Aliens from space (split from Time to talk about UFO's or now as the military calls them UAP's?)

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I did.

To reiterate: they conclude it’s unexplained. IOW, there’s not enough data to determine what it was. 

Then there is unlikely to ever be enough data to determine anything to do with UFOs short of them landing on the white house lawn, we will remain ignorant until they or what ever this phenomena is decides we should know.  

I personally think this is one of the few phenomena that requires such high standards of evidence to even be looked at seriously. Anything else with that much data would have sparked a serious investigation and efforts to figure out how to find more info... not an "Oh well nothing definite to see here move along" 

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I still haven’t seen any analysis on your part.

Everything I said so far is my analysis or my best attempt at it, exactly what were you expecting me to say as you guys trotted out all the old bs about time and distance which I pointed out as false dilemmas.   

Edited May 4 by Moontanman

[Mordred]

19 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Ok, it would be nice to know why but that would mean actually considering what Dr McDonald had to say in detail, I won't bother you to do that. Dr McDonald was probably the most qualified person to ever be in charge of anything to to do with UFOs, he was an expert in atmospheric physics/phenomena. While his is not the end all be all of anything his contributions were significant even if he disagreed with the main stream.    

Lack of any confirmations from other sources is one factor. 

Let's try this tact I have recognized expertise in physics. Does that automatically mean everything I state is the factual ? Simply having some qualification doesn't mean the person isn't fallible or necessarily even telling the truth.

Without going into names their are  numerous accredited experts with PH.Ds in physics that write articles where I really wish to know what glue they were sniffing.

A good example was an arxiv article describing using nukes to peek beyond the EH...yes it was written by  PH.D

Edited May 4 by Mordred

[Moontanman]

I have to say that even I keep getting off course on this, all I am saying, in a nut shell, is that sitting around until a meteorite hits you on the head is not a viable way to show rocks fall from the sky. 

We have to devise ways to actually investigate, short of the military coughing up some of their data they have to show some sort of reasonable explanation that doesn't include "trust us" due to past lies and deception.

I see no path forward but sitting and waiting for "them" to tell us they are here. 

No amount of data gathered by a layman on this subject would ever be accepted, and this a totally random phenomenon , the closest thing we have to scientific evidence is the Mt Palomar Telescope images that show mysterious lights, possibly in Earth orbit the night of the July 1962 Washington DC sightings but I know that old data has noting to learn from. 

I hate auto correct! 

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lack of any confirmations from other sources is one factor. 

Let's try this tact I have recognized expertise in physics. Does that automatically mean everything I state is the factual ? Simply having some qualification doesn't mean the person isn't fallible or necessarily even telling the truth.

How could you possibly expect a conformation from other sources in such a scenario? There was radar confirmation for the object from ground radar but I guess that means nothing? 

[Mordred]

Who claims we don't research the possibility?  However one shouldn't ignore other research simply because it doesn't match what they wish to prove.

[Moontanman]

Just now, Mordred said:

Who claims we don't research the possibility?  However one shouldn't ignore other research simply because it doesn't match what they wish to prove.

I would be happy to just find out that research ls being done on UAPs... and no spending time and money hunting ghosts on Skin Walker Ranch is not UAP research. 

[MigL]

Siince you involved me also, I had to read it too.
The conclusion I came too is that lack of viable data does not give me reason to attribute an event to highly unlikely causes.
I don't need a meteor to hit me on the head to reveal their existence, but if a rock hit me on the head, I would first look at the window above my head, or if INow is lurking nearby and throwing rocks at me.
Those are way higher on the list of possible causes.

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I see no reason for new physics to attain star travel. 

Very well.
Propose your method, because so far we have self-replicating probes, Alcubierre drive ships, solar sails, millions of VN nanoprobes, etc.
All have problems.
Suggest your method of choice, and we'll see if it is viable.
Also include an effort/benefit analysis, as no one ( not even aliens ) would send a probe that returns nothing.
We don't even go to the Moon anymore because of effort/cost; I'm sure an undertaking requiring effort/cost many orders of magnitude more has to provide some return.
( no one is going to send a probe into a Black Hole )

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Siince you involved me also, I had to read it too.
The conclusion I came too is that lack of viable data does not give me reason to attribute an event to highly unlikely causes.
I don't need a meteor to hit me on the head to reveal their existence, but if a rock hit me on the head, I would first look at the window above my head, or if INow is lurking nearby and throwing rocks at me.
Those are way higher on the list of possible causes.

Very well.
Propose your method, because so far we have self-replicating probes, Alcubierre drive ships, solar sails, millions of VN nanoprobes, etc.
All have problems.
Suggest your method of choice, and we'll see if it is viable.
Also include an effort/benefit analysis, as no one ( not even aliens ) would send a probe that returns nothing.
We don't even go to the Moon anymore because of effort/cost; I'm sure an undertaking requiring effort/cost many orders of magnitude more has to provide some return.
( no one is going to send a probe into a Black Hole )

Why only one possibility? 

[MigL]

Not just one.
There are many possibilities much more likely than getting hit by a meteor ( Ha Ha😄 )

Seriously.
Propose as many as you like.
Or the one you think will work best, or fits best with the data from UAP sightings.

We can go through the benefits/problems involved with any method you propose, and hopefully we'll all learn something in the process.

Edited May 5 by MigL

[Moontanman]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not just one.
There are many possibilities much more likely than getting hit by a meteor ( Ha Ha😄 )

Seriously.
Propose as many as you like.
Or the one you think will work best, or fits best with the data from UAP sightings.

We can go through the benefits/problems involved with any method you propose, and hopefully we'll all learn something in the process.

I have no clue as to which one is more probable but knowing there are multiple ways this could be done shows me it is likely possible to star travel. The idea that this is something so improbable as to be not worth looking into might be justified if there was no way possible for it to happen. 

We have no way of knowing how resources are used in an advanced civilization, quite possibly they have  system better than unchained capitalism controlled by oligarchs whose desire for money is greater than their desire for civilization to continue.

IOW trying to predict what an alien civilization might do and why is not a winning strategy, they may not even exist and the Air Force might release info that shows they were just trying to keep military secrets and the need for secrecy just got out of hand and resulted in the gov lying and deceiving us to just keep out of date secrets!  Actually I think that would be pretty cool, imagine a gov who tells you the truth.. go figure.  

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

We have no way of knowing how resources are used in an advanced civilization, quite possibly they have  system better than unchained capitalism controlled by oligarchs whose desire for money is greater than their desire for civilization to continue.

No doubt.
But in order to become an advanced civilization, they undoubtedly would have learned to prioritize their needs above their wants.
Cost is not only a monetary issue; for all we know aliens don't use currency.
But there are 'costs' in terms of resources, energy, and time that are not so easily discounted.

 

[Eise]

On 5/1/2024 at 3:16 PM, Moontanman said:

I do not buy into aliens, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify an ongoing program to investigate this phenomena.

You really don't? There is a little bit too much of speculating about von Neumann probes, among other 'alien' speculations. I know your opinion on what UFOs really are is still open. But you put far too much effort in hypotheses that it could be aliens. 

On 5/1/2024 at 3:16 PM, Moontanman said:

Government secrecy is a given, the only question is why. 

The 'why'  is of course also speculative. But I would like to apply one of the 'derivatives' of Ockham's Razor. I gave already an example of that: there are experiments with new flying technologies. Getting people not to take too much interest in 'flying anomalies' them could help the interest in them low. This is also speculative of course, but it needs no additional, improbable hypotheses, like 'aliens', alien technology, or what else.

On 5/1/2024 at 3:16 PM, Moontanman said:

Does unexplained mean mean investigate no further? 

Nope. Didn't you read my posting till the end before reacting? Of course, if it is possible. If, taking all data of a UFO sighting together do not lead to a conclusion what it was, then it is unexplained. Full stop. But for goodness, yes, we should investigate UFO sightings that cannot be explained easily (Jupiter, weather balloon, etc). 

On 5/1/2024 at 3:16 PM, Moontanman said:

So because there are people who want aliens to be real the whole phenomena should be ignored? 

I did not say anything like that. I hope it is not a willfully wrong interpretation of what I wrote.

On 5/1/2024 at 3:16 PM, Moontanman said:

I think you owe Avi Loeb an apology

He won't get it from me. Trying to exclude all kinds of noise from your measurements is normal scientific practice. Taking the vibrations of a passing truck as some significant event, is a scientific sin.

On 5/1/2024 at 3:16 PM, Moontanman said:

You come across as someone who has made up their mind that there is nothing to this phenomena other than crazies and crackpots.

Nope. People that do not have the experience with all kind of 'aerial phenomena' might just not know what they are seeing. That is no sign of being a crackpot.

But taking the observation of a solar balloon from a plane as some proof of an (alien) UFO, or secret AF or NASA technology, as the majority of the comments under that video, shows a terrible naivety from the side of UFO fanatics. 

Hay, I once saw a UFO! Meaning, that all possible explanations I could think of did not quite fit. Yes, it was just a red light, nearly standing still close to the horizon, no smoke visible, so not very impressive. But fact is that I did not know what it was (no, it was not Mars).

And if I see how many auxiliary hypotheses are needed about technologies that we even do not know can exist, to make it at least probable that aliens are visiting us, then, no thanks. I'll wait for real empirical evidence, and so my default is 'unexplained means unexplained'. Yes, once again, investigate UFO sightings! But if the data do not positively point to aliens visiting us, then, yes, unexplained means unexplained.

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have no clue as to which one is more probable but knowing there are multiple ways this could be done shows me it is likely possible to star travel. The idea that this is something so improbable as to be not worth looking into might be justified if there was no way possible for it to happen. 

We have a miriad of evidence that ghosts are real, yet no one, who didn't want too, has seen one; imagine the career of David Attenborough if he spent his time on TV trying to show us a unicorn instead of a dragon "I'm here at the last place on earth, to show you this magnificent creature, and there it is; no wait was that a donkey?"

[Moontanman]

12 minutes ago, Eise said:

You really don't? There is a little bit too much of speculating about von Neumann probes, among other 'alien' speculations. I know your opinion on what UFOs really are is still open. But you put far too much effort in hypotheses that it could be aliens. 

Quote

I am sorry about this method of quoting, I am having problems with the quote system, 

I put emphasis on the possibility that at least some UFOs are not conventional objects, I respond to the people who say its not possible by suggesting possibilities... if they are speculative I give no apologies for that. 

 

The 'why'  is of course also speculative. But I would like to apply one of the 'derivatives' of Ockham's Razor. I gave already an example of that: there are experiments with new flying technologies. Getting people not to take too much interest in 'flying anomalies' them could help the interest in them low. This is also speculative of course, but it needs no additional, improbable hypotheses, like 'aliens', alien technology, or what else.

Quote

Occam's razor only applies when  better explanation is the simple one. Sometimes, quite often actually, the sighting is too detailed to be one of the go to "simple" explanations and UFO sightings are not limited to an odd light in the sky. 

Nope. Didn't you read my posting till the end before reacting? Of course, if it is possible. If, taking all data of a UFO sighting together do not lead to a conclusion what it was, then it is unexplained. Full stop. But for goodness, yes, we should investigate UFO sightings that cannot be explained easily (Jupiter, weather balloon, etc). 

Quote

I know you say that but you still insist on the thinking that UFOs are easily explained, they are not and to suggest they are Jupiter or Venus reflecting off a weather balloon is simply wrong and this trope is used to indicate that UFOs are all silly mis-identifications of things sane people do not make. You might not mean it that way but that is the way people are intimidated into not reporting their own sightings for fear of ridicule. You don't mean it that.. point taken.  

I did not say anything like that. I hope it is not a willfully wrong interpretation of what I wrote.

Quote

Not willfully wrong but that is how it reads. 

He won't get it from me. Trying to exclude all kinds of noise from your measurements is normal scientific practice. Taking the vibrations of a passing truck as some significant event, is a scientific sin.

Did he admit his mistake and correct it or sit and insist he was correct despite the evidence? AFAIK making a mistake in science is not a sin. 

12 minutes ago, Eise said:

Nope. People that do not have the experience with all kind of 'aerial phenomena' might just not know what they are seeing. That is no sign of being a crackpot.

Quote

And yet you make all the same points as the people who do label anyone who sees a UFO as a crack pot. 

But taking the observation of a solar balloon from a plane as some proof of an (alien) UFO, or secret AF or NASA technology, as the majority of the comments under that video, shows a terrible naivety from the side of UFO fanatics. 

Quote

You got me on that one, which video are you alluding to? 

Hay, I once saw a UFO! Meaning, that all possible explanations I could think of did not quite fit. Yes, it was just a red light, nearly standing still close to the horizon, no smoke visible, so not very impressive. But fact is that I did not know what it was (no, it was not Mars).

Quote

You saw a light in the sky without more context why would you suggest it is an alien space craft by calling it a UFO... do you see the problem with calling anything someone sees that is unexplained the moniker UFO and instantly everyone thinks aliens but conversely if I see a structured objects at close range it is also labeled UFO and immediately everyone assigns it the same label as the unknown light in the sky and with that label the same problems as the light in the sky. They are not the same, one could have been anything, one was quite specific. You might not know what either one was but are they really the same thing? 

And if I see how many auxiliary hypotheses are needed about technologies that we even do not know can exist, to make it at least probable that aliens are visiting us, then, no thanks. I'll wait for real empirical evidence, and so my default is 'unexplained means unexplained'. Yes, once again, investigate UFO sightings! But if the data do not positively point to aliens visiting us, then, yes, unexplained means unexplained.

Quote

No empirical evidence is coming, no empirical evidence is possible until a UFO shows up on demand, so how do we proceed? 

 

@Eise Just because I agree with some of the stuff being proposed to suggest how aliens could be here doesn't mean I am convinced they are here. I have been looking into the for decades, I started out as a kid who just read books never questioning the sources. After many years I realized that sources mattered and my surety that aliens were visiting declined to zero. 

Then I found out what a scam the gov was really running, they weren't trying to explain anything, they were desperately trying to convince people UFOs were anything except unexplained even if the explanations were so silly as to be ridiculous. The Condon Report pretty much galvanized my resolve to find out what was really going on. 

I found out that there were many sightings that were not "lights in the sky" but actual sightings of structured objects, often at close range in broad daylight, radar sightings, multiple independent radar detections, multiple independent witnesses, and the witnesses were not always ignorant rednecks getting anal Probes. 

Some sightings are credible, possibly not from the stand point of scientific rigor but when is a scientist equipped with certified instruments on hand for a random event? If that is the standard required then nothing is evidence at all.  

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We have a miriad of evidence that ghosts are real, yet no one, who didn't want too, has seen one; imagine the career of David Attenborough if he spent his time on TV trying to show us a unicorn instead of a dragon "I'm here at the last place on earth, to show you this magnificent creature, and there it is; no wait was that a donkey?"

Show me evidence that ghosts are real, don't do your usual gas lighting, show your evidence that ghosts are real, just a drive by post making a silly claim is not what I am doing. Why are you doing that or is your goal simply chaos? 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Show me evidence that ghosts are real, don't do your usual gas lighting, show your evidence that ghosts are real, just a drive by post making a silly claim is not what I am doing. Why are you doing that or is your goal simply chaos? 

Maybe later, I'm watching a film ATM... 😉

[Moontanman]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Maybe later, I'm watching a film ATM... 😉

Don't bother

[dimreepr]

26 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Don't bother

Uncanny

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Uncanny

A TV show is not evidence, show me scientific evidence of ghosts.

[dimreepr]

Just now, Moontanman said:

A TV show is not evidence, show me scientific evidence of ghosts.

It's a radio show... 😉

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

But I would like to apply one of the 'derivatives' of Ockham's Razor. I gave already an example of that: there are experiments with new flying technologies. Getting people not to take too much interest in 'flying anomalies' them could help the interest in them low. This is also speculative of course, but it needs no additional, improbable hypotheses, like 'aliens', alien technology, or what else.

Exotic experimental flight technology seems the most plausible hypothesis to me, at this point.  Per Ockham, requires the fewest assumptions and indeed fits well with what has been leaked about government disinformation methods.  

That said, I think it is impossible to assign a probability to an ET hypothesis.  Most terms of the Drake equation

remain so conjectural as to make it useless, with our current knowledge.  It is like the SETI problem, where no one in the SETI community can demonstrate why aliens would stay with radio transmission and use it in such a way as to send a signal.   

And we have no way to really calculate a probability of a singular event, where a civilization far up the Kardashev scale could saturate the galaxy with probes, seeding devices, whatever.  At this point, it just makes more sense to sift evidence for the secret human tech hypothesis.

[Moontanman]

15 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Exotic experimental flight technology seems the most plausible hypothesis to me, at this point.  Per Ockham, requires the fewest assumptions and indeed fits well with what has been leaked about government disinformation methods.  

That said, I think it is impossible to assign a probability to an ET hypothesis.  Most terms of the Drake equation

remain so conjectural as to make it useless, with our current knowledge.  It is like the SETI problem, where no one in the SETI community can demonstrate why aliens would stay with radio transmission and use it in such a way as to send a signal.   

And we have no way to really calculate a probability of a singular event, where a civilization far up the Kardashev scale could saturate the galaxy with probes, seeding devices, whatever.  At this point, it just makes more sense to sift evidence for the secret human tech hypothesis.

You make a good point, secret human tech is more probable than aliens, especially with modern tech being advanced enough to be mistaken for out of this world technology, that being said... in WW2 glowing balls of light were being seen with some regularity by allied pilots, these objects darted among the bombers and were often shot at by gunners. It turned out the Axis powers were seeing the same things and they though they were our and we though they were theirs. Not human tech, and there are many others in that time frame that simply could not have been unknown human tech. 

This idea of misidentified human tech was dismissed by Project Sign in favor of at least some UFOs being interplanetary space craft, The Chiles-Whitted case this sighting solidified the idea of interplanetary space craft, of course this estimate of the situation was rejected and probably justifiably so due to lack of scientific rigor in the collection of data if nothing else. 

Edited May 5 by Moontanman

[TheVat]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You make a good point, secret human tech is more probable than aliens, especially with modern tech being advanced enough to be mistaken for out of this world technology, that being said... in WW2 glowing balls of light were being seen with some regularity by allied pilots, these objects darted among the bombers and were often shot at by gunners. It turned out the Axis powers were seeing the same things and they though they were our and we though they were theirs. Not human tech, and there are many others in that time frame that simply could not have been unknown human tech. 

Which gets back to the limited value of really old data.  My bet would be on some kind of optical anomaly.  It's possible the only way to study that would be to recreate WW2 conditions - send flyers up in period aircraft in meteorological conditions which match the original sightings.   And make sure the oxygen delivery system onboard has whatever quirks and quality issues there were in WW2.  And have whatever land based light sources (including searchlights) there were at that time.  So...basically impossible to recreate.  We'll never know what the Foo Fighters were.  (except Dave Grohl)

[Moontanman]

21 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Which gets back to the limited value of really old data.  My bet would be on some kind of optical anomaly.  It's possible the only way to study that would be to recreate WW2 conditions - send flyers up in period aircraft in meteorological conditions which match the original sightings.   And make sure the oxygen delivery system onboard has whatever quirks and quality issues there were in WW2.  And have whatever land based light sources (including searchlights) there were at that time.  So...basically impossible to recreate.  We'll never know what the Foo Fighters were.  (except Dave Grohl)

Does it not bother you to assume things like the oxygen flow could make multiple individuals across multiple aircraft see the same hallucinations at the same time? To be honest I think something like Saint Elmo's Fire is the best explanation or none alien explanation but that is just speculation as well.  

I just threw in Foo Fighters as an obvious example of something that could not have been human technology, there are many sightings that are either hoaxes or alien space craft. Admittedly most have turned out to be hoaxes but that does not mean all of them are or are even more likely to be hoaxes, Each case is separate from each other case unless you can connect them and being unidentified is not a significant connection.

Assuming a hoax due to aliens being less probable just doesn't sit well with me, mistake yes but to assume a hoax... maybe I trust too much. Yeah and there are pictures as well in many of these cases. I know a picture can be faked but to what end, most of these people never made a dime or any significant fame from these "Hoaxes" yet the stigma of being labeled a liar remains or anyone foolish enough to make a report.  

Be skeptical? Yes please do so , but assuming a hoax or a lie out of hand due to something being improbable is simply not the path to knowledge IMHO

Edited May 5 by Moontanman

[Mordred]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Yeah and there are pictures as well in many of these cases. I know a picture can be faked but to what end, most of these people never made a dime 

One thing I learned over the years is monetary gain isn't the only reason for hoaxes or seeking fame.  Many cases is simply a means to get attention. It's not just restricted to UFO sightings either but literally every aspect of science when you include all the alternate and wildly exotic articles you find on the internet. 

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

One thing I learned over the years is monetary gain isn't the only reason for hoaxes or seeking fame.  Many cases is simply a means to get attention. It's not just restricted to UFO sightings either but literally every aspect of science when you include all the alternate and wildly exotic articles you find on the internet. 

I understand that effect, but in many cases the people involved never got any fame or popularity out of it either in fact some of them were sorry they ever reported the sighting due to negative effects the attention gave them. BTW, I am not limited to the internet, YouTube is not reality, I read I've read dozens of books, and scientific papers about this subject way before the internet was a gleam in Al Gores eye 💩 The assumption of anyone who had a sighting that could not be explained had to be a liar was well established back in the 1950's, I rejected it when I encountered it in the 1960's I reject it now. 

[Mordred]

Agreed on that, there are cases where the witness really didn't want the attention. One would tend to give those witnesses greater credibility. Doesn't mean a mistaken identity wasn't involved etc etc. I tend to have more respect for the cases where it's clear the motivation has nothing to do than generate monetary gain or attention seeking.