I didn't say it was scientific. This isn't a study. You can't do studies on some things. This is way more fundamental than that. It's fundamental logic. Sure, there are other plausible but unlikely explanations that we may or may not be able to exclude, such as China being secretly way beyond us technologically. But short of that, it's more a matter of vetting the evidence we have. Could the Australian and American sightings of the giant triangular objects within a few days in the sky be an elaborate multinational hoax involving flares? (no). You keep evaluating possibilities and vetting them. Reality is, if these are aliens, they would want to be covert so that they understand us well before communicating, if they ever deem it wise. I can't be certain so far, not that science gives us certainty either, but we can put it high on the differential diagnosis. Again, not a study, but you're confusing observations with hypotheses. The observation is the capabilities being inconsistent with human technology and natural phenomena. If these things can be excluded, we are left with the origin and construction. As for the last, morality is fundamentally logical. And so a civilization far more advanced than us would understand this as a matter of course. Another reason for this, of course, is if they had power well beyond nuclear, they would have to be moral and logical to avoid destroying themselves.
The various observations have not been shown to be unearthly capabilities. They may look like it, but many that have looked like it have been totally debunked by science - such as the much vaunted navy tapes. Yet, they still get touted as "evidence"! It's still claimed that what pilots have seen is serious evidence, even though it's been shown that trained, military pilots got it wrong. What does it take to get UFOlogists to limit their claims to sightings that haven't been debunked? More centrally, let's give some amount of credence to the possibility that human observation is not definitive and that there are numerous military equipment designers who are dedicated to misleading humans - besides natural phenomena that are known to fool humans. That seems more likely to me than that some alien life form invalidated our most fundamental understanding of physics and the universe and came here to provide a wide variety of weird and unrelated phenomena.
The 2004 Nimitz incident and Tinley Park Lights are interesting. Happened around the same time but don’t appear similar. The Tinley lights being the three lights in fixed formation seen and filmed in various parts of the US, I think Canada, and Australia, over the course of days, most famously in Tinley Park. Hard to understand or explain that one. The Nimitz incident had a fairly boring tic tac shape but exhibited strange acceleration behaviors. By radar, enduring a force of 5000G changing altitude. And by video, accelerating laterally at a massive rate. I understand the concern for sensor errors, but different modalities telling you the same thing? Not full certainty, but alien technology ought to be near the top of the list https://www.tpr.org/science-technol...ok-at-unidentified-aerial-phenomena?_amp=true https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html
I think you need far better evidence to propose that aliens flew here from light years away, did a crappy job of hiding, showed themselves in various shapes, sizes and speeds, and falsified what we know about physics. That is a LOT, isn't it? We know there is a giant industry in trying to look like something other than what is real, trying to be faster than can be countered, etc. We know that observations in the past have been debunked. We know that there are odd atmospheric phenomena. I would hesitate to dump our physics in the round file for a while yet.
I wouldn't say "falsified physics" but certainly had capabilities we don't understand. And that's the best argument against the other nation with better technology hypothesis (or hidden military project hypothesis). It's just so far beyond what we've seen, we would have seen something closer to it in actual use if humans had it. And such capabilities are likely if they are able to travel light years. The task for the skeptic is more to explain how multiple modes of detection and multiple observers were all fooled unless the strange thing they detected was real (referring mostly to Nimitz here). I didn't even go through all of it. The object actually entered the sea and was clocked by sonar going >2 times faster than our craft can go (though that's still nothing compared to what it did in the air). Given all of that, I really do think it's left as the most likely explanation. One sensor going haywire could be an error. People can see things and misinterpret them. But many of these things all at once? No. Either the information has been misrepresented to me, or this unexplained thing is probably alien technology. I don't think hiding is necessarily the most important objective to them. To fully understand us, they would likely need to get close enough to measure things. Most likely we're not a threat, but it makes sense not to communicate at least until they understand how to communicate with us. And that may take some research on their part if they're very different from us. I'm not sure they would want to once they know enough about us, of course. But science of alien life would be an endlessly interesting area of study if they had a workaround for the vast distances.
I think you pretty solidly suggested disqualifying physics as we know it. Given that these objects remain totally unidentified, I think circumspection is required when describing them. The odd phenomena of nature that we know and the possibility of man made stuff can add to form the unexpected. I don't believe we can postulate about whether there is a lifeform inside. We have plenty of objects without life forms inside. And, your continued guessing just isn't supportable.
Experiencing 5000g and moving faster than the speed of sound without a sonic boom does not necessarily violate physics. We just don’t know how to do it. By a similar vein, the speed of light may seem like the physical speed limit, but who knows if there may be a way to get around that. We don’t know yet. I didn’t say life forms, I said alien technology. I would suspect just the opposite, actually. Probably robotic. Not necessarily their entire civilization, but plausibly their object doing 5000g And I didn’t say proven, just the most likely explanation assuming the facts stated about the Nimitz encounter are true
I presume you are aware that the navy tapes have been debunked. But, there are those who still believe they are as presented, as the debunkers don't have nearly as many medals on their chests. We would be way better off actually trying to identify something. For example, why are UFO folks not demanding the body the military claims they have? How about working on that instead of suggesting our physics is garbage because of sightings of lights? How about considering why we have numerous scientists and even NASA and ESA and JAXSA and CHSA and others dedicated to finding extraterrestrial life, but not even SLIGHTLY interested in these UFO reports. What do they ALL see as missing?
Um I saw a decent debunking video on a different navy video showing that the "odd rotational" behavior was explained by glare. And it made sense. I was never very interested in that video. But otherwise, no, not related to the one I've been talking about. The fact that some things have been debunked, doesn't mean all of them are false. If a murderer is loose, police will get lots of false tips. False tips don't mean the murderer isn't out there. Here's an actual article on what I've been talking about: entropy-21-00939.pdf (nih.gov) "In accordance with observations, the estimated parameters describing the behavior of these craft are both anomalous and surprising. The extreme estimated flight characteristics reveal that these observations are either fabricated or seriously in error, or that these craft exhibit technology far more advanced than any known craft on Earth. In many cases, the number and quality of witnesses, the variety of roles they played in the encounters, and the equipment used to track and record the craft favor the latter hypothesis that these are indeed technologically advanced craft." They are and have been for years. I have not seen evidence they have one, though other than hearsay. I never suggested our physics are garbage. I suggested there are technologies way beyond our current capabilities that are hard for us to explain since we are not there yet. Evidence for that is in the description of the Nimitz incident. Either multiple sensors and accounts are all wrong at the same time, somebody lied about them, or it's technology beyond what we have. The first explanation isn't plausible. The second is, but I am assuming it's not for the sake of argument, and the third is the most likely explanation if the 2nd is false. It's not their area at all. The ones in a position to say something are the military experts. Until recently, they were completely ridiculed if they said anything. Who? It's not their area. Analyzing information from radar and sonar and special sensors of the US Navy is not for NASA to do. If the Navy can explain it easily, they would. They have quite reasonably left it unexplained because if they take my position without extraordinary proof, they get people like you. But logically, if what they are saying is true, it really has to be technology we don't have.
The issue with scientists not looking at UFO data doesn't have to do with the Navy or NASA. Any university or institution anywhere in the world could take scientific interest in this issue. It's certainly not a US-only issue, unless one believes aliens are sensing political lines and preferring the US. I haven't seen any such interest from science. In my view, the military is not a good source for UFOlogy. The reason is that anything they sense with all their technology and humans, is an insight into the capabilities of our DoD. Even with the "navy tapes" there have been claims from military personnel that the military has far superior sensing of those events, but they chose to release downgraded versions that don't show US capability. We ARE getting probed by China and others. Are ARE working on our own abilities to confuse and avoid detection. Any information on what we sense is seriously important to our national defense. If the DoD were a good source, we would have access to the body that is claimed to exist, or we would know it doesn't exist. BUT, there is a movement in government today to create an agency with the specific mission of applying science to UFOlogy!!! This could potentially involve proprietary satellites for the purpose, recording on aircraft, maybe ground observation - who knows. Anything detected would be attributed to this effort, not our military capability, thus perhaps not a national security risk. And, of course that leads to the question of funding a new federal agency, and the people and equipment they would require.
Some good points, but regarding your bolding, I'd encourage you to look at the entropy paper from my last post and here: entropy-21-00939.pdf (nih.gov) It's interesting, especially Nimitz. And I should have highlighted it more clearly in my post. It presents the case much better than I did, as it should it's by physicists and involved quite a bit of research into the more well-documented UAPs. Other than that, the main reason it's not researched is stigma. People are afraid of losing their positions because of the stigma of looking into things people are skeptical about. Fortunately, the stigma appears to be decreasing. From my understanding, the UAPs do take a special interest in military areas/advanced hardware, which the US has the most of. On the other hand, the advanced sort of sensors with records of the encounter is much more likely in the hands of the military than some farmer who saw something strange. There is evidence that they try to conduct surveillance but avoid conflict. The jet fighter and one UAP circled each other until the jet fighter tried to close the gap, then it accelerated away rapidly. In fact, there's evidence that they wanted to demonstrate they were conducting surveillance by showing up at the combat air patrol point after initial contact (it likely intercepted communications, was able to interpret the location, and showed up at the location). Most likely, their mission, whether they are robots or actual aliens, is primarily scientific, but could also be a security measure to pre-empt any potential conflict. Obviously we are not currently a threat to anything in another solar system, but they likely want to be able to project when we would be, and probably open a dialogue before that.
It doesn't change the fact that the military has strong reasons to be entirely proprietary about sensing capabilities and what is seen. We WANT them to be, and they KNOW they need to be in order to carry out their DoD mission. I'm not interested in guessing what aliens intend when we don't even know there are aliens. I don't accept the "stigma" view, as scientists can investigate without quitting the day job and declaring themselves UFOlogists. If scientists found something of significance, it's more likely that it would be pursued. There are plenty of cases where scientists study stuff that is well known to be unlikely. I'm fine with having actual scientific investigation. Besides, what's needed to justify actual scientific investigation is a pretty low bar. And, disconnecting this from the military is an important first step. One can't do science in the context of strong vested interests governing all aspects of the effort.
The entropy paper deserves a closer look. If all is true, it's pretty compelling. But I'd need to spend more time with the sources. Testimony of fighter pilots is one thing, but then radar data is alleged. But how do I verify it? I'm more interested in data than accounts. The Nimitz video when the object appears to accelerate out of view rapidly is interesting too, and is analyzed, comes up with similar acceleration values as alleged by other sources.
Here is the government's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office site with explained and unexplained videos. If I were an advanced species who knew of a water world with a high probability of life I would send autonomous probes to check it out, even if it took a couple hundred years to get there and another hundred to get a report. They stay hidden because of the Prime Directive. They are prohibited from interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations (they watched Star Trek).
Hey - thanks for not calling for aliens to be ready and able to trash our most fundamental physics! And, there ARE those who have proposed that aliens could arrive without faster than light travel. In fact, if robot ships could replicate on asteroids or planets, they could grow swarms of ships investigating our galaxy. In fact, we could probably build such ships in a few thousand years - no big deal in terms of galactic life time. As for that office, it is the DoD and it states that it is concerned about activity "in the vicinity of national security areas". The DoD has proprietary sensing technology, programs oriented to confusing sensing, and experimental aircraft, munitions, etc. They are NEVER going to fully report on what they see, as that would divulge their capabilities. Even the Navy tapes are claimed by the Navy to be published at lesser quality and only a subset of what they have on the incidents they have reported. That is their JOB. The DoD is not chartered with reporting everything they create or sense to the public, as that is counter to their defense mission. I was pointing to the possibility of an agency that could be created as a scientific, civilian surveillance and analysis capability that would not be an arm of the DoD, thus not subject to the reporting limits of the DoD. Frankly, I doubt that our DoD is going to be neutral toward a separate sensing and analysis authority analyzing all aerial phenomena over the US. To our military, it's going to look like a domestic spying operation, defeating the security of DoD operations.
Interesting theory, though it ignores the possibility of the reverse. That is, since our DNA is essentially just information: that biological life actually proceeded out of some such conceptual substrate; or even that the universe itself, is the embodiment of incorporeal ideas, from some underpinning Dimension of Data.
While I think your direction of thought is not unreasonable, I think you should be more tentative about your conclusions, recognizing their speculative nature. Just for example, it is possible, one must admit, that extraterrestrial craft are here for their own purposes, which have little to do with us, and if they'd decided that we were not a threat, they'd no more worry about being seen by us, as might you be embarrassed to get undressed, if there was a fly in the room, which might see you naked. This idea that aliens would be disinterested in us, does not represent my viewpoint-- as I'd said, it is just an example of one possibility that you exclude, when you assert things conclusively, like that "Logic dictates they are surveillance craft to study us." No, logic might suggest that, but it certainly doesn't dictate it-- do you see what I mean? Coincidentally, I have just recently made the same argument, in another thread, that this is what many mainstream scientists do: over-assume. That is, among accepted scientific ideas, there is a range of supporting evidence: some things we can be quite confident of, whereas other things might seem to be right, but which are nonetheless still theoretical, because we have not the means to exhaustively test them. Hence, I had argued that in such instances, it would be more reflective of reality, if we included words that signified when the idea we believe to be true, is not as firmly footed, as our very best established concepts of science. I have just given an example of my suggestion in action, in that last sentence, in the words "we believe to be true." This subtle difference, I feel, lessens the chance of our tendency to forget that our theories, are only theoretical. If we always speak of less absolutely certain ideas in the exact same manner as we do our undisputable truths, we will be inclined to treat them identically, and think of them all in the same way. This is a pitfall, IMO, which affects the entire field of science; but it would apply equally, to some of your arguments.
LOL-- and we should be able to presume that you are aware, this is not how a debate argument works: no one need take your word, that an argument has been "debunked." First off, you should explain in your own words, why this is so, that you think you can dismiss some alleged evidence. Then, you should offer a link to whatever source you're using, in stating the debunking of the evidence. So, can you back up your statement? I suspect that will be a far less certain thing, than the way you'd flatly put it. Additionally, unless you are also claiming that the Department Of Defense report-- issued last summer, confirming the presence of apparent craft, operating in ways that defy our understanding of physics-- has also been debunked, it would be a fairly meaningless claim, that any given incident, had been explained, conventionally.
Your objection is illogical. First, because it is only you, who are making this claim, of debunking. Nor has it been my experience, at least, that the "Navy tapes & related documents," often come up, in most threads-- unless they are specifically focused on the UFO/UAP phenomena. Secondly, in such threads-- no, it does not seem unreasonable to expect one to defend that point, if he wishes to make it. Thirdly, if this were actually something that came up frequently, one would think you could simply offer a link to your past posts, which would themselves have links to your sources. Since this would be a common enough occurrence for you to object needing to repeat your efforts, you would certainly know where to quickly locate those links, if not even have them permanently affixed to your computer's "clipboard." That you would even object to the request for a link, with perhaps a snip or brief explanation, rather than just provide it, signals to me that my guess had been correct, and the actual proof behind your claim, makes a far weaker point than the way it comes across, when you state it as if it were a well known and widely agreed upon fact. If UAPs-- which we have consistent reports of, from credible witnesses such as pilots and military personnel, going back at least to World War Two (in modern times)-- are not the work of some advanced race of beings, to whom, in God's name, could you possibly accredit them? Again, if you are going to say China, or a secret U.S. program, it would have needed to be one that was active in the late 1940s, or else you have to write off thousands of credible, and unexplainable, reports, as well as even some film footage. All a big hoax, huh? The power of suggestion, creating a societal group delusion? And I suppose you will consider it, not "reasonable" for me to ask you to support that claim, either, with hard data? And in this scenario, the now real phenomena, has been to a fair degree, patterned after the delusion? In this case, when all evidence is considered, I think Occam's razor points to non-human involvement. While there are too many unknowns, to accurately quantify the odds of this, it is the alternate explanations which seem to more clearly strain credibility, and smack of conspiracy theory. Secret, human construction of all these craft, with a technology developed independently of the rest of our known science, & kept tightly under wraps for all the time, this would have taken, doesn't seem too well in accord, with historical precedent.
We agree that there might not be any attempt at communication but ruling it out without at least examining the potential for embedded communication, even unintentional, means that we lose an opportunity to learn something. At the very least we rule it out. Disagree WRT false equivalence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_... not interact,and velocity of ordinary matter. If DM has "gravitational potential" on the "density and velocity of ordinary matter" then that means that there is some level of "attractive/gravitational" force exerted by DM, albeit at extreme distances and even on different time scales. Nothing whatsoever to do with fictional demons but instead something we are trying to measure that we lack the technology at the present stage to accomplish.
I'm not ruling anything out, just pointing out that there is no justification for speculating about any specific explanation. UFOs and related phenomena have been widely observed and studied and while there is plenty that remains unknown or unconfirmed, there is nothing to even suggest the specific concept of spacecraft piloted by extra-terrestrial aliens. It is possible but so are an almost infinite number of other equally possible explanations too. But again, you're just referring to natural phenomena and forces. What does any of that have to do with the possibilities of advanced alien species existing in the universe or the possibility of them visiting or communicating with us here on Earth?
Our knowledge of natural forces is limited to our ability to measure them. Our measurements establish that there is more that exists than we currently understand. A cat does not understand how a laser pointer works but it can observe the apparent movement of the point of light. We can observe the UFO phenomena but we should be trying to understand their origin by reversing our thinking. What is capable of the observed effects of UFO's? We reflected laser light off the surface of the moon in order to measure the distance. What if UFO's are just aliens doing something similar to what we did just on a different scale? With a single data point we have an event, with multiple data points we can analyze them to see if there is something else to be learned.
What you're actually describing there in the standard process for studying anything. You build a hypothesis and then test it against the evidence. Regardless of how you approach the question though, a lack of available evidence is always going to be a blocker and leave something as an unknown. You think people aren't doing that already, both formally and informally. The fact remains that there is vast variation between different UFO sightings, even after you eliminate the vast majority that have been explained. The very fact that you're seeking a singular explanation for UFOs is the first flaw in your approach.
