Are UAPs/UFOs finally being taken seriously?

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

I don't think we can discount it just because we currently think its highly improbable. All our investigative resources are based on our current understanding of physics. But we all know, that as successful as our models are, there are gaps. The gaps may turn out to be very insignificant.

All very speculative I know, but but one can't help but think - what if. 

   

Think about it, but don't let your brain fall out. This is a science forum, which means we are voluntarily binding to  sets of agreed standards; aliens do not yet meet the evidentiary thresholds.

Edited April 10, 2023 by StringJunky

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

Big coincidence, there was a prog on UK tv a couple of hours ago, on UFOs.

The part about sightings by three different airline crew, over Ireland really came across as genuine. They played the real-time audio recordings (they said) and there was no aroma of fakery about it at all, which is pretty rare. 

A relevant part of the program is on this youtube video, so see what you think : 

 

They seem all to have observed something, but apparently nothing with a radar signature.

Irritatingly this is presented to emphasise mystery rather than to dispel it, so no helpful details are provided. But if what the picture shows is correct in that the sun was just rising above the clouds, and what they saw was a bright light, my suspicions are aroused that this could have been some effect attributable to sunlight. 

[studiot]

For those that might be interested and have access,

There is a new documentary program on BBC4 tonight at 22:00 hours local time, 21:00 GMT on "The sky at Night" series entitled

"The Search for Alien Life"

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

They seem all to have observed something, but apparently nothing with a radar signature.

Yes, I thought the recordings and reactions of the crews were genuine, I'm pretty sure there was something to see. I wouldn't favour a trick of the light, not with three different crews seeing it, and it being enough for them to ask the question of air traffic controllers. 

It could have been a stealth bomber, or a small flight of stealth aircraft. They probably wouldn't show on radar. 

[TheVat]

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

Big coincidence, there was a prog on UK tv a couple of hours ago, on UFOs.

The part about sightings by three different airline crew, over Ireland really came across as genuine. They played the real-time audio recordings (they said) and there was no aroma of fakery about it at all, which is pretty rare. 

A relevant part of the program is on this youtube video, so see what you think : 

 

 

Quote

The uploader has not made this video available in your country

...is what my US screen is showing.  Got a link to text on this?

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Astronaut and airline pilot sightings are quite abundant. But there never seems to be any particular investigative follow up by any leading experts (or so it appears). I'm quite amazed at how many sightings & sound for that matter have been witnessed by so many credible people. Including many from the space programs dating all the way back to the early 60's. 

I guess you can look at it 2 ways, all the sightings have been ignored, as nothing worth investigating. Or many if not most have been investigated and some of the information remains sensitive for one reason or another.

What follow-up/investigation do you propose? 

The light in the sky they saw isn’t there anymore. You can’t collect more data from something that’s no longer there.

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

They seem all to have observed something, but apparently nothing with a radar signature.

Irritatingly this is presented to emphasise mystery rather than to dispel it, so no helpful details are provided. But if what the picture shows is correct in that the sun was just rising above the clouds, and what they saw was a bright light, my suspicions are aroused that this could have been some effect attributable to sunlight. 

 

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

What follow-up/investigation do you propose? 

The light in the sky they saw isn’t there anymore. You can’t collect more data from something that’s no longer there.

Which sighting are we discussing? The Minot air base sighting did have radar data and the crews were of air force B-52 bomber. Not just a light in the sky. 

[exchemist]

8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Which sighting are we discussing? The Minot air base sighting did have radar data and the crews were of air force B-52 bomber. Not just a light in the sky. 

I was discussing the post to which I was responding, strange to relate.

[mistermack]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Got a link to text on this?

This is a link to a Sky version of the same video, which might play in the US :

https://youtu.be/xbhMUjprpB8?t=263 

The BBC reported on it as well but it's a bit skimpy : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46181662  

   And CNN :    https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ireland-ufo-pilots-intl/index.html   

[TheVat]

39 minutes ago, mistermack said:

This is a link to a Sky version of the same video, which might play in the US :

 

Sky blocked also (thanks for trying!), but I did read a bit on it.  Early November, it sure sounds like the Leonids to me.  Both Leonids and Perseids are known for unusual bursts of activity known as meteor outbursts and meteor storms, which will  produce at least 1,000 meteors an hour - especially the Leonids.  The pilot reports sound like they saw a  good-sized one, maybe breaking up so you'd get several bright objects moving on a similar trajectory as was reported. 

 

[mistermack]

Yeh, it's possible that the meteor was so bright that it was really much further away than it appeared, and at a much higher altitude. I had my doubts because it veered off north, but if it broke up, it could temporarily have a shape that caused it to swoop or swerve, a bit like some paper planes do. 

Out of the two scenarios, meteor or aliens, you have to pick meteor, we know they happen all the time, but this was just an unusual one. It's a shame that air traffic control don't have a way to record them. Way above their range, I would have thought.

[Moontanman]

In UFO studies by civilians it is often suggested that sightings that are easier to debunk are more likely to be debated than sightings that are not easily debunked... nah, can't be true... can it?  

[TheVat]

Could be.  The Minot 68 sightings are deeply puzzling, but also frustrate further investigation: we have multiple eyewitness reports, drawings, radar photos, but as Swanson noted you can't investigate what is no longer there.  There's nothing to feed debate because everyone can agree it's anomalous and defies mundane explanation but there's not much prospect of further resolution.  

Did anyone investigate the location where it was seen on the ground for physical traces?  In so many of these cases I've read about where there is a possible ground contact, there just doesn't seem to be the staffing or funds to have a team of forensic scientists on hand.  At the very least you would want to study the soil and flora for unusual thermal stress or deformations.  Like, ASAP.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by TheVat
cbmspk

[Intoscience]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:14 PM, swansont said:

What follow-up/investigation do you propose? 

The light in the sky they saw isn’t there anymore. You can’t collect more data from something that’s no longer there.

True, though I wasn't referring directly to that specific sighting. But I guess its difficult to follow up without some data to analyse.

On 4/10/2023 at 10:59 AM, StringJunky said:

Think about it, but don't let your brain fall out. This is a science forum, which means we are voluntarily binding to  sets of agreed standards; aliens do not yet meet the evidentiary thresholds.

Makes sense, no point in claiming a theory based on speculative science. Doesn't stop you from wondering though. 

You do get the impression that there is an air of arrogance towards those who pursue UFO claims. There are scientists who believe that our understanding of physics is absolute and anyone who suggests otherwise is a crackpot. 

This is the stigma attached to such discussions.

It makes perfect sense to use the data & tools you have available to attempt to solve a problem. If the problem can't be solved then fine, but that problem maybe solved at a later date when better data & tools are available. 

We can't ignore that there are gaps in our scientific understanding of how the universe works at both the quantum and the cosmic scales. We don't understand how to consolidate gravity in our 2 best models, we have no clue what dark matter is, we have no clue what dark energy is. Basically we know far less about the vast majority of the universe than we do.   

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

True, though I wasn't referring directly to that specific sighting. But I guess its difficult to follow up without some data to analyse.

Makes sense, no point in claiming a theory based on speculative science. Doesn't stop you from wondering though. 

You do get the impression that there is an air of arrogance towards those who pursue UFO claims. There are scientists who believe that our understanding of physics is absolute and anyone who suggests otherwise is a crackpot. 

This is the stigma attached to such discussions.

It makes perfect sense to use the data & tools you have available to attempt to solve a problem. If the problem can't be solved then fine, but that problem maybe solved at a later date when better data & tools are available. 

We can't ignore that there are gaps in our scientific understanding of how the universe works at both the quantum and the cosmic scales. We don't understand how to consolidate gravity in our 2 best models, we have no clue what dark matter is, we have no clue what dark energy is. Basically we know far less about the vast majority of the universe than we do.   

The way I look it can be expressed as "All swans are white until we find a black one." There is an expectation but, as yet, no confirmation. I'm disinclined to speculate because there is nothing to work with that has gained any traction. The present knowledge is too vague and fuzzy to commit to a binary position.

Edited April 12, 2023 by StringJunky

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

We don't understand how to consolidate gravity in our 2 best models

I disagree. There are several suggestions. We don't have yet tools or data to test them.

 

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

we have no clue what dark matter is, we have no clue what dark energy is.

Again, I think this is incorrect. Several suggestions exist for both. Data keep being accumulated. 

In all three cases, energies, times, and distances involved are such that we cannot make direct experiments. Thus, the slow process of collecting observational data is our only way to make progress in these domains. But the phenomena are there, the observations are repeatable, and the research goes on.

[Intoscience]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

I disagree. There are several suggestions. We don't have yet tools or data to test them.

That's my point, there are plenty of suggestions for many number of things some more credible/likely than others. But until its/or if achieved then we don't know. 

14 minutes ago, Genady said:

Again, I think this is incorrect. Several suggestions exist for both. Data keep being accumulated.

And again the phenomena can be observed and measured but what is causing it is yet unknown. Agreed, plenty of suggestions exist but until it can be verified then we don't know. 

Why is this any different for UAP's & UFO's where there is observation and data, with plenty of suggestions which currently cannot be verified? 

But there is a stigma around UAP's but non around dark matter, or dark energy,or multi verses or higher dimensions...?  The only thing that is dissimilar, is that the "effects" of dark energy, dark matter etc... are being constantly observed. 

[Genady]

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

The only thing that is dissimilar, is that the "effects" of dark energy, dark matter etc... are being constantly observed. 

This dissimilarity makes a big difference. When the phenomena are repeatedly observable, research plans can be set, tools and methods can be designed, and the new observations can be executed. Otherwise, until there are defined next steps, calls for farther investigations are pointless. I've asked this question before and all I got was to look for IR sources in the Kuiper Belt.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

This dissimilarity makes a big difference. When the phenomena are repeatedly observable, research plans can be set, tools and methods can be designed, and the new observations can be executed. Otherwise, until there are defined next steps, calls for farther investigations are pointless. I've asked this question before and all I got was to look for IR sources in the Kuiper Belt.

I disagree... I know big surprise... but for UFOs/UAPs or really anything that is intermittent and unpredictable do we simply not bother or do we try to think of ways to gather data? If it was anything but "aliens" I think we would be giving a lot more effort to trying to gather more data or even figuring out ways to gather data. 

Because it is "aliens" suddenly there seems to be no reason to even try in fact not trying seems to be the go to methodology. In any other phenomena would throwing up our hands and essentially saying I give up be the immediate go to? If we noticed a weird intermittent reading in radioactive decay would we just throw up our hands and say nothing to see here move along? 

I admit there was a time when I thought aliens were here and obviously so. Then I realized that human nature often resulted in lies for no reason other than wanting to be part of the group. I actually do test this somewhat regularly via the being out on the fishing pier and pointing and saying did you see that? A huge fish just jumped right there, people will look their asses off for a few minutes and then lose interest but another shout of look there did you see it will almost always result in some of the people present claiming to have seen "it" 

It's weird but true but the same thing will happen even if the first shout out is true. Fish do jump, weird things do happen and just because some people will intentionally lie doesn't mean others are not telling the truth. Sometimes it's not a fish, sometimes it's a whale, sometimes it's a bird, and sometimes a false shoutout will result in a second real sighting. Unless you look you will not see and UFO/UAP sightings occur often enough to make you wonder what is going on, fish, whale, bird, occasionally something unidentifiable breaks the surface of reality. I think we should be on the lookout instead of turning away sure that it cannot happen because it hasn't been confirmed yet. 

There be whales here! We might find aliens or we might find out nothing or we might even find out why humans lie about stuff that makes no real sense to lie about. New information is always new and can be important at some point. So I say look, and try to figure out how to look better instead of trying to discourage looking because we don't like what we might see. 

When you figure radar traces and multiple independent witnesses, physical effects, and simple wonder I think it might be more important to look than we think. Do our best to be prepared better next time by studying what happened last time. Even bullshit can be used as fertilizer.      

[TheVat]

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

Did anyone investigate the location where it was seen on the ground for physical traces?  In so many of these cases I've read about where there is a possible ground contact, there just doesn't seem to be the staffing or funds to have a team of forensic scientists on hand.  At the very least you would want to study the soil and flora for unusual thermal stress or deformations.  Like, ASAP.

Just asking this again (re the Minot case).  This seems to me the missing leg on the evidence chair.  Once in a while you see some poorly documented case where it's reported there was some physical artifact or trace and invariably it's reported to have gone missing or been swiped by shadowy characters.  

In wildlife biology, if you want to estimate how many cougars are in a certain area, you don't rely on sightings (cougars tend to hide from humans).  You lay down a grid, and get a team to each walk through their square and hopefully find cougar scat, and make an estimate based on the amounts of scat. *

 

* yes, you really have to know your shit

Edited April 12, 2023 by TheVat

[Moontanman]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Just asking this again (re the Minot case).  This seems to me the missing leg on the evidence chair.  Once in a while you see some poorly documented case where it's reported there was some physical artifact or trace and invariably it's reported to have gone missing or been swiped by shadowy characters.  

In wildlife biology, if you want to estimate how many cougars are in a certain area, you don't rely on sightings (cougars tend to hide from humans).  You lay down a grid, and get a team to each walk through their square and hopefully find cougar scat, and make an estimate based on the amounts of scat. *

 

* yes, you really have to know your shit

Do you really expect a UFO to take a shit ie leave something behind so the chair can have all it's legs? 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I disagree... I know big surprise... but for UFOs/UAPs or really anything that is intermittent and unpredictable do we simply not bother or do we try to think of ways to gather data? If it was anything but "aliens" I think we would be giving a lot more effort to trying to gather more data or even figuring out ways to gather data. 

Because it is "aliens" suddenly there seems to be no reason to even try in fact not trying seems to be the go to methodology. In any other phenomena would throwing up our hands and essentially saying I give up be the immediate go to? If we noticed a weird intermittent reading in radioactive decay would we just throw up our hands and say nothing to see here move along? 

Who is "we"? I think you mean "other people"

Intermittent and unpredictable is going to be a pretty low rung on the ladder of priorities for science, because you don't know where to look or what to look for. The null hypothesis is that there is a mundane explanation. Without a theoretical basis driving this it's money wasted, when you stack it up against science that has a theoretical basis. By this I mean there's a rigorous model of some sort, predicting what could be detected if the proposed phenomenon is actually happening - people looking e.g. for dark matter have a model for how it might be detected, if the DM is of a particular type. 

The military is only interested to the extent that there is a threat, and if a phenomenon is a foreign craft they aren't going to share classified data. So they aren't going to be much help, other than the PR position of reporting minimal information.

There are plenty of amateur scientists out there, particularly in astronomy, who scan the skies, so there's nothing preventing UFOlogists from doing the same. But your complaint seems to be that other people aren't doing research at the expense of what they want to investigate.

There's a TV show that looks into this at some ranch, as I understand it, but AFAICT it's sensationalist garbage, much like ghost hunter shows, because they've been doing it for multiple seasons and have bupkus as far as hard evidence goes. If there was an actual hotspot for alien activity, it shouldn't be all that hard to set up the proper detectors and get better data. But that's not the function of such a show.

 

 

 

 

[TheVat]

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Do you really expect a UFO to take a shit ie leave something behind so the chair can have all it's legs? 

 Hehe.  It does seem possible that a craft would leave something, even if it doesn't empty its latrine tank or toss out candy wrappers.*  Change to residual radiation levels, thermal stress to soil and plants, bits of an ablation shield if it entered atmosphere from orbit, tracks of some kind, traces of unusual chemical compounds if an airlock opened, unusual indentations in the ground, traces of biocide chems, if something was disinfected....I expect this list could go on at some length.  

 

(*Milky Way wrappers, perhaps)

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Do you really expect a UFO to take a shit ie leave something behind so the chair can have all it's legs? 

Yes.

In the broader picture, we expect that laws of nature be followed. If you have to posit that the laws are different, somehow, then there needs to be independent evidence of this. Otherwise it's topologically the same as a conspiracy theory, where the lack of evidence is presented as proof of the theory.

[Intoscience]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

The null hypothesis is that there is a mundane explanation

Why would there be a null hypothesis for something unexplainable? Assuming its mundane is no different than assuming its sensational. Both have little evidence to lean one way or the other. 

I don't believe in ghosts, alien visitations or any other sensational phenomena, simply because I haven't seen enough credible evidence to convince me of such. But then I also  don't  just assume everything that is currently unexplained has/will have a mundane explanation. 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

In the broader picture, we expect that laws of nature be followed

But there are question marks by many leading scientists hanging over our understanding of the laws of nature. The standard model and relativity are our best models for this, yet both are either incomplete, or not quite correct. 

I agree that these are the only tools we have to work with for now, but this doesn't mean that they are absolute and therefore there may be things that we currently believe are not possible or very improbable may turn out not so. Speculation, yes agreed, but why not if we know there is something missing? 

I was listening to a lecture from  Sabine Hossenfelder just the other day, where she was discussing about FTL travel and communication. How there are speculative, but potentially possible, ways around it and advanced aliens (if they were to exist) may have discovered how to use this knowledge.  Does this make her a crackpot? 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling