All About UFO's

[WillBrink]

Michio Kaku: Why 10% of UFO sightings remain unexplained. Relevant parts tangential to current UFO/UAP topic, starts at 6:19, so short view. Before that, works his way on types of civilizations, types of intelligence, and more general discussion:

 

[Petrushka]

The Central Dogma. This states that once "information" has passed into protein it cannot get out again. In more detail, the transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible. Information here means the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or of amino acid residues in the protein. — Wikipedia.

A second version of the central dogma is popular but incorrect. This is the simplistic DNA → RNA → protein pathway published by James Watson in the first edition of The Molecular Biology of the Gene (1965). Watson's version differs from Crick's because Watson describes a two-step (DNA → RNA / RNA → protein) process as the central dogma. While the dogma as originally stated by Crick remains valid today, Watson's version does not.

 

[WillBrink]

I watched some of this. I think they saw a cloud formation. You can get odd-looking isolated clouds in otherwise clear skies. It was six miles away and thousands of feet in elevation from their location.

Nothing he says in his description rules that explanation out. They did not even see it move. They did not even observe it through field glasses.

None of them reported it until one (or two?) years later after they left the service. Then he's surprised that he was not taken seriously when he did?

Considering who he is, and the others with him even more so, and the fact me made it very clear it was no cloud nor balloon, that one seems unlikely to me. However, I agree, it can't be rules out of course. Clouds also don't simply disappear as he describes, but your points are valid and can't be ruled out. I don't find his one of the more compelling witnessed accounts, but it's a (soft) data point in terms of people with high level clearances and backgrounds telling their experiences.

 

[krabapple]

So that is the beauty of science.
We have theories about the core of this planet.
The trick is to extrapolate from the unobservable to the observable; from the untestable to the testable.
1) that's what science is all about.
2) that's where models come in.

Archimedes tested buoyancy in his bathtub, e.g.

Are you gonna persist in not getting it?

You may have a theory about the core of Pluto that is not testable from Earth by any known method.
Testing it would require, at minimum , the launching of a space probe.
That makes falsifying the theory by definition do-able, but not practical. It still passes the Popperian criterion

Then there are the theories involving measuring that which it seems currently impossible -- even theoretically -- to measure. And that category represent more of a challenge to Popperian falsifiability.

X-rays are an entirely different category! An observed phenomenon that was new and unexplained.

 

[WillBrink]

I think about Duesberg a lot in the context of this thread.
In fact, pretty sure he's come up before.
Actually it's potentially (?) interesting to compare Duesberg to Stan Prusiner at UCSF, who (somewhat) similarly seemed to be off the rails (my postdoc advisor, who ended up at UCSF after his time in Charm City, referred to him as Stan the Charlatan ), but ended up being right -- or at least on the right track.

I vividly remember Duesberg's logic from a long article in Science (the front section, not the peer-reviewed stuff) back in the day. Something along the lines of We test for the presence of HIV antibodies... if a person's made antibodies, it means that their immune system has won. (words to that effect) He thought, it seemed, that a test for antibodies for a putative causal agent for immunodeficiency was hilariously incongruous.

When I was taking a course on the biology of HIV from one of the top people in the field at the time (mid 90s), Duesberg was a topic of discussion, as was Gallo etc. The problem with Duesberg and similar they often start with a possibly rational position before there's data/evidence, then refuse to change that position once it exist. Their ego gets involved, and instead of admitting they were incorrect as data shows, double down on it. That's been the downfall of many a top scientist. Einstein rejected the existence of black holes as his own theory GR predicted, and resisted strongly the growing evidence shown to him. And on it goes, even the most brilliant have their blind spots, biases, and human foibles. Some times it costs them a steller career, some times it's just a bump in the road.

 

[krabapple]

Who doesn't love a UFO conspiracy?

 

[WillBrink]

Testable in theory, or in practice?

That's an ongoing debate, theories often ahead of what current tech can test. It took over 100 years to finally test the major predictions of GR. Will we ever be able to test for other dimensions as predicted by ST in 100 years? Or, have we finally hit the wall of human ingenuity and engineering and such things will remain theoretical? I don't know the answer to that one. Some think ST and others are closer to philosophy vs physics as they make predictions that (likely?) can never be tested.

 

[terryforsythe]

US super power status was unequivocal after the nukes were dropped, and the UFO phenomenon became widespread, for some reason, centered at the US

The French Cometa report:

Full text of "The Cometa Report [UFO's And Defense - What Should We Prepare For].pdf (PDFy mirror)"

There also was the Belgium UFO wave, the Ariel School incident in Zimbabwe, the Westall UFO incident in Australia, reported foo fighters over the south pacific and Europe during WW II, etc.

Nonetheless, many people speculate that UFOs are particularly attracted to nuclear assets, of which the US probably, by far, has the most, aside from Russia, perhaps.

 

[WillBrink]

The French Cometa report:

Full text of "The Cometa Report [UFO's And Defense - What Should We Prepare For].pdf (PDFy mirror)"

There also was the Belgium UFO wave, the Ariel School incident in Zimbabwe, the Westall UFO incident in Australia, reported foo fighters over the south pacific and Europe during WW II, etc.

Nonetheless, many people speculate that UFOs are particularly attracted to nuclear assets, of which the US probably, by far, has the most, aside from Russia, perhaps.

And the Russians have an extensive history with UFOs, only released post fall of USSR.

 

[Mart68]

And the Russians have an extensive history with UFOs, only released post fall of USSR.

Supposedly, the Soviets were launching SAMs at them and sending up Migs with orders to shoot them down.

No 'First Contact' protocol nonsense there; just blow 'em out the sky.

 

[mhardy6647]

When I was taking a course on the biology of HIV from one of the top people in the field at the time (mid 90s), Duesberg was a topic of discussion, as was Gallo etc. The problem with Duesberg and similar they often start with a possibly rational position before there's data/evidence, then refuse to change that position once it exist. Their ego gets involved, and instead of admitting they were incorrect as data shows, double down on it. That's been the downfall of many a top scientist. Einstein rejected the existence of black holes as his own theory GR predicted, and resisted strongly the growing evidence shown to him. And on it goes, even the most brilliant have their blind spots, biases, and human foibles. Some times it costs them a steller career, some times it's just a bump in the road.

Yup. It is the kiss of death when a scientist believes his/her/their own theory to the point that they create biased experimental protocols (often, IME, in terms of dubious control strategies) and/or misinterpret data to fit their model.

Einstein's famous line God does not throw dice says less about his faith or his philosophy than it does about his disdain for quantum mechanics.

One is reminded of Linus Pauling's imaginative model for DNA, which - being Linus Pauling - he did manage to get published in the peer reviewed literature. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1063734/ Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences, of which Pauling was a member.

Narrative - 20. Pauling's Mad Rush - Linus Pauling and the Race for DNA: A Documentary History

Ol' Linus postulated a beastly elegant triple helix (a la collagen, at least in terms of the 'stoichiometry') with the phosphate groups on the inside. One little tidbit. DNA is, indeed, acidic. Pauling's model wouldn't be.
Details, details.

 

[mhardy6647]

You may have a theory about the core of Pluto that is not testable from Earth by any known method.

I do not, in fact, have such a theory.

 

[mhardy6647]

An untestable theory would be conjecture -- speculation.
Indeed, speculations or conjectures cannot be proved, nor can failure of proof be demonstrated, absent objective tools, data, and analyses.
A scientist would parametrically evaluate a theory to determine potentially discoverable outcomes (e.g., but inside-out, so to speak -- the transit orbit of Mercury, the blackbody radiator "ultraviolet catastrophe") and develop or adapt tools to test those hypotheses.
It's been done over and over again under the aegis of the scientific method.
Spallanzani fairly leaps to mind, e.g.

 

[mhardy6647]

Since I've dragged this discussion way off topic, I'll offer a valedictory comment and move on.
The bottom line in terms of natural phenomena is (probably!) this:
Humankind has made many observations that were inexplicable -- until they weren't. A set of tools and strategies evolved to enhance the efficiency of getting from the first state to the second.
I presume that numerous legitimate scientists have invested resources over the past century (give or take) to examine and to understand the root cause of a relatively small (though not vanishingly small) percentage of "inexplicable" empirical/anecdotal observations and events of UAPs, NHI, and/or "alien encounters".

As far as I can tell, there are no scholarly published explanations invoking explaining extra-terrestrial (or extra-human) origins. Are there? If not, the discussion continues to swirl in a vortex of speculation (e.g., they're crazy, they're paid off to keep silent or to lie by larger forces, and/or there's an international conspiracy at work). That only changes when there's unassailable and explainable evidence.

... and we wait.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Nonetheless, many people speculate that UFOs are particularly attracted to nuclear assets

This is the precisely the sort of “argument” we see in audio threads. Speculate wildly about possible reasons why people hear differences in power cables (crystal structure, quantum effects we don’t yet understand etc) while ignoring the obvious reason that perfectly explains the phenomenon (sighted bias)

 

[Axo1989]

This is the precisely the sort of “argument” we see in audio threads. Speculate wildly about possible reasons why people hear differences in power cables (crystal structure, quantum effects we don’t yet understand etc) while ignoring the obvious reason that perfectly explains the phenomenon (sighted bias)

Exactly. Working as an ecologist I've mapped many instances of endangered/protected/threatened/vulnerable fauna species distribution.

They invariably cluster around human settlements, infrastructure, transport corridors, development/study areas and the like. Clearly, these non-human intelligences are deeply concerned about the threat to their existence posed by such areas, and flock there to study us ...

 

[mhardy6647]

They invariably cluster around human settlements, infrastructure, transport corridors, development/study areas and the like. Clearly, these non-human intelligences are deeply concerned about the threat to their existence posed by such areas, and flock there to study us ...

Like Willie Sutton and banks.
I mean...
Like bears and bird feeders.

 

[terryforsythe]

This is the precisely the sort of “argument” we see in audio threads. Speculate wildly about possible reasons why people hear differences in power cables (crystal structure, quantum effects we don’t yet understand etc) while ignoring the obvious reason that perfectly explains the phenomenon (sighted bias)

I disagree that it is the same sort of argument. The speculation is based, among other things, on testimony in the congressional record. I don't know of any testimony before Congress testifying to differences in audio power cables.

 

[Axo1989]

I disagree that it is the same sort of argument. The speculation is based, among other things, on testimony in the congressional record. I don't know of any testimony before Congress testifying to differences in audio power cables.

You haven't been following the FCC making us great again vs Big Cable?

 

[mhardy6647]

You haven't been following the FCC making us great again vs Big Cable?

Big.
Cable.

Vintage STEM Ad 745 - Western Electric - 1952-09-20 by Johnny El-Rady, on Flickr