Are UAPs/UFOs finally being taken seriously?

[mistermack]

Moontanman, your best pictures are truly awful as evidence of anything. And they do illustrate my point about the numbers and quality of modern phones, and why do we not get decent evidence now that can stand up to scrutiny. 

It's not like the interest has gone away. Any journalist would have the scoop of a lifetime, if they could put together evidence of aliens in a story. The motivation is there, it's just the evidence that's missing. 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

My personal fav. 

The Heflin pics are a puzzle, given the original prints were lost and only several generations of copies are available.  Speaking as someone who was a photographer in their youth, I find it interesting that the film was ASA 3000, a very fast film that would allow a high shutter speed, and thus stop fast motion and directional blur.  If Heflin was a highway inspector who snapped a lot of pics while in motion, that would be handy.  At ASA 3000, you could also freeze a tossed pie tin or hubcap, and the 3000 emulsion is quite granular and would tend to hide some telltales as to its true nature.  Not saying that's what this is, but that particular type of film would present a temptation to would be hoaxers.  

 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Moontanman, your best pictures are truly awful as evidence of anything. And they do illustrate my point about the numbers and quality of modern phones, and why do we not get decent evidence now that can stand up to scrutiny. 

It's not like the interest has gone away. Any journalist would have the scoop of a lifetime, if they could put together evidence of aliens in a story. The motivation is there, it's just the evidence that's missing. 

Have you ever tried to photograph something that pops up unexpectedly? I am surprised there are photos as good as these. 

40 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The Heflin pics are a puzzle, given the original prints were lost and only several generations of copies are available.  Speaking as someone who was a photographer in their youth, I find it interesting that the film was ASA 3000, a very fast film that would allow a high shutter speed, and thus stop fast motion and directional blur.  If Heflin was a highway inspector who snapped a lot of pics while in motion, that would be handy.  At ASA 3000, you could also freeze a tossed pie tin or hubcap, and the 3000 emulsion is quite granular and would tend to hide some telltales as to its true nature.  Not saying that's what this is, but that particular type of film would present a temptation to would be hoaxers.  

 

Did you noticed the ground effects under the object?  In the circumstances as described that is a good pic, the character of the photographer would seem to preclude a deliberate hoax IMHO.   But there are others, the Calvine photo and the McMinnville photo are also good and were taken by people with good character. 

Therein lies the rub, no photo is going to be free of doubt, no person is of good enough character to be free of doubt, do we simply claim these people are hoaxers because their pics were not perfect? I don't think any photo would be free enough of doubt to make the grade.  

All it takes is one person to start with the old...well it could have been radar return off the transit of venus across uranus and suddenly it's officially mistaken identity or a hoax. 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Moontanman

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Have you ever tried to photograph something that pops up unexpectedly? I am surprised there are photos as good as these. 

Did you noticed the ground effects under the object?  In the circumstances as described that is a good pic, the character of the photographer would seem to preclude a deliberate hoax IMHO.   But there are others, the Calvine photo and the McMinnville photo are also good and were taken by people with good character. 

Therein lies the rub, no photo is going to be free of doubt, no person is of good enough character to be free of doubt, do we simply claim these people are hoaxers because their pics were not perfect? I don't think any photo would be free enough of doubt to make the grade.  

So, assuming these pix are legitimate, what is the next step?

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, assuming these pix are legitimate, what is the next step?

Good question, I am not sure, but simply claiming they cannot be real is not the start of knowledge. 

Are you aware that some pics from areas thousands of miles away appear to match? 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Moontanman

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Good question, I am not sure, but simply claiming they cannot be real is not the start of knowledge. 

Are you aware that some pics from areas thousands of miles away appear to match? 

No, I didn't know this. However, it does not affect the question, what's next.

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, Genady said:

No, I didn't know this. However, it does not affect the question, what's next.

I guess we continue to collect data and do it honestly without covering the data up or trying to slant it in any one direction. The idea of Von Neumann probes or Bracewell probes can be investigated and I think looking for small sources of infrared in and around the Kuiper Belt would be a good idea. Like many data collection endeavors it might bear fruit not even related to aliens. If infrared data already exists going over the data with more modern media might turn up the unexpected. I know this has happened in other research areas related to space. 

All I know for sure is that ignoring data because it seems weird or far out or less than conclusive is not a path to knowledge. Lowering our expectations and looking for evidence a bit less than a ufo landing on the white house lawn might help as well. 

I'm not sure why the Science Channel would make this video with the cooperation of NASA but it is what an alien colony space station would look like and the "glitch" that occurred when new Horizons was passing close to this object "15810 Arawn" is certainly a coincidence but it is very close to what we might expect to find. The object was rotating too fast to be made out of rock and ice and of course the New Horizon spacecraft shut down when it attempted to get a close look. Two videos, one is short the other give a bit more detail, 8 minute video first 1 minute second. 

 

A bit more seasonalized version.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Moontanman

[Genady]

Isn't SETI doing this kind of data collection and investigation?

[Moontanman]

6 hours ago, Genady said:

Isn't SETI doing this kind of data collection and investigation?

No, SETI only does radio telescope surveys of the sky looking for signals from ET Civilizations around other stars. . 

Edited March 25, 2023 by Moontanman

[Moontanman]

There is still a debate going on about Oumuamua and the likelihood it is natural vs artificial https://avi-loeb.medium.com/is-oumuamua-a-hydrogen-water-iceberg-a5d815f61c86

Edited March 25, 2023 by Moontanman

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

There is still a debate going on about Oumuamua and the likelihood it is natural vs artificial https://avi-loeb.medium.com/is-oumuamua-a-hydrogen-water-iceberg-a5d815f61c86

That is like saying there is still debate about whether bigfoot is real or not.  There is no debate, there are just some confused individuals that want to believe it.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Bufofrog

[Moontanman]

34 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

That is like saying there is still debate about whether bigfoot is real or not.  There is no debate, there are just some confused individuals that want to believe it.

No, real scientists are debating on what the evidence points to, this is not some layman bigfoot researcher trying to sow seeds of doubt. 

43 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

That is like saying there is still debate about whether bigfoot is real or not.  There is no debate, there are just some confused individuals that want to believe it.

Possibly this one will provide better evidence for something extraordinary? 

https://minotb52ufo.com/introduction.php

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

That is like saying there is still debate about whether bigfoot is real or not.  There is no debate, there are just some confused individuals that want to believe it.

In fairness it would be hard to call Avi Loeb a confused individual.  His bio at the bottom is worth a look.  That's an interesting blog, on Oumuamua.  The anomalous acceleration of that chunk is really needing further study.  As @Moontanman notes, real scientists are debating possible ways this might have occurred.

The odd cutting out of the New Horizons probe in the Kuiper belt is also an anomaly - we should at least be open to possible ways such an object as Arawn could generate an EM interference strong enough to jam the signal - it doesn't have to be an artificial source to be worth investigating.  Any explanation would likely advance our knowledge of the KB.  

These don't seem like Bigfoot tracks that bored teenagers made with size 16EEE (EU 52, roughly) party slippers.  

[swansont]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

In fairness it would be hard to call Avi Loeb a confused individual.  His bio at the bottom is worth a look.  That's an interesting blog, on Oumuamua.  The anomalous acceleration of that chunk is really needing further study.  As @Moontanman notes, real scientists are debating possible ways this might have occurred.

One might note that there’s a bunch of actual evidence to analyze, and models that can be applied, which distinguishes this from UAP discussion.

[mistermack]

On 3/24/2023 at 10:03 PM, Moontanman said:

Did you noticed the ground effects under the object?  In the circumstances as described that is a good pic, the character of the photographer would seem to preclude a deliberate hoax IMHO.   But there are others, the Calvine photo and the McMinnville photo are also good and were taken by people with good character. 

We've had the conversation about those pictures before, and you just totally ignore anything that points in the opposite direction for them. In the picture that you call your favourite, you point to an imaginary ground effect. Well, if that's a ground effect from a flying craft, then the craft can't be much more than four feet across, because it would be directly above the barrel shown. The craft would therefore be the same distance away from the camera, and therefore the same size.

I also pointed out to you that the 'ground effect' is obviously just dried out weeds, growing around the barrel, which are there because the plough had to go around the barrel. And also, there is an identical barrel with dead weeds further down the road, about 100 metres away.

And the McMinneville photos have been thoroughly debunked, and I pointed out some of the things wrong with them in an earlier exchange. 

You seem to be totally selective in assessing evidence. Ignoring what doesn't fit, and overstating what does. 

I have a camera in my phone that would take pictures infinitely better than you fuzzy favourite, as do seven billion other people today. What's the explanation for the lack of good modern evidence?

[Moontanman]

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

We've had the conversation about those pictures before, and you just totally ignore anything that points in the opposite direction for them. In the picture that you call your favourite, you point to an imaginary ground effect. Well, if that's a ground effect from a flying craft, then the craft can't be much more than four feet across, because it would be directly above the barrel shown. The craft would therefore be the same distance away from the camera, and therefore the same size.

I also pointed out to you that the 'ground effect' is obviously just dried out weeds, growing around the barrel, which are there because the plough had to go around the barrel. And also, there is an identical barrel with dead weeds further down the road, about 100 metres away.

And the McMinneville photos have been thoroughly debunked, and I pointed out some of the things wrong with them in an earlier exchange. 

You seem to be totally selective in assessing evidence. Ignoring what doesn't fit, and overstating what does. 

I have a camera in my phone that would take pictures infinitely better than you fuzzy favourite, as do seven billion other people today. What's the explanation for the lack of good modern evidence?

Your opinion on the photo, my fav, is not shared by everyone and those who disagree have made a pretty good case for it being real and not a hoax. This is one of the problems with photos, debunkers never accept them as anything but false and believers always accept almost anything. Both side ignore the other when in fact the doubt is often cast in both directions. The photo I said was one of my favs is such a photo, both sides have good arguments but not conclusive.

Do you have a link to the McMinnville photos being thoroughly debunked? 

How about the first pic from Scotland I think it was.  

[swansont]

On 3/25/2023 at 12:17 AM, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure why the Science Channel would make this video with the cooperation of NASA

It's not clear that they did. The people talking in the 8 min video are not NASA people (though I didn't watch the whole thing) and the NASA folks shown are from old footage. Data from NASA has to be made publicly available. 

 

On 3/25/2023 at 12:17 AM, Moontanman said:

but it is what an alien colony space station would look like

I don't see how you can claim this, since there are virtually no details given to support the claim. All we know is that the object is big and it's rotating, but beyond that not much is shared.

 

On 3/25/2023 at 12:17 AM, Moontanman said:

and the "glitch" that occurred when new Horizons was passing close to this object "15810 Arawn" is certainly a coincidence but it is very close to what we might expect to find.

I wish someone would tell us what we should expect to find before we find it. Saying so after the fact doesn't count as a prediction.

 

On 3/25/2023 at 12:17 AM, Moontanman said:

The object was rotating too fast to be made out of rock and ice

Is it? Where's the analysis?

This is one reason why just posting videos by themselves is against the rules - they rarely contain a sufficient amount of detail, and one can't easily analyze information that is just spoken into the microphone.

The fact of the matter is that such objects are known to rotate from the effects of solar radiation (the YORP effect), but I didn't hear anyone say this - it was all conspiratorial suggestion that this is a spaceship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect

 

From a scientific standpoint the first video is sensationalist crap. Almost like it's targeting a pop-sci, credulous audience on TV or something.

 

[exchemist]

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

In fairness it would be hard to call Avi Loeb a confused individual.  His bio at the bottom is worth a look.  That's an interesting blog, on Oumuamua.  The anomalous acceleration of that chunk is really needing further study.  As @Moontanman notes, real scientists are debating possible ways this might have occurred.

The odd cutting out of the New Horizons probe in the Kuiper belt is also an anomaly - we should at least be open to possible ways such an object as Arawn could generate an EM interference strong enough to jam the signal - it doesn't have to be an artificial source to be worth investigating.  Any explanation would likely advance our knowledge of the KB.  

These don't seem like Bigfoot tracks that bored teenagers made with size 16EEE (EU 52, roughly) party slippers.  

Yes but none of the mechanisms being speculated about are artificial. The alien stuff comes into Loeb's article as a throwaway remark at the end and does not reference any hypothesis that is being studied seriously. If indeed the excess acceleration is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the sun, it is directly proportional to the intensity of solar radiation flux experienced by the object. Ockham's Razor would favour a number of natural hypotheses over alien space drives. 

[TheVat]

Hence my comment (which applies as well to Oumuamua as Arawn)

29 minutes ago, exchemist said:

[quoting my post] ...it doesn't have to be an artificial source to be worth investigating.  Any explanation would likely advance our knowledge of the KB.  

I would think solar radiation flux, impinging on a rock, would not be sufficient to so strongly accelerate unless a pretty crazy amount of it was subliming.  Loeb points out the problems.  Given this is not my field at all, I will be open to any reasonable hypothesis as to how that happens.  I need to read Loeb's comments again to see how much the last one is a throwaway.

Loeb has authored a paper on the possibility of artificial origin for Oumuamua.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/2110/2110.15213v1.pdf

Sorry, this format won't permit me to clip out the abstract.  PDFs are a nuisance on my tablet.

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by TheVat
bpskejgfrmgggrrr

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It's not clear that they did. The people talking in the 8 min video are not NASA people (though I didn't watch the whole thing) and the NASA folks shown are from old footage. Data from NASA has to be made publicly available. 

 

I don't see how you can claim this, since there are virtually no details given to support the claim. All we know is that the object is big and it's rotating, but beyond that not much is shared.

 

I wish someone would tell us what we should expect to find before we find it. Saying so after the fact doesn't count as a prediction.

I wasn't making a prediction, I was just trying to show how a rotating base or colony might look. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

Is it? Where's the analysis?

In the video they go into detail about how is is rotating too fast to stay together for it's size

https://inf.news/en/science/61f2e43c267cae2d5a6057e1979788c7.html

 

Quote

Soon after, the scientists realized that this small celestial body was rotating at about 80 kilometers per hour, and it took 5 hours and 30 minutes to make a full circle.

What puzzles scientists is that if Arawn, like other asteroids in the Kuiper Belt, is made of rock and ice , then its rotation speed is enough to make it torn apart by centrifugal force . Obviously, there is a major difference between Arawn and asteroids. It can only be composed of other hard materials.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

This is one reason why just posting videos by themselves is against the rules - they rarely contain a sufficient amount of detail, and one can't easily analyze information that is just spoken into the microphone.

I understand that, I wasn't trying to prove anything other than an object rotating faster than expected would be something to look into. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The fact of the matter is that such objects are known to rotate from the effects of solar radiation (the YORP effect), but I didn't hear anyone say this - it was all conspiratorial suggestion that this is a spaceship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YORP_effect

See the link above and again I wasn't actually suggesting this was a sapce ship just that it has properties that would be expected for a technological object rotating to produce artificial gravity inside. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

From a scientific standpoint the first video is sensationalist crap. Almost like it's targeting a pop-sci, credulous audience on TV or something.

 

Obviously so, that is why I didn't suggest this was an alien spacecraft. 

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I wasn't making a prediction, I was just trying to show how a rotating base or colony might look. 

What would it look like?

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

In the video they go into detail about how is is rotating too fast to stay together for it's size

https://inf.news/en/science/61f2e43c267cae2d5a6057e1979788c7.html

We have a different definition of “detail” since they state it without any analysis. That’s the detail I want.

Your link is more of the same. Did any scientists write a paper about this object, and publish in a peer-reviewed journal?

 

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I understand that, I wasn't trying to prove anything other than an object rotating faster than expected would be something to look into. 

Is it rotating faster than expected? What is the expected amount?

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

See the link above and again I wasn't actually suggesting this was a sapce ship just that it has properties that would be expected for a technological object rotating to produce artificial gravity inside. 

The video suggested it, quite strongly, and you posted the video.

You can’t say it has these properties when the properties aren’t given. How much gravity? Where is the analysis?

All the video did was say that rotation would create artificial gravity, but you can’t conclude that the rotation has such a purpose. Most objects in space rotate. Most are acknowledged to be naturally occurring. Rotation does not imply it’s a spacecraft. It’s massively flawed logic to suggest, as in the video, that it does.

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Obviously so, that is why I didn't suggest this was an alien spacecraft. 

That’s weak tea. Don’t post videos and links that talk about alien spacecraft if you aren’t endorsing the idea.

 

edit: there are literally hundreds of observed objects with rotation periods less than one hour

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fast_rotators_(minor_planets)

So “it’s rotating too fast” needs more of an analysis.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What would it look like?

We have a different definition of “detail” since they state it without any analysis. That’s the detail I want.

Your link is more of the same. Did any scientists write a paper about this object, and publish in a peer-reviewed journal?

 

Is it rotating faster than expected? What is the expected amount?

The video suggested it, quite strongly, and you posted the video.

You can’t say it has these properties when the properties aren’t given. How much gravity? Where is the analysis?

All the video did was say that rotation would create artificial gravity, but you can’t conclude that the rotation has such a purpose. Most objects in space rotate. Most are acknowledged to be naturally occurring. Rotation does not imply it’s a spacecraft. It’s massively flawed logic to suggest, as in the video, that it does.

That’s weak tea. Don’t post videos and links that talk about alien spacecraft if you aren’t endorsing the idea.

 

edit: there are literally hundreds of observed objects with rotation periods less than one hour

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fast_rotators_(minor_planets)

So “it’s rotating too fast” needs more of an analysis.

Seems this thing has a rotation period of 5.4hrs and a radius about 60km. That would imply a centripetal acceleration at the surface,  rω² = 60x 10³ x (2π/(5.4x3600))² if my arithmetic is right, which I think works out at ~ 6 x 10⁻³ m/sec². That's not huge but I suppose the gravitation of a body that size will also be small. 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by exchemist

[swansont]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Seems this thing has a rotation period of 5.4hrs and a radius about 60km. That would imply a centripetal acceleration at the surface,  rω² = 60x 10³ x (2π/(5.4x3600))² if my arithmetic is right, which I think works out at ~ 6 x 10⁻³ m/sec². That's not huge but I suppose the gravitation of a body that size will also be small. 

But what is the gravitational attraction (no calculation given), and what is the adhesive force of possible materials? Even if it’s just ice?

The link says 80 km/hr, which is a little over 20 m/s, which gives about the same acceleration. (8 x 10^-3)

So not only is this small, it’s also probably not artificial gravity - it’s around a milli-g. They can make BS claims because they don’t do any of the physics that would show that they’re full of it.

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Your opinion on the photo, my fav, is not shared by everyone and those who disagree have made a pretty good case for it being real and not a hoax.

So you say, but you haven't posted that case. And you just ignored my point that if there really is a 'ground effect' directly under the supposed craft, then it can't be more than about four feet in diameter. Do you have an answer for that, or will you just continue to ignore what doesn't suit your cause?

On 3/24/2023 at 5:44 PM, Moontanman said:

 

 

[StringJunky]

This increase in UAPs is down to the US government reassessing what they know after the Chinese balloon incursion.