All About UFO's

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

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

That is gold

 

[PierreV]

Since I've dragged this discussion way off topic, I'll offer a valedictory comment and move on.

No need to move on. Some of your short comments contain more wisdom than some of the hour long youtube videos we have been carpet bombed with.

 

[WillBrink]

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.

Would we expect anything different from the Russians? Let's not forget the compelling Iran event, where you had two pilots, ground control, and hundreds of witnesses. That was while Iran and US were still allies and open coms existed. Pilot attempted to fire an AIM-9 at the object, and everything stopped functioning:

https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf

 

[WillBrink]

No need to move on. Some of your short comments contain more wisdom than some of the hour long youtube videos we have been carpet bombed with.

If you don't like the vids, there's this amazing thing you can do: scroll past them. Some people enjoy/prefer the visuals of vids vs text these days.

 

[Petrushka]

If you don't like the vids, there's this amazing thing you can do: scroll past them. Some people enjoy/prefer the visuals of vids vs text these days.

A thirty minute video has at most, three minutes of information. Complete waste of time.

 

[WillBrink]

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?

Here's a paper of interest. I don't put any real weight into their hypothesis ("cryptoterrestrial”) as to origins, I do think it's a good review of the overall topic for those interested in a highly condensed summary where we are and how we got here:

Lomas, Tim; Case, Brendan; Masters; Michael M. "The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for
scientific openness to a subterranean earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena."

Philosophy and Cosmology. Volume 33. (2024).

Recent years have seen increasing public attention and indeed concern regarding Unidentified
Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Hypotheses for such phenomena tend to fall into two classes: a
conventional terrestrial explanation (e.g., human-made technology), or an extraterrestrial explanation
(i.e., advanced civilizations from elsewhere in the cosmos). However, there is also a third minority
class of hypothesis: an unconventional terrestrial explanation, outside the prevailing consensus view of
the universe. This is the ultraterrestrial hypothesis, which includes as a subset the “cryptoterrestrial”
hypothesis, namely the notion that UAP may reflect activities of intelligent beings concealed in stealth
here on Earth (e.g., underground), and/or its near environs (e.g., the moon), and/or even “walking
among us” (e.g., passing as humans). Although this idea is likely to be regarded sceptically by most
scientists, such is the nature of some UAP that we argue this possibility should not be summarily
dismissed, and instead deserves genuine consideration in a spirit of epistemic humility and openness

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381405238_The_cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis_A_case_for_scientific_openness_to_a_concealed_earthly_explanation_for_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena

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.

Can't disagree with any of that. My only additional thoughts are, there is unassailable evidence to my and others satisfaction that there's something in our airspace zipping around in need to explanation and study, and they have been for a very long time. The issue that remains in need of "unassailable and explainable evidence" is what they are, be it ultra advanced human tech, NHI (of which various subgroups of that are a possibility) or some combination of both.

I personally vacillate between there being those within highly compartmentalized orgs knowing precisely what they are, to no one really knows what they are and don't want to admit it as to not cause panic and loss of faith in the all powerful US gubment. Currently, leaning toward the former option.

 

[krabapple]

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

You may, in fact, choose to be awfully obtuse when faced with normal usage of the English language. It is a choice commonly made in online debates. In which case, allow me to substitute the pronoun 'One' for 'You'.

 

[krabapple]

An untestable theory would be conjecture -- speculation.

So string theory needs renaming?

 

[voodooless]

So string theory needs renaming?

Yes! It’s not a theory, it’s a hypothesis if you’re sticky looking at the scientific meaning of a “theory”.

 

[Petrushka]

I do not dismiss curiosity. I dismiss belief.

I also dismiss the tendency to trust government.

Not because it is necessarily evil, but because it is habitually secretive and self-protective.

 

[WillBrink]

Yes! It’s not a theory, it’s a hypothesis if you’re sticky looking at the scientific meaning of a “theory”.

From that def, it would lead one to view ST as a hypothesis:

"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that can be tested through experimentation, while a theory is a well-substantiated explanation based on a body of evidence that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed. Theories are generally accepted as true within the scientific community, whereas hypotheses are tentative and subject to change"

As we all know, currently, it can't even be tested through experimentation, and some claim never will be. Maybe it should be viewed a mathematically compelling WAG?

 

[Petrushka]

From that def, it would lead one to view ST as a hypothesis:

"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that can be tested through experimentation, while a theory is a well-substantiated explanation based on a body of evidence that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed. Theories are generally accepted as true within the scientific community, whereas hypotheses are tentative and subject to change"

As we all know, currently, it can't even be tested through experimentation, and some claim never will be. Maybe it should be viewed a mathematically compelling WAG?

There is just one, or even a small number of string theories. As a class, they have been non productive.

 

[voodooless]

As we all know, currently, it can't even be tested through experimentation, and some claim never will be

Well, it’s a bit tricky, given that “untestable” is mostly in the practical sense, I would still qualify as a hypothesis because of that. Us not having the technical prowess to pull it off should not factor into this Next to that there may be a whole slew of indirect tests for string theory, but they may not exclusively point towards string theory. You’ll need a lot of those all pointing in the right direction.

 

[Axo1989]

If you don't like the vids, there's this amazing thing you can do: scroll past them. Some people enjoy/prefer the visuals of vids vs text these days.

A thirty minute video has at most, three minutes of information. Complete waste of time.

Yes, and it has nothing to do with ‘preferring visuals vs text these days’ but perhaps preferring concise/coherent vs long-form deranged. I mean I tried the last Dr Cuckoo video as it was mercifully brief. But it was self-referential, smug, circular slop. Sigh.

 

[Axo1989]

Can't disagree with any of that. My only additional thoughts are, there is unassailable evidence to my and others satisfaction that there's something in our headspace zipping around in need to explanation and study, and they have been for a very long time.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Yes! It’s not a theory, it’s a hypothesis if you’re sticky looking at the scientific meaning of a “theory”.

The key thing about scientific theories being falsifiability. Little green men “theories” are a lot closer to justifications for a deity or, dare I say it, cable differences. They seem more like post hoc rationales for beliefs that are held as absolute truths.

 

[mhardy6647]

The key thing about scientific theories being falsifiability. Little green men “theories” are a lot closer to justifications for a deity or, dare I say it, cable differences. They seem more like post hoc rationales for beliefs that are held as absolute truths.

Some of them are ostensibly grey rather than green -- and not all that little, as I understand it.

 

[WillBrink]

Some of them are ostensibly grey rather than green -- and not all that little, as I understand it.

When someone uses the "Little green men" comment it's to be dismissive and condescending.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

When someone uses the "Little green men" comment it's to be dismissive and condescending.

A bit like audiofool?

 

[voodooless]

The key thing about scientific theories being falsifiability.

That is not good enough, otherwise flat earth would be a “theory”. A theory should be unfalsified, e.g; proven to be correct and valid within the constraints the theory describes.