|
Post by less1brain on May 30, 2021 11:04:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on May 30, 2021 12:14:30 GMT -8
I don't click on NY Times links, because when I really do need to read something from there, I won't be able to.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on May 30, 2021 13:23:36 GMT -8
The whole case for UFOs makes no sense. You have to believe that - There are aliens who can travel light years to get here.
- They happen to visit our solar system and planet.
- They find us interesting enough to hang around.
- They don't decide to use all the natural resources of our planet.
- They are mostly concealing their presence. That means they care what this primitive species think and do.
- Occasionally, they mess up and reveal themselves or decide to every now and then drop the cloak.
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on May 30, 2021 14:30:34 GMT -8
The whole case for UFOs makes no sense. You have to believe that - There are aliens who can travel light years to get here.
- They happen to visit our solar system and planet.
- They find us interesting enough to hang around.
- They don't decide to use all the natural resources of our planet.
- They are mostly concealing their presence. That means they care what this primitive species think and do.
- Occasionally, they mess up and reveal themselves or decide to every now and then drop the cloak.
I agree 100% (an alien must be controlling my mind).
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by hasben on May 30, 2021 14:35:10 GMT -8
I've always found it somewhat humorous that many don't believe the eye witness reports of thousands of aviation professionals over decades but do believe in an entity up in the sky that watches every person on earth every second of their lives. I did read the article. It's common for scientists to disparage anything beyond their control that they can't quantify or explain with their existing technology. They are not investigators, which is what is needed to study the evidence. B2B: you can read any NYT article for free if you use a computer. the second the article page appears click on the X stop icon at the top of your screen. that will stop the pay window from loading so you can read the article.
|
|
|
Post by blindness on May 30, 2021 17:34:49 GMT -8
The whole case for UFOs makes no sense. You have to believe that - There are aliens who can travel light years to get here.
- They happen to visit our solar system and planet.
- They find us interesting enough to hang around.
- They don't decide to use all the natural resources of our planet.
- They are mostly concealing their presence. That means they care what this primitive species think and do.
- Occasionally, they mess up and reveal themselves or decide to every now and then drop the cloak.
Yeah? What if they are actually time machines? What if they can travel through wormholes? What if they are here for the whales and not us?
|
|
|
Post by andyh64000 on May 30, 2021 18:00:55 GMT -8
I think the only object we have seen that might have come from another world/civilization was that weird oblong thing that flashed through our solar system a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
Post by less1brain on May 30, 2021 18:38:16 GMT -8
hasbeen:
Scientists are investigators.
That's precisely their job: To investigate phenomena and, using the agreed-upon scientific method, determine what is fact and provide a theory that explains the fact.
"Scientia": "To Know." Sir Francis Bacon described his method for obtaining knowledge and formalized the system of science: Gather data, experiment, explain. If explanation doesn't work, check facts again and check experiments again. If theory still doesn't work, gather more facts.
If facts show up 100 years later and the theory doesn't work, either the theory needs to be changed or the facts aren't what they appear to be (e.g., "Entanglement," which can only be explained if both the most accepted model of Quantum Physics and the most accepted model of General Physics are both closer to the truth than not: There is no wave-particle collapse on observation; thus, "Entanglement" is a like quality of like particles, not an effect on them generated at a particular location nor by human action disconnected from universal natural laws).
That's why scientists know that these UFO's haven't been investigated by professionals who can give a fact-based analysis of what these objects are and so no one can reach conclusions.
The scientist in this article didn't disparage anything or anyone. He simply said: "We need better evidence to prove or disprove something, we know how to get such evidence and we're willing to help out whenever anyone asks. Though at some point the silly people should think this through on their own."
Lawyers: "The most unreliable evidence is eye-witness testimony."
Many law enforcement officers are called to give eye-witness testimony and jurors are assured by the district attorneys and judges that law enforcement officers are experts whose eye-witness testimony tends to be much more reliable than that of laypersons and jurors always believe it.
Or most of the time.
It depends on the juror, actually.
And the phone and body camera footage.
Actual scientific studies (482 to date) have demonstrated that the eyewitness testimony of law enforcement officers is either 1) no better than that of laypersons or 2) far less reliable than that of laypersons.
It usually depends on the race of the defendant.
Or if there was a lot of money reportedly involved, but for some reason only 10% of the actual money found was reported.
The other 90% is in safes in the basements of many houses in Simi Valley and other such locales.
One study contradicts this: If you tell a veteran detective whose job is to note as many details as possible to watch when a red Ford Mustang leaves the scene of a crime, that detective will almost always recall seeing a red For Mustang leaving the scene of a crime whereas a layperson who is told only to look out for any cars and to then describe any they see is less likely to correctly identify that the car was red or a Ford Mustang.
That's the study that district attorneys and police forces cite to disprove all of the other studies.
The hundreds, not thousands, of "aviation professionals" who have reported UFOs over decades have been studied by social scientists able to get information using Google when someone gives an interview to the media or writes a book or article or has had their diaries or letters published by heirs.
An unusually large percentage of them subscribe(d) to Q'Anon-like beliefs, were/are anti-vaxxers, thought Franklin Roosevelt was a communist and that America should've supported Hitler (substitute Biden for Roosevelt and Putin/Trump/Tucker Carlson for Hitler), were members of the Ku Klux Klan and/or some other such organization or held other such beliefs, that brainy people are untrustworthy as are folks from the Big City, etc., etc., etc.
Charles Lindbergh was certainly an aviation professional. But his "America First" movement would've killed you in a heartbeat if it had succeeded.
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by hasben on May 30, 2021 20:42:46 GMT -8
lees1brain The scientific community has distanced itself from any serious investigation of the thousands (not hundreds) of UFO reports worldwide over the past 70 plus years, many of which were military encounters not people googling media interviews or hyping a book.
Maybe if a craft lands on the MIT campus scientists can dissect it to satisfy their empirical protocols. Until then it is likely that skeptics will remain skeptics like the author of that article who did disparage military reports with comments like "excellent reasons not to conclude that we have found evidence of it with U.F.O. sightings," and "U.F.O.s Don’t Impress Me."
The only absolute is that no one knows for sure. I don't see that as a reason to blanket discount all of the past and current reports.
Not sure what Lindbergh's political beliefs have to do with today's military reports. I certainly would not suggest that many of our military officers or those who take them seriously and believe their reports are accurate are borderline crazies aligning with QAnon, anti-vaxxers, and Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on May 31, 2021 9:29:34 GMT -8
I've always found it somewhat humorous that many don't believe the eye witness reports of thousands of aviation professionals over decades but do believe in an entity up in the sky that watches every person on earth every second of their lives. I did read the article. It's common for scientists to disparage anything beyond their control that they can't quantify or explain with their existing technology. They are not investigators, which is what is needed to study the evidence. B2B: you can read any NYT article for free if you use a computer. the second the article page appears click on the X stop icon at the top of your screen. that will stop the pay window from loading so you can read the article. I'm generally ok with not reading articles that are paywalled. They are putting lot's of resources into developing those articles. They should get paid somehow. If I want to read enough NYT articles that I bump against the pw, I can subscribe. Or not. I'm not big on sharing netflix passwords, and I'm not big on circumventing pw's. The only publication I subscribe to is The Atlantic.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on May 31, 2021 9:41:30 GMT -8
The whole case for UFOs makes no sense. You have to believe that - There are aliens who can travel light years to get here.
- They happen to visit our solar system and planet.
- They find us interesting enough to hang around.
- They don't decide to use all the natural resources of our planet.
- They are mostly concealing their presence. That means they care what this primitive species think and do.
- Occasionally, they mess up and reveal themselves or decide to every now and then drop the cloak.
I have no horse in this race, I couldn't care less - other than I think it would be fun to see one. But, in response .... there is so much about the physical world we don't know, who knows what is possible. Ya, it's crazy unlikely that of the trillions of planets out there, we're the one that was discovered. The rest of the points have to do with motivation. There are people that get up in arms about the "anthropomorphism" of animals emotions. We share 90% of our gene with houseflies. If I can't project emotions onto a dog, I'm hesitant to try to consider the motivations of entities from another planet. You make good points. But, I wouldn't rule anything out. On the flipside, the flying log that did a flyby a couple of years ago, the argument that it was a willfully created object rather than a naturally occurring object was that the shape was unlikely to occur? Ok, sure. I mean, did anyone say that the shape was impossible to occur naturally? I feel like basically, we don't know anything. And, I'm ok with that.
|
|
|
Post by less1brain on May 31, 2021 9:49:45 GMT -8
|
|
hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by hasben on May 31, 2021 12:03:06 GMT -8
Like Floppy I'm not interested in convincing anyone about anything related to UFO sightings. However, I will take issue with a total dismissal of all reports as no evidence of anything. Mainstream science does not study UFO sightings. As an example, SETI does not investigate any UFO material. The military and government has investigated them and some of that information has been released, some reports debunked some inconclusive. As I said before, the only absolute is that no one knows, so what individuals choose to believe is of no matter to me. Peace. slate.com/technology/2021/05/ufos-seti-science-astrobiology.html
|
|
|
Post by less1brain on Jun 2, 2021 21:39:07 GMT -8
WRONG.
Scientists cannot operate without data. And they are human beings.
And many scientists have been actively studying UFOs for years despite both factors at play.
But you have tuned me and truth out. Do your own research.
The US Military has quite deliberatively refused to release to "mainstream scientists" their data and has also used propaganda to discourage anyone from taking it seriously.
Why would the US Military take so many reports from professional US Military aviators and refuse to release data to scientists and use propaganda to discourage anyone from taking those reports seriously?
Why are all these UFOs seen by professional US Military aviators?
Key words: US. Military. Aviators. Refuse Data. Ridicule.
Answer: These are all US military assets violating declared US norms: AI-guided UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), UUVs (Unmanned Undersea Vehicles) and UUAVs (Unmanned Underwater/Aerial Vehicles) made by the US Military (well, mostly by Boeing and Lockheed/Martin, though back in the day in the 1940's McDonnell/Douglass could cook) operating, notwithstanding official US policy since 1938, NO LIE:
The US Military will never design or employ a weapon that can kill a human being unless only a human being can give the order to kill.
I read this policy statement in Joint Forces Quarterly, October 1, 2018.
Disinformation much?
Boeing is churning out so much AI-operated weapons systems, it means they're guaranteed to be in profit forever. These systems are also equipped with imaging devices: Oil or natural gas here. We found a cable and can fix it on the ocean floor. Level of mercury here. Something radioactive close by, but in motion at the speed of a submarine. Etc., etc.
The United States of America has made many UFOs manned by aliens.
And anyone trying to find out the truth is, arguably, a traitor.
Or Daniel Ellsberg.
If the people want to know, the people have a right to know.
Even if it kills them.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 4, 2021 17:41:11 GMT -8
WRONG. Scientists cannot operate without data. And they are human beings. And many scientists have been actively studying UFOs for years despite both factors at play. But you have tuned me and truth out. Do your own research. The US Military has quite deliberatively refused to release to "mainstream scientists" their data and has also used propaganda to discourage anyone from taking it seriously. Why would the US Military take so many reports from professional US Military aviators and refuse to release data to scientists and use propaganda to discourage anyone from taking those reports seriously? Why are all these UFOs seen by professional US Military aviators? Key words: US. Military. Aviators. Refuse Data. Ridicule. Answer: These are all US military assets violating declared US norms: AI-guided UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), UUVs (Unmanned Undersea Vehicles) and UUAVs (Unmanned Underwater/Aerial Vehicles) made by the US Military (well, mostly by Boeing and Lockheed/Martin, though back in the day in the 1940's McDonnell/Douglass could cook) operating, notwithstanding official US policy since 1938, NO LIE: The US Military will never design or employ a weapon that can kill a human being unless only a human being can give the order to kill. I read this policy statement in Joint Forces Quarterly, October 1, 2018. Disinformation much? Boeing is churning out so much AI-operated weapons systems, it means they're guaranteed to be in profit forever. These systems are also equipped with imaging devices: Oil or natural gas here. We found a cable and can fix it on the ocean floor. Level of mercury here. Something radioactive close by, but in motion at the speed of a submarine. Etc., etc. The United States of America has made many UFOs manned by aliens. And anyone trying to find out the truth is, arguably, a traitor. Or Daniel Ellsberg. If the people want to know, the people have a right to know. Even if it kills them. My man, I didn't really follow much of that. But, as it happens, I just read this article on "Loitering" Autonomous UAV's. Turkey is a leader in drone production, including autonomous ones, apparently. This is a pivotal quote in the article "What is also not new is the observation that these systems are quite autonomous. How autonomous is difficult to ascertain — and autonomy is ill-defined anyway — but we know that several manufacturers of loitering munition claim that their systems can act autonomously.” It's an interesting, quick, article. For myself, I figure that airspace, landspace, and maybe even water space, will be guarded by picket lines of autonomously acting drones in the near future. Beyond that, drones will be developed and deployed in "swarm" tactics, both in the air and on the ground - especially in the air. Recently read an acticle about the development of drones that can be deployed by fighter jets as an escort, similar to the way an aircraft carrier has an escort (my analogy). www.yahoo.com/news/libyan-fighters-attacked-potentially-unaided-181833220.html
|
|