objects covers an area 6 pixel wide and 4 pixels high which multiplied with the pixel size at the object distance gives us the camera facing object size as 1.395 m wide and 0.930 m high.
The system reports the distance to the object as 4.4 Nm or equivalently 8148.8 m. Here one could argue that the system may report an incorrect distance but for now I will assume that value is correct. Multiplying the tangent of the angular pixel size with this distance to the object gives us the pixel size at this distance as 0.233 m.
Finally we see that the locked objects covers an area 6 pixel wide and 4 pixels high which multiplied with the pixel size at the object distance gives us the camera facing object size as 1.395 m wide and 0.930 m high.
width = tan(0.7° / 428 px) * 4.4 Nm * 6 px
height = tan(0.7° / 428 px) * 4.4 Nm * 4 px
Where are you getting the numbers from such as the equivalency of zoom 1.0 meaning 0.7 degrees?
There's a lot of math here and although I don't initially disagree with it, any error at any point could result in a wildly different final estimate
There's a lot of math here and although I don't initially disagree with it, any error at any point could result in a wildly different final estimate
The field of view is from the manufacturer [1], there are a some specifications at the very end. That the three options are indicated by WFOV (Wide FOV), MFOV (Medium FOV) and NAR (Narrow FOV) I first found in a flight simulator documentation [2] and it matches what you actually see in videos. The zoom is on top of the selected field of view, with a zoom of 2.0 the field of view would shrink to 0.35° in NAR.
There is one thing that I noticed in the flight simulator documentation, the field of views are given as 6°, 3°, and 1.5° while the manufacturer states 6°, 2.6°, and 0.7°. That seems a bit odd as they are seemingly trying to make a very realistic simulation and I don't understand why they would deviate from the real values here. In the end I decided to just stick with the value Raytheon gives without digging too much into this difference.
The frame and object sizes in pixel are certainly correct, everyone can check this. The distance is also easy to read in the video and therefore certainly correct unless you want to argue that the distance measurement didn't work properly and reported a wrong value. Finally the field of view should also be certainly correct, only that the flight simulator documentation gives different values causes me a tiny bit of doubt.
Further questions about the size? If not, what's next? Altitude, temperature, speed, wings, ...? Or does the size alone convince you that it is just a bird?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20091211103559/http://www.raythe...
[2] https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advan...
There is one thing that I noticed in the flight simulator documentation, the field of views are given as 6°, 3°, and 1.5° while the manufacturer states 6°, 2.6°, and 0.7°. That seems a bit odd as they are seemingly trying to make a very realistic simulation and I don't understand why they would deviate from the real values here. In the end I decided to just stick with the value Raytheon gives without digging too much into this difference.
The frame and object sizes in pixel are certainly correct, everyone can check this. The distance is also easy to read in the video and therefore certainly correct unless you want to argue that the distance measurement didn't work properly and reported a wrong value. Finally the field of view should also be certainly correct, only that the flight simulator documentation gives different values causes me a tiny bit of doubt.
Further questions about the size? If not, what's next? Altitude, temperature, speed, wings, ...? Or does the size alone convince you that it is just a bird?
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20091211103559/http://www.raythe...
[2] https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advan...
There was apparently (based on the audio recorded) a fleet of them (although this neither proves nor disproves the bird hypothesis). Could also be drones or missiles of some sort. But they're also claiming that this occurs on a daily basis, which supports the bird hypothesis I guess. The claims of physics-defying direction changes and speeds does not, though.
Then speed it is? This will take me a few days, I started with size because it was quick and easy, but for the speed I will have to extract information from all or at least many frames instead of just looking at one.
Quick, someone find a carpet to sweep this under!
In all seriousness, I hope that the Galileo Project comes up with the goods in the next few years - https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home
In all seriousness, I hope that the Galileo Project comes up with the goods in the next few years - https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home
Makes me wonder what the psychology and politics of anti-extraterrestrial beliefs and rules are. It's very plausible other beings exist, but what necessary axioms disintegrate if a society comes to believe in aliens, and why is it important to isolate and shame people who suspect it?
I can see how our dominant moral systems are rooted in the idea of human primacy and a single One supreme being. Recognition that we can appeal to super beings to intervene on our behalf could arrest our evolutionary intellectual development by causing our civilizations to optimize for pleasing said beings, instead of organizing ourselves to elevate human minds that enable a more natural and free evolution for our species. There may be some evolutionary rule about life where a species only evolves along degrees of freedom and our development becomes arrested when we optimize for the constraint of appealing to the discretion of super beings, sort of like domesticated animals vs. wild ones.
To adapt to co-existing with a technologically advanced species, you would need a conceptual or moral degree of freedom and agency beyond them, which made peaceful and free co-existence possible, and provided some basis for principled equality of life. (an agreement on a One god whose will has been revealed them as well would go a long way, and as an idea, could secure our ability to evolve independently of our advanced co-habitants. This may be the rational evolutionary case for monotheism, as a necessary condition for moral agency across significant differences.) The most obvious consequence of introducing a new super being species would be how we would organize ourselves and relate to each other around them, and not just find increasingly subtle ways to murder each other to secure their favoured status.
If humans forfeited our moral agency by optimizing for becoming subjects of these super beings, we would be putting responsibility on the super beings to govern us, and arrest our own evolutionary development.
Maybe the anti-extraterrestrial people have a deeper understanding of this. Or they just recognize, maybe the arrival of such a species would irreconcilably polarize us all between those who could sustain their own moral agency in the face of a superior power, and those who give it up to optimize for material animal ingroup security, and the ensuing war would wipe us all out - or the aliens would do it for us. Maybe it will take another couple hundred years for them to really arrive as we're not quite fully baked from an evolutionary perspective, and we need to be on average more intelligent than we rather obviously are now.
I'm sure they laugh at our nuclear energy use and social media as being the civilizational equivalent to trepanation though. I wonder what their jokes are like.
I can see how our dominant moral systems are rooted in the idea of human primacy and a single One supreme being. Recognition that we can appeal to super beings to intervene on our behalf could arrest our evolutionary intellectual development by causing our civilizations to optimize for pleasing said beings, instead of organizing ourselves to elevate human minds that enable a more natural and free evolution for our species. There may be some evolutionary rule about life where a species only evolves along degrees of freedom and our development becomes arrested when we optimize for the constraint of appealing to the discretion of super beings, sort of like domesticated animals vs. wild ones.
To adapt to co-existing with a technologically advanced species, you would need a conceptual or moral degree of freedom and agency beyond them, which made peaceful and free co-existence possible, and provided some basis for principled equality of life. (an agreement on a One god whose will has been revealed them as well would go a long way, and as an idea, could secure our ability to evolve independently of our advanced co-habitants. This may be the rational evolutionary case for monotheism, as a necessary condition for moral agency across significant differences.) The most obvious consequence of introducing a new super being species would be how we would organize ourselves and relate to each other around them, and not just find increasingly subtle ways to murder each other to secure their favoured status.
If humans forfeited our moral agency by optimizing for becoming subjects of these super beings, we would be putting responsibility on the super beings to govern us, and arrest our own evolutionary development.
Maybe the anti-extraterrestrial people have a deeper understanding of this. Or they just recognize, maybe the arrival of such a species would irreconcilably polarize us all between those who could sustain their own moral agency in the face of a superior power, and those who give it up to optimize for material animal ingroup security, and the ensuing war would wipe us all out - or the aliens would do it for us. Maybe it will take another couple hundred years for them to really arrive as we're not quite fully baked from an evolutionary perspective, and we need to be on average more intelligent than we rather obviously are now.
I'm sure they laugh at our nuclear energy use and social media as being the civilizational equivalent to trepanation though. I wonder what their jokes are like.
I don't know that such a thing as "anti extraterrestrial" belief exists.
Here's two beliefs/points of view that are compatible:
1. There's a very high chance there's life out there in the universe. There may even be intelligent life, too.
2. It's unlikely extraterrestrial intelligent life will be able to reach Earth. Most reports of UFOs are either made up bullshit or the human brain finding patterns where there are none. Or simply classified military tech. Or people craving attention.
Not one person that laughs at fake accounts of alien abduction and probing does this because they are afraid of coexisting with alien intelligence. Instead, they do it because fake accounts of alien abduction are hilarious.
Here's two beliefs/points of view that are compatible:
1. There's a very high chance there's life out there in the universe. There may even be intelligent life, too.
2. It's unlikely extraterrestrial intelligent life will be able to reach Earth. Most reports of UFOs are either made up bullshit or the human brain finding patterns where there are none. Or simply classified military tech. Or people craving attention.
Not one person that laughs at fake accounts of alien abduction and probing does this because they are afraid of coexisting with alien intelligence. Instead, they do it because fake accounts of alien abduction are hilarious.
I expect those doing the laughing couldn't possibly be fooling themselves about their motivations. Only other people do that.
It's obvious there's a huge amount of woo around all of this, but it's equally obvious there are real phenomena which are unexplained.
For example, the Hessdalen Lights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_lights
The scientific approach is to collect data and generate theories which try to explain it. Condescending nyucking is self-indulgence, not science.
Meanwhile we have no idea what alien intelligence would be like, or what it would be capable of. Assuming it would be recognisable, never mind interested in interaction, is naive in the extreme.
It's obvious there's a huge amount of woo around all of this, but it's equally obvious there are real phenomena which are unexplained.
For example, the Hessdalen Lights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessdalen_lights
The scientific approach is to collect data and generate theories which try to explain it. Condescending nyucking is self-indulgence, not science.
Meanwhile we have no idea what alien intelligence would be like, or what it would be capable of. Assuming it would be recognisable, never mind interested in interaction, is naive in the extreme.
> I expect those doing the laughing couldn't possibly be fooling themselves about their motivations. Only other people do that.
That's a non-answer.
> but it's equally obvious there are real phenomena which are unexplained.
Yes, that's how the natural world works, and it's science's mission to try to understand it.
There's almost no logical connection or implication from "unexplained phenomena" to "evidence of extraterrestrial life".
> For example, the Hessdalen Lights.
Well, the case for ET life there is really tenuous and the people and organizations jumping to that conclusion are suspect.
> The scientific approach is to collect data and generate theories which try to explain it.
Yes, and UFOlogists really fail to understand this. Or rather, they do not want to, because for various reasons they cling to their need for intelligent ET life visiting us and abducting people or doing flyovers over their houses.
> Meanwhile we have no idea what alien intelligence would be like, or what it would be capable of.
We do have some ideas. The universe of possibilities for intelligent life is finite.
If your ET life is unrecognizable as such, uninterested in meaningful interaction with us, and essentially invisible to our perception, then that's... a not very interesting perspective, is it? By all means it's indistinguishable from the nonexistence of ET life, except maybe in a faith-like sort of manner, which is uninteresting to science.
In many ways UFOlogy is a modern religion.
That's a non-answer.
> but it's equally obvious there are real phenomena which are unexplained.
Yes, that's how the natural world works, and it's science's mission to try to understand it.
There's almost no logical connection or implication from "unexplained phenomena" to "evidence of extraterrestrial life".
> For example, the Hessdalen Lights.
Well, the case for ET life there is really tenuous and the people and organizations jumping to that conclusion are suspect.
> The scientific approach is to collect data and generate theories which try to explain it.
Yes, and UFOlogists really fail to understand this. Or rather, they do not want to, because for various reasons they cling to their need for intelligent ET life visiting us and abducting people or doing flyovers over their houses.
> Meanwhile we have no idea what alien intelligence would be like, or what it would be capable of.
We do have some ideas. The universe of possibilities for intelligent life is finite.
If your ET life is unrecognizable as such, uninterested in meaningful interaction with us, and essentially invisible to our perception, then that's... a not very interesting perspective, is it? By all means it's indistinguishable from the nonexistence of ET life, except maybe in a faith-like sort of manner, which is uninteresting to science.
In many ways UFOlogy is a modern religion.
Regarding whether the anti- view exists, two points. The first is almost every sighting story comes with how their commanding officers and authorities silenced them. The second is I would suggest that if I were a scientist who implied something originated from an extraterrestrial advanced civilization, I would be actively isolated and discredited, which to me implies a very strong anti-ET bias. As an experiment, let's see if this comment comes back to bite me.
We know from other disciplines that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence at all, so I'd speculate it's probably inappropriate to mock the lived experience of people who identify as alien abductees.
The OP paper describing the implied necessary physics of unrelated reports makes me think it might be time for a university to create an spacefaring humanities program as an extension of gifted programs, which includes physics and math, engineering, biology, anthropology, theology, philosophy and ethics, or even to include it in the core curriculum of public schools. It's not like they would learn to believe anything dumber than what has already been taught in schools over the last century, and at least a spacefaring humanities curriculum would equip generations with tools for what seems now like an inevitability.
We know from other disciplines that extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence at all, so I'd speculate it's probably inappropriate to mock the lived experience of people who identify as alien abductees.
The OP paper describing the implied necessary physics of unrelated reports makes me think it might be time for a university to create an spacefaring humanities program as an extension of gifted programs, which includes physics and math, engineering, biology, anthropology, theology, philosophy and ethics, or even to include it in the core curriculum of public schools. It's not like they would learn to believe anything dumber than what has already been taught in schools over the last century, and at least a spacefaring humanities curriculum would equip generations with tools for what seems now like an inevitability.
> The first is almost every sighting story comes with how their commanding officers and authorities silenced them.
This is a telltale symptom of quacks and cranks. "My truth is being suppressed". The more normal explanation of superiors telling someone to shut up is either because it's top secret information about military tech or plain old bullshit. Only quacks come to the conclusion that "they want to shut me up". In fact, it's one of the items in the crackpot index.
> The second is I would suggest that if I were a scientist who implied something originated from an extraterrestrial advanced civilization, I would be actively isolated and discredited, which to me implies a very strong anti-ET bias
This has trivial counterexamples: SETI exists and it's a real scientific undertaking, if low priority. There's also the search for extraterrestrial life (either existing or traces of past life) in Mars. None of these are met with scorn.
But also, as a sibling comment mentioned: UFOlogy is the realm of woo. Therefore, before making assertions about ET life you must have really solid evidence and the patience to weather the association with woo and quackery, but this is not an anti-ET stance, but rather an anti-woo one.
Who wants to be associated with some weirdo claiming he was sexually abused by space aliens?
But if you have solid proof of real phenomenon, instead of shaky footage and unreliable witnesses, it would be a major scientific achievement.
This is a telltale symptom of quacks and cranks. "My truth is being suppressed". The more normal explanation of superiors telling someone to shut up is either because it's top secret information about military tech or plain old bullshit. Only quacks come to the conclusion that "they want to shut me up". In fact, it's one of the items in the crackpot index.
> The second is I would suggest that if I were a scientist who implied something originated from an extraterrestrial advanced civilization, I would be actively isolated and discredited, which to me implies a very strong anti-ET bias
This has trivial counterexamples: SETI exists and it's a real scientific undertaking, if low priority. There's also the search for extraterrestrial life (either existing or traces of past life) in Mars. None of these are met with scorn.
But also, as a sibling comment mentioned: UFOlogy is the realm of woo. Therefore, before making assertions about ET life you must have really solid evidence and the patience to weather the association with woo and quackery, but this is not an anti-ET stance, but rather an anti-woo one.
Who wants to be associated with some weirdo claiming he was sexually abused by space aliens?
But if you have solid proof of real phenomenon, instead of shaky footage and unreliable witnesses, it would be a major scientific achievement.
> This is a telltale symptom of quacks and cranks. "My truth is being suppressed". The more normal explanation of superiors telling someone to shut up is either because it's top secret information about military tech or plain old bullshit. Only quacks come to the conclusion that "they want to shut me up". In fact, it's one of the items in the crackpot index.
Yes. This is a textbook example of the Conspiracy Fallacy. The problem is that the Conspiracy Fallacy doesn't actually disprove a conspiracy- it only says that you can't use a lack of evidence ("the clintons are hiding the bodies, of course, because they're guilty!") AS evidence. And when it comes to reporting UFO's, talk to anyone in the past 70 years who's reported them and ask them how it affected their reputation; this is a real risk to anyone who may be reporting a real thing.
> UFOlogy is the realm of woo
So is science, sometimes. Turns out that humans are flawed and bring judgment into everything, such as anyone who initially called out The Ether, Miasma theory or, eh, pretty much all of psychology into question.
> Who wants to be associated with some weirdo claiming he was sexually abused by space aliens?
No one. Which is why only the weirdos who don't have much to lose, report that. Survivorship fallacy... You don't know any of the reports non-weirdos would make if they could do it without harming their own reputations (disclaimer: I know of at least one, a CEO of a 100+ person firm, who only told me his story if I did not retell it... it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them!). Which is why it's dangerous to bring shame and judgment into any such claim.
> instead of shaky footage and unreliable witnesses
The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant.
Yes. This is a textbook example of the Conspiracy Fallacy. The problem is that the Conspiracy Fallacy doesn't actually disprove a conspiracy- it only says that you can't use a lack of evidence ("the clintons are hiding the bodies, of course, because they're guilty!") AS evidence. And when it comes to reporting UFO's, talk to anyone in the past 70 years who's reported them and ask them how it affected their reputation; this is a real risk to anyone who may be reporting a real thing.
> UFOlogy is the realm of woo
So is science, sometimes. Turns out that humans are flawed and bring judgment into everything, such as anyone who initially called out The Ether, Miasma theory or, eh, pretty much all of psychology into question.
> Who wants to be associated with some weirdo claiming he was sexually abused by space aliens?
No one. Which is why only the weirdos who don't have much to lose, report that. Survivorship fallacy... You don't know any of the reports non-weirdos would make if they could do it without harming their own reputations (disclaimer: I know of at least one, a CEO of a 100+ person firm, who only told me his story if I did not retell it... it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them!). Which is why it's dangerous to bring shame and judgment into any such claim.
> instead of shaky footage and unreliable witnesses
The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant.
> only the weirdos who don't have much to lose, report that. Survivorship fallacy... You don't know any of the reports non-weirdos would make if they could do it without harming their own reputations
But this is again a non-argument. It proves nothing and adds nothing of value. "Of course you are only hearing from bullshitters, reasonable people are afraid to speak" is indistinguishable from "reasonable people don't believe in this stuff".
CEOs believe in all sort of bizarre stuff and fads, what sort of evidence is that? And in any case you (someone I don't know writing on the internet) claiming a CEO he/she knows that claims to have a funny story about UFOs is meaningless. I hope you understand why.
> it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them!
But that's anecdote. It's the job of science and scientists to judge claims. Especially contentious, extraordinary claims must be examined more closely. Since UFOlogy is a religion that attracts quacks, it must be judged extra super carefully and all non-alien explanations must be carefully considered first. But UFOlogists react defensively to this, they want their claims to be taken at face value, "with an open mind", another telltale sign of conspiracies ("don't be narrow minded!").
> The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant.
The footage of the Ghost of Kyiv was convincing, and it turned out to be DCS (a realistic flightsim). What you want is solid scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting us, of which there is none.
Not that there is realistic footage of extraterrestrial life either.
There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims.
But this is again a non-argument. It proves nothing and adds nothing of value. "Of course you are only hearing from bullshitters, reasonable people are afraid to speak" is indistinguishable from "reasonable people don't believe in this stuff".
CEOs believe in all sort of bizarre stuff and fads, what sort of evidence is that? And in any case you (someone I don't know writing on the internet) claiming a CEO he/she knows that claims to have a funny story about UFOs is meaningless. I hope you understand why.
> it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them!
But that's anecdote. It's the job of science and scientists to judge claims. Especially contentious, extraordinary claims must be examined more closely. Since UFOlogy is a religion that attracts quacks, it must be judged extra super carefully and all non-alien explanations must be carefully considered first. But UFOlogists react defensively to this, they want their claims to be taken at face value, "with an open mind", another telltale sign of conspiracies ("don't be narrow minded!").
> The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant.
The footage of the Ghost of Kyiv was convincing, and it turned out to be DCS (a realistic flightsim). What you want is solid scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting us, of which there is none.
Not that there is realistic footage of extraterrestrial life either.
There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims.
> There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims.
Alright, I'll call your bluff for the sake of falsification: What is the reasonable number, and quality, of witnesses that you would accept as sufficiently persuasive?
Alright, I'll call your bluff for the sake of falsification: What is the reasonable number, and quality, of witnesses that you would accept as sufficiently persuasive?
It's not a bluff. Trust me, if there was scientific evidence of ET intelligent life visiting us, it would be all over the news.
More than zero reliable witnesses for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting us would be a good starting point. Vetoed by the scientific community, not associated to UFOlogist conspiracy groups, who understand the scientific method and who understand unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained, and who are not trying to sell a book or a story for a made-for-TV movie.
Example template of unreliable and unscientific witnesses: experimental jet pilot who claims to have seen/recorded footage of a strange flying object that, according to his proven experience, cannot be flying according to known physics, and he has never seen anything like this. Also, one of his friends is an astronomer and told him what he saw is likely ET life. Also, his commanding officers told him to drop the issue. Someone made a documentary out of this and it's now on Netflix.
Why this isn't good evidence by a solid witness:
- Experienced pilots are not scientists nor physicists nor biologists. They are in no position to judge what is or is not possible, or what is a hint of ET life.
- Experienced pilots also lie and exaggerate.
- Unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained. It can be equipment malfunction OR a genuine interesting physics phenomenon that is not easily explained... yet. An interesting puzzle, sure. Evidence of ET life? Very unlikely.
- Commanding officers dismissing him may be due to this being classified intel, them being annoyed at the UFO weirdo, or simply not having the time for that nonsense. The least likely explanation is that they are suppressing evidence of ET visitations.
- Random astronomer/scientist friends are not evidence when they assert things in isolation. _Doubly_ so if it's outside their area of expertise.
- Vetoing by the wider scientific community is necessary.
- Documentaries on Netflix or articles on magazines or websites are not evidence.
- Occam's Razor must be wielded before deciding this was indeed a UFO piloted by extraterrestrial beings instead of simply a natural occurrence on Earth.
Your turn.
More than zero reliable witnesses for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting us would be a good starting point. Vetoed by the scientific community, not associated to UFOlogist conspiracy groups, who understand the scientific method and who understand unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained, and who are not trying to sell a book or a story for a made-for-TV movie.
Example template of unreliable and unscientific witnesses: experimental jet pilot who claims to have seen/recorded footage of a strange flying object that, according to his proven experience, cannot be flying according to known physics, and he has never seen anything like this. Also, one of his friends is an astronomer and told him what he saw is likely ET life. Also, his commanding officers told him to drop the issue. Someone made a documentary out of this and it's now on Netflix.
Why this isn't good evidence by a solid witness:
- Experienced pilots are not scientists nor physicists nor biologists. They are in no position to judge what is or is not possible, or what is a hint of ET life.
- Experienced pilots also lie and exaggerate.
- Unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained. It can be equipment malfunction OR a genuine interesting physics phenomenon that is not easily explained... yet. An interesting puzzle, sure. Evidence of ET life? Very unlikely.
- Commanding officers dismissing him may be due to this being classified intel, them being annoyed at the UFO weirdo, or simply not having the time for that nonsense. The least likely explanation is that they are suppressing evidence of ET visitations.
- Random astronomer/scientist friends are not evidence when they assert things in isolation. _Doubly_ so if it's outside their area of expertise.
- Vetoing by the wider scientific community is necessary.
- Documentaries on Netflix or articles on magazines or websites are not evidence.
- Occam's Razor must be wielded before deciding this was indeed a UFO piloted by extraterrestrial beings instead of simply a natural occurrence on Earth.
Your turn.
Can you just... please... at least just watch the damn 7-minute video (shit, if you watch it at 1.5 speed it's only 5 mins!), because as it turns out, not all truths can be reached via scientific papers, with some truths you have to actually listen to people talking about their subjective experiences (more pedestrian cases in point: kids claiming they are trans or gay despite no obvious mechanistic explanation for it, women claiming they were sexually assaulted, guys claiming that blueballs exist (did you know there's no actual evidence for that and that the predominant explanation is "testicular torsion", which is insane, as that condition is an extremely rare medical emergency, according to my nurse friend?), anyone reporting anything as an eyewitness to a police or legal authority... etc. etc. etc.)
I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm not making any money on this (and neither are these folks), and 60 Minutes is a (mostly) reputable information source with a long history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB4EZ7ggig
I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm not making any money on this (and neither are these folks), and 60 Minutes is a (mostly) reputable information source with a long history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygB4EZ7ggig
> as it turns out, not all truths can be reached via scientific papers, with some truths you have to actually listen to people talking about their subjective experiences
It turns out claims of intelligent ET life visiting Earth is one of those things that requires scientific evidence and cannot be based on "subjective experiences".
Unsurprisingly, your video seems to tick many of the boxes in my template example. 60 minutes is not reputable in the sense you mean, nor is it the right venue for subject matter experts.
Anyway, this exchange has become fruitless. I'm not at all interested in hearing from "subjective experiences" of space aliens that are beyond the reach of "scientific papers". Please continue believing whatever you want, and have a nice day.
It turns out claims of intelligent ET life visiting Earth is one of those things that requires scientific evidence and cannot be based on "subjective experiences".
Unsurprisingly, your video seems to tick many of the boxes in my template example. 60 minutes is not reputable in the sense you mean, nor is it the right venue for subject matter experts.
Anyway, this exchange has become fruitless. I'm not at all interested in hearing from "subjective experiences" of space aliens that are beyond the reach of "scientific papers". Please continue believing whatever you want, and have a nice day.
> arrest our own evolutionary development.
There is a sense in which there's not much point in aliens "uplifting" humanity: on our own, without external interference, we might develop in ways that would be hard for them to predict. And over the long term, the novelties of our self-guided evolution might prove useful to them.
For example, imagine if we had the tech to put a human brain in a cat (ethical questions aside). We'd probably then think it wouldn't be much good unless the hybrid had opposable thumbs, too. And then we'd think it'd be better if it walked on two legs. And so on, and so forth, until we have extra-hairy human beings with cat ears, which really wouldn't add much to our society (well, opinions might be mixed on that).
There is a sense in which there's not much point in aliens "uplifting" humanity: on our own, without external interference, we might develop in ways that would be hard for them to predict. And over the long term, the novelties of our self-guided evolution might prove useful to them.
For example, imagine if we had the tech to put a human brain in a cat (ethical questions aside). We'd probably then think it wouldn't be much good unless the hybrid had opposable thumbs, too. And then we'd think it'd be better if it walked on two legs. And so on, and so forth, until we have extra-hairy human beings with cat ears, which really wouldn't add much to our society (well, opinions might be mixed on that).
> I'm sure they laugh at our nuclear energy use
I'm sure they chuckle at how primitive it is, compared to whatever ridiculous tech they're using.
But they're laughing a lot harder at the fact that we have an energy source able to provide one person's total lifetime supply of energy from a lump of fuel smaller than a golfball, but we're so scared to use it that we're wrecking our climate by burning trainloads of coal instead, just as we've done for the past couple hundred years.
I'm sure they chuckle at how primitive it is, compared to whatever ridiculous tech they're using.
But they're laughing a lot harder at the fact that we have an energy source able to provide one person's total lifetime supply of energy from a lump of fuel smaller than a golfball, but we're so scared to use it that we're wrecking our climate by burning trainloads of coal instead, just as we've done for the past couple hundred years.
This article (linked) is a fun thought exploration of alien psychology/motivations as understood by us humans, given the history of our interactions ("known interactions" so to speak) with the aliens:
https://www.overcomingbias.com/2021/03/social-ufo-stylized-f...
> why is it important to isolate and shame people who suspect it
I'd argue that humans are tribal creatures, and that we don't need a reason to "other" people. On the contrary - our need to "other" people drives the creation of reasons to do so if necessary.
I'd argue that humans are tribal creatures, and that we don't need a reason to "other" people. On the contrary - our need to "other" people drives the creation of reasons to do so if necessary.
What's even scarier to me is the obvious issue of the human blindspot: We struggle with the unknown. We desperately want to paint it with what's in our past.
Everybody wants to predict what it is, everybody wants to guess. Which is the same as forcing a "known" property onto the events. But it also forces a "self" onto the events, i.e. a convergent subjective lens.
Very few can say, "I don't know" and then leave it at that to a sufficient degree, while also continuing to look into it.
Most want to project their subjective past onto the situation, which is even worse in situations that are truly novel.
We instantly think about things like other species, and stratify the situation in dimensions that are important to us for egoic human reasons.
This also applies to compartmentalization, which interestingly gets a pass when we self-criticize the human race, even though it has done quite a bit of damage to our intelligence capabilities.
We look at the way compartments have dealt with UAPs and humans, and still ask why humans should fear UAPs, rather than asking why specific compartments should insist on hiding things. Compartments represent humans but they are not humans.
As it turns out, a lot of relevant compartments will quash UAP interest by covert charter and in fact fear disintegration if they are associated with UAPs or the unknown in general. On top of that, compartments that seize new information have a new bargaining chip and a reason to lock out third parties which may force open the issue. We should expect such compartments to restrict and hoard information, or peddle disinformation.
The fear-based perspective was the case with Rendlesham for example. But even after the information got out, the officer behind the publishing of the information is on record concluding that we might as well not look into it further...because he believes we can't do anything about whatever we find out anyway.
And we are talking about someone who is also saying he doesn't even know exactly what it is he's talking about.
"It wasn't invented here" has taken on a new meaning under the circumstances.
Everybody wants to predict what it is, everybody wants to guess. Which is the same as forcing a "known" property onto the events. But it also forces a "self" onto the events, i.e. a convergent subjective lens.
Very few can say, "I don't know" and then leave it at that to a sufficient degree, while also continuing to look into it.
Most want to project their subjective past onto the situation, which is even worse in situations that are truly novel.
We instantly think about things like other species, and stratify the situation in dimensions that are important to us for egoic human reasons.
This also applies to compartmentalization, which interestingly gets a pass when we self-criticize the human race, even though it has done quite a bit of damage to our intelligence capabilities.
We look at the way compartments have dealt with UAPs and humans, and still ask why humans should fear UAPs, rather than asking why specific compartments should insist on hiding things. Compartments represent humans but they are not humans.
As it turns out, a lot of relevant compartments will quash UAP interest by covert charter and in fact fear disintegration if they are associated with UAPs or the unknown in general. On top of that, compartments that seize new information have a new bargaining chip and a reason to lock out third parties which may force open the issue. We should expect such compartments to restrict and hoard information, or peddle disinformation.
The fear-based perspective was the case with Rendlesham for example. But even after the information got out, the officer behind the publishing of the information is on record concluding that we might as well not look into it further...because he believes we can't do anything about whatever we find out anyway.
And we are talking about someone who is also saying he doesn't even know exactly what it is he's talking about.
"It wasn't invented here" has taken on a new meaning under the circumstances.
Right out of the gate, the paper is begging the question by stating that these are 'vehicles.'
"Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles"
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) partially identified as being unknown anomalous aircraft, referred to as Unidentified Anomalous Vehicles (UAVs) or Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)"
Are you referring to the use of a commonly accepted initialism, 'UAV', as them 'begging the question'? Otherwise, it took about 33% of the paper for them to use the word "vehicles".
Don't be that guy.
"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) partially identified as being unknown anomalous aircraft, referred to as Unidentified Anomalous Vehicles (UAVs) or Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)"
Are you referring to the use of a commonly accepted initialism, 'UAV', as them 'begging the question'? Otherwise, it took about 33% of the paper for them to use the word "vehicles".
Don't be that guy.
When I google this term, the only site on the first page of results that uses 'Unidentified Anomalous Vehicles' is this paper.
Even if UAV were an actually common term, it is still question-begging to use this term as opposed to the far, far more common 'UFO'.
Even if UAV were an actually common term, it is still question-begging to use this term as opposed to the far, far more common 'UFO'.
> Are you referring to the use of a commonly accepted initialism, 'UAV', as them 'begging the question'?
I've heard 'UFO' in the common vernacular in this context, but UAV isn't one I'm familiar with. UAV is the common term for a drone, not a UFO.
Meanwhile regardless of how long it takes them to use 'vehicles' a second time in the paper, it's right there in the title.
I've heard 'UFO' in the common vernacular in this context, but UAV isn't one I'm familiar with. UAV is the common term for a drone, not a UFO.
Meanwhile regardless of how long it takes them to use 'vehicles' a second time in the paper, it's right there in the title.
Artifacts on sensors, or even active jamming could explain massive changes in speed for recorded videos
Reaching relativistic speeds in minutes to hours and covering interstellar distances in days to weeks as proposed in the abstract seem to not be compatible - wouldn't a relativistic speed mean we'd need 4ish years to reach another star?
From the body of the paper:
> Such a craft accelerating at a constant 1000g for half of the trip and decelerating at the same rate for the remaining half would reach Proxima Centuri within 5 days’ ship time due to the fact that it would have been traveling at relativistic speeds for most of the trip (Figure 7B). However, for those of us on Earth, or anyone on Proxima Centuri b, the trip would take over four years.
> Such a craft accelerating at a constant 1000g for half of the trip and decelerating at the same rate for the remaining half would reach Proxima Centuri within 5 days’ ship time due to the fact that it would have been traveling at relativistic speeds for most of the trip (Figure 7B). However, for those of us on Earth, or anyone on Proxima Centuri b, the trip would take over four years.
The durations are expressed in ‘ship time’, ie the perceived duration from the pov of the ship. This is explicited further in the document.
Off topic comment: I'm pretty sure "explicited" is not a real word, but you've convinced me that it ought to be. Perfectly clear what you meant. Can somebody add this to the dictionary, please?
ah! TIL, I always thought it was a real word.
They probably meant:
explicate — to give a detailed explanation of
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicate
It seems like a relatively newer word in its usage: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_e...
explicate — to give a detailed explanation of
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicate
It seems like a relatively newer word in its usage: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_e...
I read it more as "made explicit" rather than "explained"
That depends whose clock you're using.
The important part is the last two words, proper time, which is the time measured by a clock travelling along some given world line [1]. In this case, the world line of the hypothetical interstellar craft.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time
The engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is and the engines move the universe around it.
Maybe the G force is absorbed by the entire universe.
Maybe the G force is absorbed by the entire universe.
Interview from same year with pilot who took the Tic Tac video:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...
I think it's funny that lots of the replies here are like:
- The data is wrong, these are not as described.
That's one possible response to new data. Some others are:
- The data is right, how could this be?
- The data is inconclusive, here's how to make it better.
What I wonder is:
- How would you know?
- The first response is unscientific because it prevents further inquiry by the assumption: there's nothing interesting here.
- The latter two are scientific because they encourage further investigation.
The "how would you know" point is important. It's the data denier versus dozens of observers and instruments. Somehow they were all fooled, but the data denier is the one who sees clearly?
Actually, I think data denier is not a great term here, by imprecision. I think what's really going one is more like: fear of new data. Indicated by the bold and frankly ridiculous explanations conjured to hold the existing world view together in the face of new data.
Some examples of the perceptual gymnastics are quite funny: chewing gum was stuck to the sensor (erm, presumably to all sensors on all ships and aircraft?); or, it was actually an insect crawling on the sensor lens (at the same time as the humans were hallucinating in sync, no doubt?); or, the sensors tracked closer birds and erred on their size and speed (while the humans, simultaneously saw drones, I guess?); or, it was atmospheric phenomena dropping, in groups of 10 to 20, from low earth orbit to 'cruising altitude' (pretty crafty weather, right?) -- AFAIK no one yet has claimed it was birds, insects or chewing gum dropping from low earth orbit, but there's still hope we might see such hilarious 'explanations' at some point.
Actually I prefer the term, "escapation" to "explanation" here, because it's less explaining something, than escaping from explaining it.
I don't want to throw shade against the (coinage alert) dataphobes among us (they may even be someone you know, someone even in your own family...oh goodness), because their effort is fundamentally a noble one: protect the world we know. From all influences and enemies, foreign and domestic (and now alien, I guess?). And very human: for the new is scary. It means we are in the unknown, it means maybe we cannot rely on what we now merely thought we knew. (I'm reminded of a Beatles song here, anyone care to guess which one).
In the light of new data and facing it head on, the world has shifted underneath our feet. Proverbial security rug pulled out from under us. We're...ahem...floating in space. In a...erm...zero g environment. Without bearings. Not knowing which way is up or down. So it is human. A response to fear. Which explains some of the anger that sometimes erupts, too. A noble, if misguided effort, to hold onto what is, at all costs.
But it also is connected to another human frailty: confirmation bias - the bias everyone exhibits for confirming what they know, over discovering what they don't.
I'm not sure how we "get over" this dataphobia as a collective--even in the face of new evidence it shows robust persistence--and I'm not sure what cue the dataphobes will eventually take, to change their views (nor from whom they may take it), but, you know--while it lasts, it is entertaining, in a harmless way (not laughing at the dataphobes themselves, but at the Herculean effort of there ideas in the face of data). And it provides refuge for those who cannot clip at the quick pace of change we now face. Not everyone has to find solace in that path, but for those who do--for the stragglers who lag behind our current pace--there's no shame in it. It's very human. And what better "antidote" (if one is needed) to all the new "alien" information upon us, than to double down on being "extra" human?
So, friends, be not unkind to the sufferers of dataphobia among us. One day, on some topic, we may be dataphobes too.
(Tone guidance: delivered with sincerity and only a little bit of gentle friendly prodding/ribbing)
- The data is wrong, these are not as described.
That's one possible response to new data. Some others are:
- The data is right, how could this be?
- The data is inconclusive, here's how to make it better.
What I wonder is:
- How would you know?
- The first response is unscientific because it prevents further inquiry by the assumption: there's nothing interesting here.
- The latter two are scientific because they encourage further investigation.
The "how would you know" point is important. It's the data denier versus dozens of observers and instruments. Somehow they were all fooled, but the data denier is the one who sees clearly?
Actually, I think data denier is not a great term here, by imprecision. I think what's really going one is more like: fear of new data. Indicated by the bold and frankly ridiculous explanations conjured to hold the existing world view together in the face of new data.
Some examples of the perceptual gymnastics are quite funny: chewing gum was stuck to the sensor (erm, presumably to all sensors on all ships and aircraft?); or, it was actually an insect crawling on the sensor lens (at the same time as the humans were hallucinating in sync, no doubt?); or, the sensors tracked closer birds and erred on their size and speed (while the humans, simultaneously saw drones, I guess?); or, it was atmospheric phenomena dropping, in groups of 10 to 20, from low earth orbit to 'cruising altitude' (pretty crafty weather, right?) -- AFAIK no one yet has claimed it was birds, insects or chewing gum dropping from low earth orbit, but there's still hope we might see such hilarious 'explanations' at some point.
Actually I prefer the term, "escapation" to "explanation" here, because it's less explaining something, than escaping from explaining it.
I don't want to throw shade against the (coinage alert) dataphobes among us (they may even be someone you know, someone even in your own family...oh goodness), because their effort is fundamentally a noble one: protect the world we know. From all influences and enemies, foreign and domestic (and now alien, I guess?). And very human: for the new is scary. It means we are in the unknown, it means maybe we cannot rely on what we now merely thought we knew. (I'm reminded of a Beatles song here, anyone care to guess which one).
In the light of new data and facing it head on, the world has shifted underneath our feet. Proverbial security rug pulled out from under us. We're...ahem...floating in space. In a...erm...zero g environment. Without bearings. Not knowing which way is up or down. So it is human. A response to fear. Which explains some of the anger that sometimes erupts, too. A noble, if misguided effort, to hold onto what is, at all costs.
But it also is connected to another human frailty: confirmation bias - the bias everyone exhibits for confirming what they know, over discovering what they don't.
I'm not sure how we "get over" this dataphobia as a collective--even in the face of new evidence it shows robust persistence--and I'm not sure what cue the dataphobes will eventually take, to change their views (nor from whom they may take it), but, you know--while it lasts, it is entertaining, in a harmless way (not laughing at the dataphobes themselves, but at the Herculean effort of there ideas in the face of data). And it provides refuge for those who cannot clip at the quick pace of change we now face. Not everyone has to find solace in that path, but for those who do--for the stragglers who lag behind our current pace--there's no shame in it. It's very human. And what better "antidote" (if one is needed) to all the new "alien" information upon us, than to double down on being "extra" human?
So, friends, be not unkind to the sufferers of dataphobia among us. One day, on some topic, we may be dataphobes too.
(Tone guidance: delivered with sincerity and only a little bit of gentle friendly prodding/ribbing)
I won't venture to guess what these are but I did find it quite interesting that the old and more recent descriptions of sightings are very similar, and that we still do not know what they are or where they come from.
Can anyone clue me in as to why this is on the NIH's website?
It's published in a journal that PubMed[1] indexes. The journal itself is about "research on all aspects of entropy and information theory" [2] which is why the paper is about estimation.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(journal)
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(journal)
Ah, thanks. That makes sense.
Now I have to go back and re-read that paper with an eye toward the statistical techniques used.
Now I have to go back and re-read that paper with an eye toward the statistical techniques used.
From another comment "The article is published in a journal the subject matter of which has nothing to do with UFOs, or flight dynamics or anything similar. It does so happen that the principal author of the paper is the editor-in-chief of that journal"
[deleted]
One beautiful sunny summer day, I was sitting out on my deck relaxing and I saw a UFO near Mt. Ranier, a bit south of the mountain. It was very shiny and seemed to be moving at hyper-sonic speeds between a location close to the mountain and then suddenly a location a bit east of Renton. I was thinking, Wow, that is bizarre !. It was silver and oblong shaped and seemed to be appearing in one location and then appearing in another location and then waving back and forth. Then appearing and disappearing. So completely strange.
Of course, I immediately ran and got my binoculars, to get a closer look, but it was still a little fuzzy and hard to follow. So I switched to my spotter scope I use for target practice. Still, not definitive.
I went to my Bird Watching scope which is the highest power I had. It was difficult to track but eventually, I detected that, the object turned out to be some guy in a paraglider with a very shiny parachute. He was sort of swinging back and forth. There was some sort of weird atmospheric anomaly that seemed to cause the image to move from one place to the other but, it was really one thing.
Very interesting, had I not had access to a lot good optics and so forth, I could see someone getting weirded out by it. I saw later that other people had reported it as a UFO.
I am not saying that all sightings are bunk. Not at all. I am just saying, that I can see how some things can be mis-interpreted. Very easily. It's very possible some sightings are ET, I do not know, this is just my one experience.