Are UAPs/UFOs finally being taken seriously?

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

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.

Well let's see. The volume of a sphere 60km in radius will be  4/3 π . (6x10⁴)³ ~ 9 x 10¹⁴ m³ (again check my arithmetic). If it's ice with a density of 1000kg/m³, that is 9 x 10¹⁷ kg.

g at the surface of this planetoid will be GM/r², i.e. 6.7 x 10⁻¹¹ x  9 x 10¹⁷/(6 x 10⁴)² ~  1.7 x 10⁻² m/sec². , if my maths is correct.  

That would be about  3 times the centripetal acceleration needed to keep the body together. So if my arithmetic is right there is no issue here: the body would be expected to stay in one piece. 

But where does this velocity figure come from that you are quoting?

 

By the way, I have looked up Arawn on the web and I can find plenty of references to its rotational period but no reference at all to this being anomalously fast, or any puzzle about why it does not break up, in any of them. Which is just as expected if my estimate above is of the right order of magnitude.

So indeed it starts to look like ballocks. 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by exchemist

[Moontanman]

17 hours 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.

The significance of the rotation depends on the size of the object. 

On 3/24/2023 at 4:32 PM, 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. 

Those pictures were not taken with modern phones. 

On 3/25/2023 at 8:02 PM, 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?

I am curious, what does the size of the object have to do with anything? 

I guess this one has dropped through the cracks, anyone care to comment on this sighting? 

https://minotb52ufo.com/introduction.php

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

The significance of the rotation depends on the size of the object. 

Those pictures were not taken with modern phones. 

I am curious, what does the size of the object have to do with anything? 

As far as I can see the rotation rate of Arawn (5.47hrs) doesn't present any issues. Most astronomical objects rotate, either due to past collisions or due to angular momentum of the material from which they condensed.   

[Moontanman]

34 minutes ago, exchemist said:

As far as I can see the rotation rate of Arawn (5.47hrs) doesn't present any issues. Most astronomical objects rotate, either due to past collisions or due to angular momentum of the material from which they condensed.   

No, I was asking about the photo that Mrmack was referring to. 

This one, which I do not see any grass or weeds or a barrel, i see dust stirred up directly under the object. And I do not see why its size would matter. 

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No, I was asking about the photo that Mrmack was referring to. 

This one, which I do not see any grass or weeds or a barrel, i see dust stirred up directly under the object. And I do not see why its size would matter. 

I was addressing your comment about the rotation rate and the size of the object, in reply to @swansont. That was about Arawn, was it not? 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

But where does this velocity figure come from that you are quoting?

In the article Moontanman linked to, which is basically a summary of the video

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

“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.”

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I guess this one has dropped through the cracks, anyone care to comment on this sighting? 

This is looking like the Gish gallop. One claim doesn’t pan out, so you queue up another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

 

 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

The significance of the rotation depends on the size of the object. 

Yes, it does. As exchemist has shown, the rotation is not sufficient to do what the video asserts. It’s sensationalism, not science. 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In the article Moontanman linked to, which is basically a summary of the video

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

“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.”

This is looking like the Gish gallop. One claim doesn’t pan out, so you queue up another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

 

 

Yes, it does. As exchemist has shown, the rotation is not sufficient to do what the video asserts. It’s sensationalism, not science. 

OK thanks. I had not read the link in question.

Anyway, it looks as if we can dismiss the Arawn story as false. This actually raises real questions about some of the sources @Moontanman is using, since some seem to be pushing demonstrable falsehoods.  (The analysis I did was for an all ice body. If it was rocky, or iron, the stability would be even more marked.)    

[TheVat]

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

This is looking like the Gish gallop. One claim doesn’t pan out, so you queue up another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

 

I'm thinking not quite a Gish gallop, since Moontan is not (unlike the infamous Duane Gish) trying to advance one specific theory here.  I don't mind if he throws out an array of anomalous events - it is helpful to get a handle on the range of observational data that is out there, good, bad, and muddy.  

I would like to see photos that didn't have chain-of-custody problems like the Tustin photos (the highway maintenance guy in California, with the polaroids that disappeared for several years).  My impression (as a former photographer) of the Ground Effect in that one photo is that there was some kind of pale cylindrical object in there amidst the pale "dust" cloud, and the amount of grain from that ASA 3000 emulsion makes it pretty ambiguous as to what that pale patch really is.  

There is also minimal information about Rex Heflin, the photographer, which could speak to any possible penchant for hoaxing.  The fact that a Polaroid eliminates darkroom fakery is not really helpful, in that it eliminates only one of many paths to creating a fake picture.  There is a later photo analysis done in the 1990s, which has to be ordered from the authors, which I've ordered through ResearchGate, and I'll be interested in what they found, if anything.  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237243956_Reanalysis_of_the_1965_Heflin_UFO_Photos

 

 

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This one, which I do not see any grass or weeds or a barrel, i see dust stirred up directly under the object. And I do not see why its size would matter. 

You clearly only see what you want to see. Dust stirred up would be shooting out sideways, not rising vertically up. And size matters, because a small item is easy to fake. Not so easy to fake a big space craft. 

In fact, that 'flying' item looks like it's less than a metre in size. It looks to be closer to the camera than the barrel that you have trouble seeing. It's in sharper focus than the distant objects.  

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I'm thinking not quite a Gish gallop, since Moontan is not (unlike the infamous Duane Gish) trying to advance one specific theory here.  I don't mind if he throws out an array of anomalous events - it is helpful to get a handle on the range of observational data that is out there, good, bad, and muddy.  

But when a scenario that is offered up is later debunked, especially so easily as these Arawn claims, it means it wasn’t vetted in the first place. Just credulous acceptance. There’s no reason to expect that the next example will be any better, and some reason the expect it will be worse, if we’ve been given the most promising examples first.

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

I was addressing your comment about the rotation rate and the size of the object, in reply to @swansont. That was about Arawn, was it not? 

Ok, Arawn is large part of 1% of the asteroids in size, it's rotation was suggested by the article/video I posted to be at the limit of being able to hold together for an asteroid it's size made of rock and ice. I have to admit I was going only on the video for this information.   

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

But when a scenario that is offered up is later debunked, especially so easily as these Arawn claims, it means it wasn’t vetted in the first place. Just credulous acceptance. There’s no reason to expect that the next example will be any better, and some reason the expect it will be worse, if we’ve been given the most promising examples first.

 I wasn't rating my examples from best to worst, I wasn't just accepting the video's information but I do admit that the idea of NASA and the science channel being responsible for this video, it was part of the NASA mysteries series and included NASA scientists and officials. Most of the time these particular set of videos are quite accurate if somewhat disappointing usually being a bit of sensationalist headlines with much less sensational bottom lines. 

It was my mistake to not be more credulous and my fault that I wasn't more forthcoming with the reason for using this video, it was easier than looking up papers and I really didn't think anyone would mistake this for an actual spacecraft since the end of the video states it wasn't.  

It was just my attempt to show the aspects of an alien spacecraft/base/colony if we were to see one by accident.  I honestly wasn't trying to convince anyone this was an alien artifact, I saw through it easily, there wasn't even close to enough evidence shown to suggest this was an alien spacecraft. I think the closest approach was 66 million miles ( I could be wrong) and the most that could be said, IMHO, is that this asteroid might be worthy of another look if a spacecraft was going it's way in the future or if more info was obtained... like if it was shown to be warmer than it should be this distance from the sun.  

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You clearly only see what you want to see. Dust stirred up would be shooting out sideways, not rising vertically up. And size matters, because a small item is easy to fake. Not so easy to fake a big space craft. 

In fact, that 'flying' item looks like it's less than a metre in size. It looks to be closer to the camera than the barrel that you have trouble seeing. It's in sharper focus than the distant objects.  

No, I do not see what I want, there is no reason to think the "drive" of an alien probe would spread out in a fan shape like a helicopter might. In fact other sightings have been claimed to have the opposite effect seeming to attract the ground in some manner. The cause of the effect is more important than the way the effect manifests itself.

As for the size, keep in mind this is the early to mid 1960s, no drones as we know them today were in existence. The size might indicate it was a drone of some sort instead of a manned craft I know that this photo has been debated ad nauseum over the years with both sides not being able to really conclusively show it is or is not what is seems to be.

The only real thing we can say is the man who took it was considered to be of good character and to suggest he hoaxed it is inflammatory in the face of no reason to suspect him of such an act. The photo is what he took, if it was a hoax in someway there is no reason to suggest he was part of it and more than one photo was taken.     

Now... does it prove an alien spacecraft/drone passed with a few yards of this man? No it does not, it does indicate something unknown happened and that unknown was real enough to be photographed. 

It bears the stigma of all photographs, there is no way to know what it was, only that it was.  

This thread has become a place to post links to sightings, mostly my fault I am sure, it wasn't intended to be that, only a discussion of what is currently being investigated by well established scientists and whether what is being done is sufficient.

I would really like the groups thoughts on this sighting, quite a bit of data is available and described in this link.

  https://minotb52ufo.com/introduction.php

Edited March 27, 2023 by Moontanman

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

You clearly only see what you want to see. Dust stirred up would be shooting out sideways, not rising vertically up. And size matters, because a small item is easy to fake. Not so easy to fake a big space craft. 

In fact, that 'flying' item looks like it's less than a metre in size. It looks to be closer to the camera than the barrel that you have trouble seeing. It's in sharper focus than the distant objects.  

I wasn't going to get into all the problems, but it would help to know the aperture on that shot, because the depth of field doesn't seem quite right for the object to be over that whitish patch.  I think Heflin used a 101 model, which would have a fixed focal length 114mm lens, well-suited to distant subjects, and with a shallower depth of field.  He could deepen his DOF by raising F-stop, i.e. narrowing the aperture, but I don't think it's enough.  I'm too rusty on this stuff, which is why I'm trying to obtain a photo analysis.  There's too much that's showing not quite blurred enough, from the car roof to the phone poles to a distant tree.  And the cropped portion of the original we see is so grainy, it's easy to confuse blur with grain.

It's funny, that long of a lens is suited to nature photography more than details of road surface you would be capturing as a highway maintenance worker.  Unless it was used more for bridge structures or other things you are some distance from.   

[Moontanman]

On 3/26/2023 at 1:42 PM, exchemist said:

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. 

Loeb has more than one article about Omuamua.

https://avi-loeb.medium.com/is-oumuamua-a-hydrogen-water-iceberg-a5d815f61c86

[TheVat]

On 3/26/2023 at 12:04 PM, TheVat said:

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.

Basically he says that artificial origin should be considered.  An interesting read, which goes through all the conjectures as to Oumuamua's nature and origin.  Perhaps the non UAP chat could be moved to a split-from thread, or merged with an Oumuamua thread (or interstellar object thread) if there is one?

I'll try to find a web version of Loeb's paper.

 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Loeb has more than one article about Omuamua.

https://avi-loeb.medium.com/is-oumuamua-a-hydrogen-water-iceberg-a5d815f61c86

I’ve little doubt you can come up with ballocks hypotheses a lot faster than I can debunk them.😁

How many have you got on the go in this thread?

That’s why people like me tend to think it’s a waste of our time. You have a long list of badly researched options that have been uncritically accepted, and we have to do all the work to show they are ballocks, one by one. It’s exhausting and after a while we are inclined to assume they will all be ballocks, automatically.

[TheVat]

I see Loeb has another recent paper speculating that Oumuamua could be a fragment of a disintegrated Dyson sphere.  One that had had a reflective interior, so that a broken piece would function as a light-sail.  Basically, a Dyson tile fell past us.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/acc10d

Again, this could be split to an Oumuamua thread.

10 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It’s exhausting and after a while we are inclined to assume they will all be ballocks, automatically

Not exhausted yet.  😀

I like anomalies.  In many areas of inquiry, they can introduce new paths of research, point to problems in data collection, suggest hypotheses outside a standard set of models.  In SETI, for example, it would only take one anomaly potentially to be world-shaking.

[Intoscience]

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

there is no reason to think the "drive" of an alien probe would spread out in a fan shape like a helicopter might. In fact other sightings have been claimed to have the opposite effect seeming to attract the ground in some manner. The cause of the effect is more important than the way the effect manifests itself.

To be fair to you, I was thinking the same when mistermack mentioned the dust. Even though I'm not convinced by the photo. We shouldn't presume that (if these objects turned out to be ET) they would use a propulsion system that we are familiar with, and then therefore what we would expect to see the effects of.   

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

I like anomalies.  In many areas of inquiry, they can introduce new paths of research, point to problems in data collection, suggest hypotheses outside a standard set of models.  In SETI, for example, it would only take one anomaly potentially to be world-shaking

+1

This is a good attitude to take!

One doesn't have to believe in alien visitations to be interested and intrigued by UAP's and other unexplained phenomenon. It really kills my pig when every single anomaly is dismissed to be fake or just assumed as some natural occurrence. Lets just dismiss that which can be and remain open minded for that which cannot yet be explained. 

After all, life wouldn't be exciting and rather boring, if we chose to shut off our minds to possibilities.    

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

I see Loeb has another recent paper speculating that Oumuamua could be a fragment of a disintegrated Dyson sphere.  One that had had a reflective interior, so that a broken piece would function as a light-sail.  Basically, a Dyson tile fell past us.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/acc10d

Again, this could be split to an Oumuamua thread.

Not exhausted yet.  😀

I like anomalies.  In many areas of inquiry, they can introduce new paths of research, point to problems in data collection, suggest hypotheses outside a standard set of models.  In SETI, for example, it would only take one anomaly potentially to be world-shaking.

I agree, regarding those anomalous reports that have been properly documented and professionally evaluated. What I was referring to is the presentation of a series of stories in which this has not been done, put forward one after another, uncritically, as if they are evidence of something. Each one can be painstakingly evaluated in turn and dismissed, only to be succeeded by yet another, normally unrelated to the previous one.

So for instance here we had a story about Arawn, which we can now dismiss as false, only for it to be instantly replaced - without any sign of embarrassment or contrition - by another unrelated one about Ouamuamua (should that be Mwahmwahmwah?), or, or, what about some pictures taken behind a shed in the rural US,  or, or, or.....  

[StringJunky]

The pictures are sufficiently grainy for paredolia to set in... and aliens.

[mistermack]

17 hours ago, TheVat said:

I wasn't going to get into all the problems, but it would help to know the aperture on that shot,

Well I know close to zero about cameras, but if I was making a fixed focus one back in 1950, I would aim to make it most suitable for capturing family shots firstly, and background secondly. So I'd be aiming at maximum sharpness at 10 to 15 feet. So slight blurring of distant objects would be a price worth paying for sharper close shots. 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

The pictures are sufficiently grainy for paredolia to set in... and aliens.

Well put.  Pareidolia also bedeviled all those Mars pics that poured in back in the 90s, when the Mars Global Surveyor was snapping away.  While it revealed the Viking I pic of the Face (from the 70s) as just another mesa, it set off a whole new round of "hey, that looks like...."  

Mars has been the pareidolia capital of the solar system since Schiaparelli and Percival Lowell.

 

[Moontanman]

So I guess that scientific papers written by real well known and well accredited scientists are no better than photos and the other link to a large file of info about a military sightings with radar data and isn't even enough to be looked at. 

I think some of you get it, others are just stuck in the debunk at all costs phase, and some just can't help thinking it's all silly to begin with. 

The real point of this is that no amount of evidence is ever going to be good enough, no evidence is without doubt no perfect photo, sighting, encounter will ever happen. 

So do we just ignore this phenomena, no real evidence exists, no research can be done, no reason to step up looking for the improbable? 

Most everyone is so quick with the need to debunk they forget that the idea of evidence is not black and white, it is very seldom absolute, and there is no need to make sure all the evidence is false anymore than someone who is a believer needs to make sure all evidence points to something extraordinary.

We are talking about evidence, in a court of law it would be easy to generate a probability of truth but this is science. I know science has a higher standard of evidence but this is not math, no absolutes here, no proofs will be forthcoming. 

All we have to work with is data collected by laymen, some in good conscience some not, we have definite data, radar returns, photos, physical traces but we also have eyewitnesses, interactions with aircraft, civilian and military. Some data is better than others to be sure but none perfect, all we have is what we have, even in science the quality of data varies and the surety of the results vary. What is the sigma value before science considers something to be probably true? Is anything ever proven absolutely? 

Back away from the need to be right and try to see what is most likely, did the person lie? How likely is it that they lied? Are they known for deception? Do they have any reason to have hoaxed the data? It all boils down to a few possibilities, was something seen or did the person lie? Were they mistaken about what they saw? Were they delusional about what they saw? Even radar and other instruments results can be interpreted. 

It was asked where do we go from here, I've given it some thought, either we continue to debate the evidence we have collected by accident from flawed observers, or we step up our game and try and collect data on our terms, with sophisticated instruments, trained observers collecting the data from our instruments.

Or we just conclude it's impossible to collect meaningful data and dismiss the entire thing as silly and go on ignoring the tens of thousands of reports that have come in over the years and still come in daily from people like the homeless guy down the street, to just regular people, to police, to military personal, pilots, and even scientists.

What do we do, try to beat each other down until we agree or bleed out, or do we act like real reasonable humans and at least try to figure out why our fellow men continue to report these anomalous "things" on such a large scale? We may never find aliens but we might find something else important about how the human mind works when it is faced with something unknown.. or it might just be bullshit. Until we really try we'll never even have a chance to actually know. 

Personally I've love to see the data we have, all of it, even what the military has and hides, subjected to statistical analysis, stop treating each and every incident as though it is some sort of unique situation and see if there are similarities and correlations and that can be studied, charted, graphed. I think such an analysis just might reveal some interesting possibilities. 

I've read reports from all over the world, no doubt hundreds if not thousands over the years, some of them are so outrageous that even if not true you have to salute the persons who made them up. This is not a USA phenomena, it's not a western world problem, it's not something confined to advanced societies, it's not even confined to our planet but it does seem to be confined to human beings, possibly we should start by being human beings.   

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

What do we do, try to beat each other down until we agree or bleed out, or do we act like real reasonable humans and at least try to figure out why our fellow men continue to report these anomalous "things" on such a large scale?

We need to figure out how a large scale is defined.  In the absence of knowledge of such phenomena, we don't know if some are stochastic processes (like beta decay) that pop up randomly in the atmosphere, or directed activity that correlate with terrestrial events, hidden agendas of nations, Plan Nine from outer space,  populations breathing more mold spores, etc.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

What is the sigma value before science considers something to be probably true? Is anything ever proven absolutely? 

No absolutes.  Sigma value depends on what sort of measurements are taken, and where the data points fall on a normal distribution (Bell curve).  Six might be the gold standard for manufacturing processes, while it might be insufficient for data on a possible new neutrino that's quite weird.  If you’re taking a pre election poll the accepted standard is two sigma, which gives a 95 percent confidence level.  For the Higgs, because what CERN found was expected in their model, 2.3 sigma was considered meaningful.  In social science and medicine it gets really tricky.  When you get into data composed of eyewitness reports of "I saw something odd," then you have really fuzzy data with the measurements being a welter of differing perspectives, perceptions, and a vast number of variables that can't all be monitored.  It seems like this big stew of sloppy social science, atmospheric science, astronomical events, ephemeral geomagnetic phenomena, military tech testing, recent science fiction blockbuster movie releases, etc.

Maybe the best hope is one of these anomalies leaves some physical trace evidence that starts right off with a responsible chain of custody and thorough recording of the specimen in situ.  

 

[Moontanman]

I think we are in the situation of a large island of primitives, we are isolated from the rest of the world and only see glimpses of the outside world. We occasionally see objects over head flying trailing clouds smoke. The tribal elders say these are just illusions, or some might say they are angels, gods or even dragons but there is no way to really know. 

We occasionally see boats way offshore on the horizon, we can see them as boats because we have boats that float and can conceive of such things but they are so far away we cannot see them clearly and there is a lot of debate about who or what they represent but no clear cut way to really know. These "boats" are too fast and too far away for us to catch them. 

Very rarely we see things flying in the dark that light up the sky and the ground and even land. The people shoot arrows at them and throw spears but nothing comes of it. They make a huge amount of noise and some even claim that there are men on board. A few say that they have been abducted and brought back after being examined by these flying things but most people do not have this experience and discount it completely even though many clear pictures have been drawn by the people involved and some of the pictures are similar. 

The tribal leaders say that these things cannot be real because there is no physical evidence of any of them, only people seeing things in the sky or in the distance. Sometimes people who insist they are real are ostracised from the tribe. 

But life goes on and the things people claim to have seen seldom if ever make any real difference in the lives of the island people so no one thinks the sightings should be investigated because they cannot be important to the lives of the people. 

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So I guess that scientific papers written by real well known and well accredited scientists are no better than photos and the other link to a large file of info about a military sightings with radar data and isn't even enough to be looked at.

Such scientists often get ridiculed by their peers for such, so its easy to see why a bunch of science enthusiasts do the same.

Like I said previously, there is a stigma around this subject, so people will scoff and ridicule even those of us who are not necessarily believers in alien visitation, but are open minded to the possibility of it. 

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I think some of you get it, others are just stuck in the debunk at all costs phase, and some just can't help thinking it's all silly to begin with.

I think some are just open minded but not yet convinced (like myself) others are just closed off and will possibly remain that way until they have an alien knocking at their door. Others feel that the seemingly unsurmountable task of interstellar space travel, combined with the vastness of space, combined with the low odds of simultaneous existence and a whole other bunch of lesser factors, stacks the odds of visitation to be extremely unlikely. 

I think the few that think the idea is silly are somewhat naive, or maybe they feel they believe it is impossible beyond doubt. Either way, that is really a shame, especially so if its intelligent generally objective people. 

It doesn't help matters when you have thousands upon thousands of reports that are hoaxes, fake, or just misunderstood. That then are sensationalised to ridiculousness.  To then accept the small minority of reports that may have potential as being credible becomes difficult.     

Edited March 29, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling