Aliens and FBI

[Moontanman]

55 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'd also suggest that citing one expert, Bruce Maccabee, as ruling out small objects, begs the question of how other photo analysis experts would interpret the pics.  If this is like global warming, there could be thousands of experts, a vast majority, who would offer compelling reasons to reject Maccabee's analysis.  I have no way to tell if Maccabee is a fringey guy on a similar footing with the GW is Myth crew.  (plenty of them have PhDs, too, and serve as shining examples that credentials do not guarantee an unbiased and competent data analysis)

How would I prove Maccabee is not a crazy fringy guy? 

55 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm also unpersuaded of anything by sketchy reports of things falling off unidentified craft.  There was a case near Omaha, when I lived in that area, of some sort of molten material dripping from a UFO that hovered near a reservoir.  When recovered and analyzed, it was indistinguishable from terrestrial foundry slag.  A case where both Ockham's razor and Sagan's Law seemed applicable.

 

Actually I am equally unimpressed... so far, one of the biggest disappointment was the hoopla around a large metal stalactite like piece that was supposed to be left by a UFO, it was riddled with all sorts of odd metals you wouldn't normally find together. It turned out to be from a machine shop where they used a grinder to cut and shape metals. The stalactite was formed from the debris of the grinding process, quite funny if it wasn't for the seriousness of hoaxing something like this.  

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't know what planet you are operating from. I have clipped the relevant bits from those photos you posted. See below : 

( I actually have higher definition versions somewhere, from when I looked at this a few years ago. They were just as vague ) 

 

Do you expect UFP to be written all over the object? 

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't know what planet you are operating from. I have clipped the relevant bits from those photos you posted. See below : 

( I actually have higher definition versions somewhere, from when I looked at this a few years ago. They were just as vague ) 

 

BTW, the two photos are not connected in anyway other than being unexplained. 

[mistermack]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Do you expect UFP to be written all over the object?

Fuzzy is fuzzy. You seem to be abandoning any kind of balance in your enthusiasm for UFOs. How can you say those images are anything but fuzzy? They could be almost anything. It's evidence like that that puts the U in UFO. 

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Fuzzy is fuzzy. You seem to be abandoning any kind of balance in your enthusiasm for UFOs. How can you say those images are anything but fuzzy? They could be almost anything. It's evidence like that that puts the U in UFO. 

https://allthatsinteresting.com/calvine-photo

https://kiisfm.iheart.com/content/2022-05-09-best-photograph-of-a-ufo-ever-taken-has-experts-stumped/

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/pentagon-report-on-uaps-contains-extremely-clear-picture-of-suspected-ufo.html

There are many more, some so good they cannot be anything but an alien spacecraft or a hoax, many of them... IMHO are hoaxes because I am also flawed in my thinking that anything as clear as at least many of them simply cannot be real but I cannot say for sure they are not real. 

Billy Meier's photos have often been been the but of jokes but proving them false has been difficult. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-50634120

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

There are many more, some so good they cannot be anything but an alien spacecraft or a hoax, many of them...

I don't think one can rule out the third possibility of flaws in photo emulsion.  Lens flaws would be repeated in many images, but it's quite possible for one spot in a long strip of film emulsion to be flawed.  And such flaws could have a lenticular shape that looks remarkably like a physical object.  That Costa Rica photo from the national geographic institute of CR survey in the 1970s, the one that looks like a hubcap or a pot lid, could just be a spot on the film.  Consider this: out of a thousand film flaws, 995 might be so obviously film flaws that they are tossed and we never hear of them.  So the five whose tonal variations and symmetry randomly happen to give a freakish resemblance to a flying saucer are the only ones brought to someone's attention.  IOW, weird anomalies are self-selecting.

(Want to thank my spouse, who has some expertise on old film processing, restoring, digitizing, for her helpful input on this) 

Edited December 4, 2022 by TheVat
Btfplk

[mistermack]

I found the old copies of the McMinnville saucer and it triggered my memory of what I found wrong with them. (Apart from the fuzzy quality)

I can't post them full size on here, they are 6 and 8 mb. But I've shrunk them to fit. 

What I noticed is that the two are superficially similar, but if you look closely, you can see that they are taken from very different locations. Look at the post and bush, next to the building on the left. You can see a big difference in the gap, and therefore the angle, and therefore the location of the camera. 

But if you look at the location of the saucer, relative to the overhead wire, it's just the same in both cases. The lower wire has a slight but definite kink, slightly to the left of where the saucer appears to be hanging. The saucer appears to be hanging in exactly the same place, relative to that kink, in both images. But it should not, because the camera had moved around putting quite some distance and direction between the two snaps. As the wires are close, and the saucer is supposed to be far away, the position relative to the kink should be very different.

Of course, you might argue that the saucer has moved in the intervening time, to a position that gives exactly the same apparent position in relation to the wire. But that's stretching coincidence much too far for me. In fact, a moving saucer would surely have produced a very different picture, given the obvious time period that would have elapsed between the two exposures. Appearing to hang in exactly the same spot, relative to the wire, indicates what was really happening. It was hanging from the same spot. 

 

[Markus Hanke]

16 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Done

None of these points are “done” even remotely - that’s the problem. I think I was quite explicit in that the only admissible evidence here is of the physical kind; due to the magnitude of the overall claim (these objects being extraterrestrial), eyewitness accounts, photos, videos etc just won’t cut it here. We need physical evidence that can be examined independently by public research institutions. 

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Either it is a real photo of something unidentified and extraordinary or it is a hoax.

Something being unidentified doesn’t imply it must be ‘extraordinary’, in the sense of the claim being presented here. It just means exactly what it says on the tin - that the object couldn’t be readily identified. A photo being ‘genuine’ (ie not photoshopped) does not imply the object shown being of extraterrestrial origin. A hubcap flying sideways off a speeding car on the interstate and being photographed by someone in the adjacent field who doesn’t realise that it is in fact a hubcap in the process of flying off, would look much like ~95% of UFO photos out there; not photoshopped, not an intentional hoax, but crucially also not an extraterrestrial craft.

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

i will keep trying to get across my idea that something extraordinary has happened and our inability to explain it cannot be used as evidence against it

You are still missing the point. No one has ever denied that there are sightings of objects that, based on circumstances and available technology at the time of the sighting, couldn’t be readily identified. That is not in contention. The problem is the assertion that, because we couldn’t identify them unambiguously at the time, they must be of extraterrestrial origin, because that does not follow at all.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[Intoscience]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I don't think one can rule out the third possibility of flaws in photo emulsion.  Lens flaws would be repeated in many images, but it's quite possible for one spot in a long strip of film emulsion to be flawed.  And such flaws could have a lenticular shape that looks remarkably like a physical object.  That Costa Rica photo from the national geographic institute of CR survey in the 1970s, the one that looks like a hubcap or a pot lid, could just be a spot on the film.  Consider this: out of a thousand film flaws, 995 might be so obviously film flaws that they are tossed and we never hear of them

This is definitely going to be the case for many unexplained objects appearing on photographs. But an object picked up by accident on a photo that was intended for a specific content is not the same as a photo purposefully taken of an object itself. 

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You are still missing the point. No one has ever denied that there are sightings of objects that, based on circumstances and available technology at the time of the sighting, couldn’t be readily identified. That is not in contention. The problem is the assertion that, because we couldn’t identify them unambiguously at the time, they must be of extraterrestrial origin, because that does not follow at al

Though I agree with you this also works both ways. If an object is defined as "unidentified" using all known methods of investigation then asserting it's "got" to be something is incorrect without verifiable evidence, but likewise asserting that its "not" something is also incorrect unless you have evidence to support the dismissal, for example "its not a bird because its clearly not the shape of any known bird, its metallic in colour and saucer shaped and its flying in a way no bird has ever been seen to do so". However, "Could be" is just speculation, so to state that it could be something is also incorrect but makes for some fun investigation. So anything that remains inconclusive is self defining; Unidentified. 

Though I'm not a fan of alien visitation, I would not simply dismiss it based on my beliefs. I would remain skeptical based on the lack of verifiable evidence available. Also I would remain skeptical based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, the vastness of the universe and the low odds of temporal simultaneity. But I would not also out-rightly dismiss the possibility of such.      

Edited December 5, 2022 by Intoscience

[Eise]

From your link https://kiisfm.iheart.com/content/2022-05-09-best-photograph-of-a-ufo-ever-taken-has-experts-stumped/:

Quote

When the pictures were developed, aerial photographer Sergio Loaiza noticed a shiny, round, metal, saucer-like object flying between the plane and a lake below. Neither he nor the others on the plane saw anything strange during the flight but based on altitude, the UFO is believed to be between 120 and 220 feet wide.

I have read similar comments on a lot of UFO photographs. So I am all in for TheVat's '3^rd alternative':

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I don't think one can rule out the third possibility of flaws in photo emulsion.

 

[exchemist]

16 hours ago, Moontanman said:

No problem, my hillbilly roots were showing a bit. 

Yes you are of course correct that is why I posted two photos that many would say rise above faking. Of course hater gonna hate but believers are gonna believe no matter what. The key is to find a middle ground where you can judge the evidence apart from the extremes. 

The UFO phenomena is world wide, the idea it only occurs in the US is not just wrong but it speaks to the provinciality of the US. Seriously, some of the best sightings come from places as diverse as Australia, Africa, Middle East, Asia, Indonesia, and South America  

But not Europe, for some reason.

But then, we have our crop circles, the Loch Ness Monster - et le Dahu, bien sûr. 😁

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So anything that remains inconclusive is self defining; Unidentified. 

Yes, I agree, that’s really all I am trying to say. It’s the uncritical assumption that “unidentified”=“extraterrestrial” that I have a problem with.

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Though I'm not a fan of alien visitation, I would not simply dismiss it based on my beliefs.

To clarify my personal stance on this - I think it is unlikely that Earth is the only place in the universe (which is big) where some form of life has evolved, especially in light of recent discoveries about exoplanets and how prevalent they really are. I would nearly go so far as to say that some form of life being out there is extremely likely (just my personal opinion though), though that would of course overwhelmingly be primitive forms of life. Even primitive life elsewhere in our own solar system is not out of the question. How likely it is that some of these might have evolved into intelligent civilisations is a different - and much harder - question to answer. I don’t know what to think about this, tbh, because there really isn’t enough information available to us to come to an informed opinion, because we have only one single data point available, so we don’t know what causes and conditions must be in place for this to happen. My personal feeling is that yes, there might be other civilisations out there, but they will be rare and correspondingly far apart from one another. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it turned out that we are (at present) the only ones within our galaxy; more likely I’d guesstimate there might perhaps at most be 5-6, including ourselves, at different stages of techno-cultural development. It is wise to remember that timing is of crucial importance here - in our own case, the difference between humanity in the year 1700 and in the year 2000 is huge so far as technological development is concerned, and 300 years is a tiny fraction of a blink of an eye on cosmic scales. So chances are that, if there’s anyone else out there in our general vicinity, they are either far ahead or far behind us, statistically speaking.

The next question then is how many of these 5 or so civilisations are spacefaring - that’s basically impossible to answer, mostly because we cannot guess as to the psychological motivators such an alien civilisation is subject to. In our case, we are driven by curiosity and an urge to know things, as well as economic, military and religious considerations, so engaging in space travel would be pretty much natural to us. But again, that’s a single data point - we have no way of knowing if other civilisations are driven by similar concerns. Perhaps we are an outlier, and the normal state of affairs is that civilisations just aren’t interested in what anyone else is up to (unless they are directly threatened etc, which is a whole different scenario), and instead pre-occupied with their own concerns (which might be centred around local cultural, philosophical, religious etc pursuits, rather than exploration) - even if they do in principle have the technological ability for interstellar travel.

Even among those who have both the ability and the willingness to engage in interstellar travel - how likely is it that someone will actually hop onto a spacecraft (or send unmanned probes) and spend 100s or 1000s of years travelling, never even mind the amount of time it would take to communicate their findings back home? And given the large variety of very differently-looking objects we are seeing on all those many UFO pictures, how likely is it that many different civilisations are visiting us simultaneously, each using their own unique technology? The entire concept just doesn’t seem plausible to me, unless I’m wrong and the galaxy really is teeming with intelligent civilisations who have somehow found ways to work around the numerous challenges of interstellar travel. I can’t rule this out of course - perhaps the evolution of intelligence, technology and culture really is commonplace. But then I would have expected them to make sure their presence here remains undetected by us (which wouldn’t be hard for someone who has mastered interstellar travel), instead of blatantly zipping about Earth in their disk-shaped crafts, plainly visible to anyone of us who cares to look. This makes no sense, no matter how you look at it, because it risks contaminating any data they have painstakingly come to here to collect.

Thus, I am all for the idea of extraterrestrial life in general - but I’m very sceptical about alien civilisations physically visiting us (and why not just observe from a distance, using their far superior technology?). That’s quite an extraordinary claim that will require equally extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.

[Intoscience]

54 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Thus, I am all for the idea of extraterrestrial life in general - but I’m very sceptical about alien civilisations physically visiting us (and why not just observe from a distance, using their far superior technology?). That’s quite an extraordinary claim that will require equally extraordinary evidence to substantiate it.

We share the same view point and conclusion.Your post pretty much sums up my own stance

I also agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary verifiable evidence. But I also dismiss the premise that no verifiable evidence suggests no possibility, which sits at the other end of the scale. 

So in response to many of the claims, unless its completely obvious, or the evidence strongly points towards, that its a natural phenomenon or a hoax then I would refrain from complete dismissal. 

Even if we look at our own evolution, especially so as you said; over the past 300 years. Its not beyond the realms to imagine human kind, at some point in the future, via person or probe visiting other worlds (we have already done this within our own solar system using probes). For this reason I have no problem with the possibility in principle. I do however share the consensus that spacefaring aliens are likely to be extremely rare and also not likely to share temporal simultaneity with us. Thus even if they exist the likelihood of visiting Earth while humans are around would seem very doubtful. However the caveat being that if technological life is rare, an alien species is likely to be aware of this. In which case if they detect our existence then we are likely to be of some interest to them.      

  

Edited December 5, 2022 by Intoscience

[Moontanman]

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

None of these points are “done” even remotely - that’s the problem. I think I was quite explicit in that the only admissible evidence here is of the physical kind; due to the magnitude of the overall claim (these objects being extraterrestrial), eyewitness accounts, photos, videos etc just won’t cut it here. We need physical evidence that can be examined independently by public research institutions.

Radar returns, physical effects left behind on the ground, biological effects on people involved do not count? 

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local/pentagon-report-ufo-sightings-left-witnesses-burns-nerve-damage/509-be603200-f6ba-4947-9799-e09eba7b0a72

https://www.livescience.com/ufo-report-human-biological-injuries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash–Landrum_incident

Not the bold part of the report from the civil trial, the gov just said they had no diamond shaped aircraft of the description and the case was dismissed. 

Quote

Legal action[edit]

Eventually, Cash and Landrum contacted their U.S. Senators, Lloyd Bentsen and John Tower, who suggested that the witnesses file a complaint with the Judge Advocate Claims office at Bergstrom Air Force Base. In August 1981, Cash, Landrum, and Colby were interviewed at length by personnel at Bergstrom Air Force Base, and were told that they should hire a lawyer, and seek financial compensation for their injuries.^[8]

With attorney Peter Gersten taking on the case pro bono,^{[citation needed]} the case wound its way through the U.S. courts for several years. Cash and Landrum sued the U.S. federal government for $20 million. Testimony of officials from NASA, the Air Force, and the Army and Navy was given.^[6]

On August 21, 1986, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed their case, noting that the plaintiffs had not proved that the helicopters were associated with the U.S. federal government, and that military officials had testified that the United States Armed Forces did not have a large, diamond-shaped aircraft in their possession.^{[citation needed]} As no governmental agency possessed an aircraft resembling the UFO, the case was dismissed.^[6]

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Something being unidentified doesn’t imply it must be ‘extraordinary’, in the sense of the claim being presented here. It just means exactly what it says on the tin - that the object couldn’t be readily identified. A photo being ‘genuine’ (ie not photoshopped) does not imply the object shown being of extraterrestrial origin. A hubcap flying sideways off a speeding car on the interstate and being photographed by someone in the adjacent field who doesn’t realise that it is in fact a hubcap in the process of flying off, would look much like ~95% of UFO photos out there; not photoshopped, not an intentional hoax, but crucially also not an extraterrestrial craft.

So you assumption is that all such photos are hoaxes? Deciding ahead of time that any evidence must be hoaxes is not science. 

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

You are still missing the point. No one has ever denied that there are sightings of objects that, based on circumstances and available technology at the time of the sighting, couldn’t be readily identified. That is not in contention. The problem is the assertion that, because we couldn’t identify them unambiguously at the time, they must be of extraterrestrial origin, because that does not follow at all.

I am not necessarily saying these events/objects are extraterrestrial, I am saying we cannot explain them and so they should not be dismissed out of hand. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Moontanman

[TheVat]

I'm not saying human apparitions are spirits of the deceased, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

I'm not saying tiny lights moving through the woods are fairies, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

I'm not saying humanoid reptilians that drain blood from goats are chupacabra, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

I'm not saying mysterious hieroglyphs carved in crop fields are messages from aliens, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

(Suggesting how this approach can impair one's sense of the most probable hypothesis)

[Moontanman]

45 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm not saying human apparitions are spirits of the deceased, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

In fact such things have been studied and explanations for them do indeed exist. Even if no explanations existed for such things assuming they cannot exist is simply not a path to knowledge. 

45 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm not saying tiny lights moving through the woods are fairies, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

Fireflies? So if you saw lights moving through a forest you wouldn't want to investigate because we cannot explain them? 

45 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm not saying humanoid reptilians that drain blood from goats are chupacabra, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

Considerable effort has been put into explaining this and the conclusion has been it's mythology mixed with mistaken identification of coyotes with severe cases of mange.  

45 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm not saying mysterious hieroglyphs carved in crop fields are messages from aliens, I'm saying we cannot explain them and so they shouldn't be dismissed...

Investigation of "crop circles" has shown them to be hoaxes. 

45 minutes ago, TheVat said:

(Suggesting how this approach can impair one's sense of the most probable hypothesis)

I am suggesting your assertion of the approach is false.

[TheVat]

My analogies were not so clear or good, I'll admit.  My point could be made just with the crop circles, like this: most cases have been demonstrated to be hoaxes.  There is a small number where hoax wasn't proved.  But this doesn't lead to "we shouldn't dismiss a possible alien origin to a few of them."  We don't need to prove the negation (nor can we) to dismiss the alien theory.  We just need the very robust sample we have and the very strong Inebriated Rural Men With Abundant Free Time theory.  Same with the fairies.  Most of the fairy sightings and photos were proven to be hoaxes, but not all.  Should we then be "open" to fairies?  Maybe you are saying we should?  (FWIW, I am more open to the fairy hypothesis than I am to interstellar joyrides...🙂)

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

My analogies were not so clear or good, I'll admit.  My point could be made just with the crop circles, like this: most cases have been demonstrated to be hoaxes.  There is a small number where hoax wasn't proved.  But this doesn't lead to "we shouldn't dismiss a possible alien origin to a few of them."  We don't need to prove the negation (nor can we) to dismiss the alien theory.  We just need the very robust sample we have and the very strong Inebriated Rural Men With Abundant Free Time theory.  Same with the fairies.  Most of the fairy sightings and photos were proven to be hoaxes, but not all.  Should we then be "open" to fairies?  Maybe you are saying we should?  (FWIW, I am more open to the fairy hypothesis than I am to interstellar joyrides...🙂)

We should have open minds for anything but you mustn't allow ideas to climb in and take a dump. I am totally against the idea of interstellar joy rides. The fact you would suggest this what the UFO phenomena is about shows you believe in ridicule of ideas you cannot wrap your head around. There many scenarios that would allow for interstellar travel, from slow boats to FTL. None of them suggest interstellar joy rides. Interstellar travel is hypothetically possible by various means, some of them do not even suggest biological beings have to travel between stars for biological beings to visit us. Fairies and ghosts are hardly reasonable suggestions, all of them require some degree of the supernatural to be involved. Some would even claim that things like faeries might even be manifestations of aliens or something similar. I do not hold with these ideas but if the evidence shows up I won't poo poo it because I think faeries cannot be real. 

My idea is not we must believe until proven... it's that ridicule and dismissal without at least looking into evidence that has been provided. Immediately going with it might be a hoax so it can't be real is not a path to knowledge. One of the pics I posted, is a good example of how a person could photograph and report a UFO, the picture doesn't exist in a vacuum, if only the picture existed with no corroborating testimony you would be correct but to ignore the person who took that photo and go immediately to it might have been a truck mirror so it cannot be real is not a path to knowledge. Can the assertion of a truck mirror be reasonably asserted to be true despite the person who took the photo being reasonably trustworthy... That is nothing but the old ridicule solution, which has been used over and over despite it not being useful in any except to try and make sure anyone who does see such things to be afraid of reporting them. 

I have no idea what an alien scout ship looks but I do know that similar photos have been taken around the world. Is everyone throwing the same truck mirror up and photographing it?          

[TheVat]

I toss in jokes - the joy ride reference was more to popular tales of aliens playing cat and mouse with pilots, zooming around, etc and not to genuine reports of puzzling sightings.  Those I do not ridicule and continue to take an interest in.  Sorry if my jesting came across as ridicule.  I actually spent some time in my youth researching various cases and learning some atmospheric science along the way.  Ignore the dumb joke - I have a real interest in scientific anomalies and some of them can legitimately freak people out.   Whatever they are, we benefit by turning on them every tool of science possible.  

[Markus Hanke]

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Radar returns, physical effects left behind on the ground, biological effects on people involved do not count? 

They do count as indications of some unusual event having taken place, but on their own they don’t allow us to conclude that said event was of extraterrestrial origin. As I said, the fact that there are unidentifiable objects and events out there isn’t in contention.

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So you assumption is that all such photos are hoaxes?

No. As I have tried to explain, my assumption is that those photos which can be taken to be genuine (not photoshopped, not an intentional hoax) show unidentified objects. My problem is only that too many people jump to the conclusion “unidentified”=“extraterrestrial”, because this does not automatically follow.

17 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But I also dismiss the premise that no verifiable evidence suggests no possibility, which sits at the other end of the scale. 

I agree with you, and at no point am I completely dismissing the possibility of us being visited by another civilisation. The probability for such a thing is not zero. I do maintain, however, that that possibility is extremely remote, even if intelligent civilisations are commonplace - which is why substantiating that claim requires some very hard evidence. Ultimately, to gain complete certainty that this is what is taking place, you’d need both one their crafts/probes to examine, as well as a specimen sample of alien biology.

What we are seeing from all these reports really isn’t very consistent with how I’d expect an advanced technological race on an observational and scientific mission to behave - at a minimum they’d remain out of sight and detection, so as not to contaminate their observational data. Unless of course they don’t care for some reason, as in the scenario put forward in the fictional work Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers, but that’s even less probable. In fact, I see no reason why they would need to physically come here at all, since surely someone who has mastered interstellar travel would also have mastered observational techniques that enable them to collect the data that is of interest to them from a distance, as we ourselves are slowly starting to do with instruments such as the JWST. That’s a lot less resource intensive, which is likely an important consideration no matter how advanced you are.

There are also important reasons to think that it might be a wise policy for you not to advertise your presence to anyone, as in Dark Forest Theory for example. I’m personally a bit partial to this.

[Intoscience]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

What we are seeing from all these reports really isn’t very consistent with how I’d expect an advanced technological race on an observational and scientific mission to behave - at a minimum they’d remain out of sight and detection, so as not to contaminate their observational data. Unless of course they don’t care for some reason, as in the scenario put forward in the fictional work Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers, but that’s even less probable. In fact, I see no reason why they would need to physically come here at all, since surely someone who has mastered interstellar travel would also have mastered observational techniques that enable them to collect the data that is of interest to them from a distance, as we ourselves are slowly starting to do with instruments such as the JWST. That’s a lot less resource intensive, which is likely an important consideration no matter how advanced you are.

There are also important reasons to think that it might be a wise policy for you not to advertise your presence to anyone, as in Dark Forest Theory for example. I’m personally a bit partial to this

I think this makes sense.

Logically you would not expect to see any sufficiently advanced technology. If it exists then you would expect some form of non intrusive perhaps invisible observational tactics applied. 

Whilst I agree with you regarding remote observational techniques and use of resources, I think though if "they" are inquisitive enough then they would want to acquire some physical samples. I'm not saying abductions or anything like, but much like we do, send at least probes to the surface of other worlds to either collect or analyse directly physical aspects.  

I guess likelihood of their detection depends on their level of advancement. I would expect that the more advanced they are then the less likely of detection by us and vice versa. For example, if an alien technology is just slightly more advanced than us. So say they are at the stage where they are able to send probes across interstellar space to other worlds. They may have the technology to easily do this but that does not guarantee the level of technology to cloak their presence to such a degree that we would never detect them.

I think (my personal opinion) that the overwhelming vast majority of sightings are not extra terrestrial, I'd probably even say all . I would not though simply dismiss the possibility based on my opinion or belief. I remain skeptical because the logic (our logic) points strongly towards non extra terrestrial phenomenon. But I won't dismiss all claims simply because even after thorough investigation using modern understanding, theory and techniques some do remain - inconclusive / unidentifiable

Edited December 6, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[mistermack]

14 hours ago, Moontanman said:

My idea is not we must believe until proven... it's that ridicule and dismissal without at least looking into evidence that has been provided.

 

I think ridicule and dismissal is fair enough, given the quality of what's been offered so far. You can ridicule and dismiss reports, and still be open to new ones with better evidence, if they ever happen. 

One important aspect of science is repeatability. No matter how vehemently a witness swears he's telling the truth, it's not science, if impartial people can't repeat and record and measure the experience. It's just stories. 

And unlikely stories will always get ridiculed, I think that's fair enough. In this era of mobile phones, with everyone carrying a fantastic quality camera about with them all the time, you would think that there would be some decent shots and videos of real aliens about by now. But that sort of quality evidence is sadly lacking. 

If I saw some aliens, and only got blurred fuzzy worthless stills of them, I'd expect my story to be dismissed and ridiculed. 

Aside from that, I noticed on your photo, posted above, that your so-called 'ground effect' is repeated in the distance, about 100 m down the road, with no space ship hovering above it. It seem that if you want something enough, you will see what you want to see. 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I guess likelihood of their detection depends on their level of advancement. I would expect that the more advanced they are then the less likely of detection by us and vice versa. For example, if an alien technology is just slightly more advanced than us. So say they are at the stage where they are able to send probes across interstellar space to other worlds. They may have the technology to easily do this but that does not guarantee the level of technology to cloak their presence to such a degree that we would never detect them.

It's not just a question technological advances, if our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics are correct; it's a question of time.

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's not just a question technological advances, if our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics are correct; it's a question of time.

Well time, or at least the manipulation of space-time could come under the banner of technological advancements.

Temporal simultaneity, yeah I agree. 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

One important aspect of science is repeatability. No matter how vehemently a witness swears he's telling the truth, it's not science, if impartial people can't repeat and record and measure the experience. It's just stories.

Another important aspect of science is, I don't know; maybe our fundamental understanding is wrong and more stories are required to fill the gaps.

[Moontanman]

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

They do count as indications of some unusual event having taken place, but on their own they don’t allow us to conclude that said event was of extraterrestrial origin. As I said, the fact that there are unidentifiable objects and events out there isn’t in contention.

Again, extraterrestrial origin is just one hypothesis, no one should make the claim they are alien spacecraft without some extraordinary evidence but we do not require evidence beyond what is probable to convict someone in court of a crime. I think testimony from someone like Astronaut Gordon Cooper where he describes what appears to be a saucer shaped craft landing at an airforce base and being filmed is quite compelling maybe not enough to be absolutely sure but since when does science require absolute proof?    

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No. As I have tried to explain, my assumption is that those photos which can be taken to be genuine (not photoshopped, not an intentional hoax) show unidentified objects. My problem is only that too many people jump to the conclusion “unidentified”=“extraterrestrial”, because this does not automatically follow.

I agree. 

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I agree with you, and at no point am I completely dismissing the possibility of us being visited by another civilisation. The probability for such a thing is not zero. I do maintain, however, that that possibility is extremely remote, even if intelligent civilisations are commonplace - which is why substantiating that claim requires some very hard evidence. Ultimately, to gain complete certainty that this is what is taking place, you’d need both one their crafts/probes to examine, as well as a specimen sample of alien biology.

Do you really think that we are likely to obtain such evidence? 

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

What we are seeing from all these reports really isn’t very consistent with how I’d expect an advanced technological race on an observational and scientific mission to behave - at a minimum they’d remain out of sight and detection, so as not to contaminate their observational data. Unless of course they don’t care for some reason, as in the scenario put forward in the fictional work Roadside Picnic by the Strugatsky brothers, but that’s even less probable. In fact, I see no reason why they would need to physically come here at all, since surely someone who has mastered interstellar travel would also have mastered observational techniques that enable them to collect the data that is of interest to them from a distance, as we ourselves are slowly starting to do with instruments such as the JWST. That’s a lot less resource intensive, which is likely an important consideration no matter how advanced you are.

Motivations of aliens is... alien. we cannot require or even guess what the motivations of extraterrestrials might be or how they go about satisfying these motivations.  

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

There are also important reasons to think that it might be a wise policy for you not to advertise your presence to anyone, as in Dark Forest Theory for example. I’m personally a bit partial to this.

I would be willing to contest this idea with you. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

 

I think ridicule and dismissal is fair enough, given the quality of what's been offered so far. You can ridicule and dismiss reports, and still be open to new ones with better evidence, if they ever happen. 

Ridicule serves no purpose other than deterring anyone from making these reports. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

One important aspect of science is repeatability. No matter how vehemently a witness swears he's telling the truth, it's not science, if impartial people can't repeat and record and measure the experience. It's just stories. 

So you would dismiss a real alien spacecraft that landed near you because you can't make it happen again? Somethings do not repeat but are still real. Once while night diving near shore here where i live I saw what appeared to be a giant shark swim past me. It was gigantic, two to three times as long as i was tall, maybe bigger. I reported it to people at the dive shop and a couple marine biologists I knew. I was ridiculed immediately, no such shark existed in these waters, no one had ever seen such a beast here ever, no one had any reason to think such a beast could even live around here. A couple decades later up in and around Maine where such sharks do exist they tagged a large female around 16 feet long with a radio transmitter. Low and behold this shark was shown to spend considerable time around the entrance to the inlet I was diving in here in NC... Never dismiss an eyewitness because they saw something you don't believe they could have.  

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

And unlikely stories will always get ridiculed, I think that's fair enough. In this era of mobile phones, with everyone carrying a fantastic quality camera about with them all the time, you would think that there would be some decent shots and videos of real aliens about by now. But that sort of quality evidence is sadly lacking. 

No that sort of quality evidence is being dismissed and ridiculed due to them always being blamed on hoaxers using photoshop. The web is covered by such photos and reports but redicule prevent them from being taken seriously. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

If I saw some aliens, and only got blurred fuzzy worthless stills of them, I'd expect my story to be dismissed and ridiculed.

I showed reasonably clear photos from a time when photos were generally difficult to "photoshop" by the vast majority of people and you dismiss them because you still don't think they are clear enough? In that time period taking a clear photo of an unexpected moving object was challenge to say the least.  

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

 

Aside from that, I noticed on your photo, posted above, that your so-called 'ground effect' is repeated in the distance, about 100 m down the road, with no space ship hovering above it. It seem that if you want something enough, you will see what you want to see. 

Then you need to take another look, the ground effect appears to be directly under the object. Admittedly the distances are difficult to judge but throwing a truck mirror at just the ring time to appear above a dust cloud on the ground seems a bit of a stretch considering the person who took it had a clean background and his testimony in a court of law would have been enough to convict others of a crime.   How can you just dismiss this person and the photo like they mean nothing? 

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If it exists then you would expect some form of non intrusive perhaps invisible observational tactics applied. 

I think we need to be careful not to make assumptions about how aliens would think and act. It may be just as likely that they'd hurl an asteroid at us to study how we'd respond to it.

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

I think ridicule and dismissal is fair enough, given the quality of what's been offered so far.

Then you've not been paying attention to what has been presented thus far. Events that are completely unexplained and highly unusual should not be dismissed and ridiculed. They should be studied and investigated. The US Air Force as an example would prefer not to have any of their jets bump into an object at 50,000 feet after dismissing some unexplained and unusual activity just because someone in the past created a hoax flying saucer.