All About UFO's

[Mart68]

Also, there are potentially viable allegations that the summary and conclusion for the study were predetermined before the study even took place. That makes sense since the summary does not even address some of the more compelling reports included in the study.

I think that likely however it is still valid data for the percentage of confirmed mis-identifications - 95 percent.

Hard to investigate the less easily explained cases properly when there is so much noise.

 

[Madlop26]

Hi guys, still wasting your time in eye witness accounts, blurred photos and blurred videos? flawed data. After decades and decades on this tale, there is no reliable data at all, not to mention the 4.8 billion cameras around the world unable to show nothing else, the conclusion is unavoidable.....nothing happening here.

 

[Petrushka]

Hi guys, still wasting your time in eye witness accounts, blurred photos and blurred videos? flawed data. After decades and decades on this tale, there is no reliable data at all, not to mention the 4.8 billion cameras around the world unable to show nothing else, the conclusion is unavoidable.....nothing happening here.

After seeing what illuminated drones can do, I think cameras are pretty useless as evidence.

 

[solderdude]

Out of 12618 alleged sightings Blue Book categorized 701 as remaining unexplained following investigation. So about 5.5 percent.

That ended in 1969 so I'd suggest with the explosion in interest in the subject that came with the internet, the percentage of sightings since then which could not be explained would be much lower.

50 years of sightings + hints for extraterrestrial visits from even before the pharaohs but no 'hard' evidence... at least there are claims that this exists but is kept secret all these years and only a happy few may know about this ... even though it could be the greatest discovery for mankind only a select few are allowed to know about it.

I have been hearing for decades that 'soon' there will be evidence revealed... it has been a long wait and will continue to be a long wait and in the meantime people are filling their pockets and are making a living on this whole 'mystery'.

Nah... I don't think there will be a big reveal and it will always be 'kept secret' to prevent global panic or whatever other excuse they can find.

Sure there seem to be things that do not have an explanation (yet) and there are z zillion things about the cosmos we don't know about. Theorizing is fun but that's all it is.
It won't bring us closer to the truth.... just like all the wild theories of 'subjective audiophiles' also will never lead them to the truth... and as you say that truth is already in plain sight. They just won't accept the explanations that exist and choose to trust their belief as that makes sense to them (because they can clearly hear it so it is true).
We can see videos/pics and read reports of UAP/UFO (and speculate they must be non-terrestrial so they must be that.

 

[mhardy6647]

Now it's men in shiny suits riding saucers and rocket ships.

with three fingers (and, presumably, also three toes).
Perhaps SETI should just look for datastreams in base six.

 

[mhardy6647]

<deleted somewhat irrelevant/inaccurate aside>
sorry, I fell into my own little snark trap. Mea culpa.

I wanted to mention two things (I'd suggest that they're axioms, but that may not be apt, and might not even be true). I am certain that in the, umm, 240 pages of this thread, these points have surfaced, but the signal to noise ratio has, perhaps, been poor.

1) In a scientific sense, everything that we "know" about everything - our framework of understanding things from a human perspective - is and/or is based upon models. Parametriic approximations of reality. Those models are all incomplete in smaller or larger ways; some are fundamentally wrong.

2) In a scientific sense, the only useful hypotheses are testable.

 

[mhardy6647]

Oh, I am also wryly amused that a substantial number of contributors to this long thread (me included) are scientists -- spread across the poles of the issue.

 

[WillBrink]

It certainly is evidence, but what many of the people participating in this thread think of as evidence is indisputable physical evidence that can be scientifically analyzed. The issue with most videos, etc. is that they are not clear enough to make definitive conclusions and the equipment is not available for analysis by the scientific community (at least that we know of) to rule out measurment problems and/or problems with the equipment.

Another issue I have seen is misunderstanding of the rules of evidence. I have seen some people call all witness testimony hearsay, including first hand witness testimony (e.g., David Fravor's testimony). But, this thread mostly is entertainment and not a legal proceeding, so it doesn't really matter beyond providing subject matter for debate.

The anecdotal evidence for the existance of UAPs is becoming overwhelming at this point. That, combined with the U.S. government's historical documentation on the issue and the way they respond to certain FOIA document requests pertaining to the subject make a compelling case for the UAP subject. But, as of yet, I have not seen indisputable physical evidence, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that much of the anecdotal information has been influenced by misinformation campaigns put out to coverup sensitive weapons development projects. Also, I beleive that much of the anecdotal information is based in misperceptions, misunderstanding, exaggeration and outright lies.

For those reasons I keep an open mind, but as time goes on without indisputable scientific evidence, I find myself moving further away from the NHI hypothesis. Nonetheless, clearly, there are phenomena that we do not understand that are, in my opinion, worthy of scientific investigation.

Speaking of which, yet another, as expert an eyewitness as one could ask for with top tier credentials got blown off completely when he attempted to go through AARO channels to report what he and his team witnessed. As with all the others who have come forward, crazy, lying, or telling truth:

 

[Chester]

Speaking of which, yet another, as expert an eyewitness as one could ask for with top tier credentials got blown off completely when he attempted to go through AARO channels to report what he and his team witnessed. As with all the others who have come forward, crazy, lying, or telling truth:

Or just plain mistaken, you’re ignoring the most likely explanation in a lot of these cases.

 

[WillBrink]

Not too put too fine a point on it, but many Catholics, including well educated, clear thinkers, will tell you the exact same about miracles. To non Catholics this doesn't rise to the level of conclusive evidence, or even "real"/ "hard" evidence, either.

I mean in terms of interpreting them as NHI.

I'm not religious nor Catholic, but some of the "miracles" are compelling and can't be simply dismissed. They're not just someone seeing Jebus in toast. Credit to the Catholic Church, their process to get an event acknowledged as a miracle is rigorous.

The Science of Miracles: How the Vatican Decides

The Vatican uses a formal vetting process to determine whether miraculous events with no known scientific explanation have occurred.

www.livescience.com

 

[mhardy6647]

As with all the others who have come forward, crazy, lying, or telling truth:

I reckon a good faith statistically-reasonable estimate of the likelihood of "crazy" could be made. My guess is it's reasonably likely (albeit admittedly highly dependent on the definition of "crazy"). Whether it is more or less "reasonably likely" than the other two categories might be interesting to assess. Factoring in the perceived need for secrecy in/by military organizations, irrespective of cost or appearances -- "lying" per se may be the most likely of the three, statistically.

 

[WillBrink]

I reckon a good faith statistically-reasonable estimate of the likelihood of "crazy" could be made. My guess is it's reasonably likely (albeit admittedly highly dependent on the definition of "crazy"). Whether it is more or less "reasonably likely" than the other two categories might be interesting to assess. Factoring in the perceived need for secrecy in/by military organizations, irrespective of cost or appearances -- "lying" per se may be the most likely of the three, statistically.

As part of government/mil disinformation and psyops? Can't be ruled out.

 

[voodooless]

Credit to the Catholic Church, their process to get an event acknowledged as a miracle is rigorous.

Really? I think it’s only as rigorous as they want it to be. If I look at those two “miracles” in that article, then the first case could be a simple misdiagnosis; Parkinson’s is very hard to diagnose, more so in 2001. And the second one could just be a very rare case of self healing. It is very rare, but it happens. You don’t need a miracle for that, just some luck, and possibly the right DNA…

 

[mhardy6647]

As part of government/mil disinformation and psyops? Can't be ruled out.

Yes, exactly.
Again, (as with crazy, which is a pretty vague and fraught adjective in and of itself) definition is important. Deliberately misrepresenting or withholding 'the truth' seems to me to be a reasonable definition of lying, irrespective of the circumstances. Not a moral judgment, but rather a lexical one.

 

[WillBrink]

Yes, exactly.
Again, (as with crazy, which is a pretty vague and fraught adjective in and of itself) definition is important. Deliberately misrepresenting or withholding 'the truth' seems to me to be a reasonable definition of lying, irrespective of the circumstances. Not a moral judgment, but rather a lexical one.

There's an ongoing dispute among the UFO/UAP community over who is "working for the man" as part of a psyops campaign and who is the genuine whistle blower, name calling and finger pointing and all. It makes for yet more intrigue within the wild and wacky world of UFOs.

 

[Axo1989]

Speaking of which, yet another, as expert an eyewitness as one could ask for with top tier credentials got blown off completely when he attempted to go through AARO channels to report what he and his team witnessed. As with all the others who have come forward, crazy, lying, or telling truth:

I know you are hiding my posts of course, but why would anyone in their right mind keep posting unmitigated slop from News Nation and Ross Coulthart? Of course he is probably NHI—a species of bloviating slime mould—if we use the "I" bit very loosely, so maybe evidence of a sort.

Calling the interviewee "as expert an eyewitness as one could ask for" indicates that one doesn't ask for much. Not to forget "top tier credentials" for people who have never seen a stepladder? Anyway one hour of that is an hour too much. For the clicks, as usual.

 

[PierreV]

And of course, since I've read or reread a few papers on warp drives in the recent days, Google had an insightful suggestion for me.

We already know how to go FTL - meet the "relativity special" that apparently will reach 2.7c at 90 rpm
No theoretical breakthrough required. No negative energy.
We just need some material science improvements for cranks and gears, better lubricants, better tires. And those things improve all the time, right?

The only downside is that as far as the energy requirements are concerned, unfortunately, they are unchanged, or probably worse.

But when the next UFO sighting wave hits, I think we should carefully check bike parkings.

 

[Petrushka]

I’m sitting here thinking about “take me to your leader.”

How would you answer?

 

[kemmler3D]

I’m sitting here thinking about “take me to your leader.”

How would you answer?

I'd try to convince them our leader was busy and see if I could handle it without having them interact with the government right off the bat... first impressions and everything.

 

[Petrushka]

I'd try to convince them our leader was busy and see if I could handle it without having them interact with the government right off the bat... first impressions and everything.

Putting the joke aside for a moment, why does anyone think one nation or one military would be singled out?