Official UFO Thread officially called now UAP

[PrimiOne]

I am happy the Congress believes in those Reverse Engineer Programs, and they picked up 1947 as Day 1.

Politicians "believe" in everything that their voters believe ( including the ridiculous theory about the 2020 election being rigged). That's how they hunt for their votes so I don't think this is the intelectual authority that you believe it is.

Now the real question is....where is that technology? Can you point at any of it that we developed from UFOs?

Look this is exactly like the theories about the construction of the pyramids. For people with little knowledge of history they just suddenly appeared in Gizeh at a time when most of the human population was in the neolithic or paleolithic and therefore the external source is mandatory but once you study the proper findings you will discover that they weren't created in a vacuum out of nothing.It all started by making a burial in a mastabah, and then they started piling mastabahs on top of each other...and then they eliminated the edges--- so we can see literal centuries of evolution. We can see trials and errors , pyramids that colapsed, pyramids that had to be redesigned because the elevation was to high...Somehow even the aliens needed centuries of refining the technique

The "alien technology" falls under the same category. For people with little understanding of the history of Science and technology a microwave oven just popped out of nowhere but that's completely incorrect. Quoting you know who "We walk in the shoulders of giants": the Tree of Science is a complex development process where getting to A implies getting to B and C before and B implies D and E. Sure there's bright minds and there's moments of inspiration but no theory or technolgy has ever been created out of nothing. Newton was inspired by Hooke, Einstein was inspired by Lorentz and we can clearly track how we came to create those ideas , we can create a roadmap of human technology.

So back to the original question: where is that technology? Where is the technology that falls out of that roadmap and can not be explained by prior findings or theories? Is it hidden to us?

[Skulltaker]

So back to the original question: where is that technology? Where is the technology that falls out of that roadmap and can not be explained by prior findings or theories? Is it hidden to us?

Honestly, if the subject isn't educated enough, that's actually a rather common train of thought. Back in ye olde days, when we couldn't explain things like Thunder, Lightning, and the Sun, we went on and created a god. This is why you'll find gods and similar mythical creatures explaining all sorts of things human knowledge had no explanation for.

Is it that much of a stretch to believe that someone who has no idea of how research and development of technology works comes to the conclusion 'I don't understand how a microwave works, so no human can understand that, hence no human could have created it'? Aliens, in their current form, are basically a religion. There's no proof of their existence, but the belief in them gives them a certain amount of power over people.

[PC2]

So collecting Data is important.

That's only if additional data is increasing your explanatory power which will then allow you to answer more and more detailed questions about the phenomena we're talking about. If our explanatory power is not really going up as we see more data on a topic then a person should not seek out or collect more supporting evidence anymore because that will just lead to more confirmation bias.

[Endus]

That's only if additional data is increasing your explanatory power which will then allow you to answer more and more detailed questions about the phenomena we're talking about. If our explanatory power is not really going up as we see more data on a topic then a person should not seek out or collect more supporting evidence anymore because that will just lead to more confirmation bias.

Just continuing on the anti-science agenda, eh?

No, that's not "confirmation bias". That's "confirming hypotheses through repeated and ongoing testing", which is an integral and necessary component of the scientific method. The alternative you describe is shutting down your brain to any new evidence that might contradict your wacky ideas because you know full well, at some level, that your ideas can't survive scrutiny.

[PC2]

No, that's not "confirmation bias".

I mean if alien believers or conspiracy theorists are trying to prove their beliefs wrong then they do not have confirmation bias, but that's just not what I've seen from 99% of the community so far. *shrug*

That's "confirming hypotheses through repeated and ongoing testing", which is an integral and necessary component of the scientific method.

My point on that is that it's impossible to prove a hypothesis is true with any amount of repeated observations and tests.

The alternative you describe is shutting down your brain to any new evidence that might contradict your wacky ideas because you know full well, at some level, that your ideas can't survive scrutiny.

You're agreeing with me here. I'm saying people should only seek evidence that could contradict their current belief and that it doesn't make sense to seek out more supporting/confirmational evidence.

[Edge-]

My point on that is that it's impossible to prove a hypothesis is true with any amount of repeated observations and tests.

So...nothing is real and we can't actually know anything. Suddenly, your positions make a lot more sense when we discover that you apparently view reality as wholly and personally subjective.

[Endus]

I mean if alien believers or conspiracy theorists are trying to prove their beliefs wrong then they do not have confirmation bias, but that's just not what I've seen from 99% of the community so far. *shrug*

Again, you just don't seem to understand what "confirmation bias" means.

Here's a hint; it's not that data tends to confirm a given hypothesis.

My point on that is that it's impossible to prove a hypothesis is true with any amount of repeated observations and tests.

Only in the broadest of philosophical senses, where "you MIGHT just be a brain in a jar being fed a perfect simulation of being a person" is a valid possibility.

Also, "truth" isn't even a scientific maxim that is pursued in any way whatsoever in the first place, so you continue to demonstrate a deep failure to grasp basic concepts.

What science can tell you is that certain things, like gravity or the spherical shape of the Earth, are facts. Same for evolution and so on. Within the context of the observable universe. Objective reality doesn't give a shit about "truth", it continues being true no matter what your personal "truth" might be.

You're agreeing with me here. I'm saying people should only seek evidence that could contradict their current belief and that it doesn't make sense to seek out more supporting/confirmational evidence.

You're literally describing bias, right there. We are not agreeing. The scientific method is to seek out data, and evaluate what can be determined from that data. Whether that confirms an extant hypothesis or a new one is only relevant to the outcome of that analysis and is not presumed, either way, beforehand. Testing and re-testing your own assumptions is a necessary part of the scientific method, and whether that testing is confirmatory or contradictory isn't something you determine at the outset, which is what you are arguing, by suggesting you only "seek" evidence that contradicts. You seek evidence for evidence's sake. The body of scientific understanding emerges from the analytical consistency in results from the entire body of available evidence.

[SovietBabeyyy]

To rule out Halucinations, birds, balloons , the Nasa UFO Study Team

You need expert’s, professors, multi million dollar programs spend since years (us gov), and high tech equipment, military , to rule out all those things.?

Come on, i think we are beyond that point .

Thats something more.

* Anamaria Berea, associate professor of computational and data science at George Mason University, research affiliate with the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, and research investigator with Blue Marble Space Institute of Science in Seattle;

* Federica Bianco, joint professor at the University of Delaware in the Department of Physics and Astrophysics, the Biden School of Public Policy and Administration and the Urban Observatory;

* Paula Bontempi, dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island (URI) and a professor of oceanography at URI;

* Reggie Brothers, operating partner at AE Industrial Partners in Boca Raton, Florida and formerly CEO and board member of BigBear.ai in Columbia, Maryland;

* Jen Buss, CEO of the Potomac Institute of Policy Studies in Arlington, Virginia;

* Nadia Drake, freelance science journalist and contributing writer at National Geographic;

* Mike Gold, executive vice president of Civil Space and External Affairs at Redwire in Jacksonville, Florida and previously NASA associate administrator for Space Policy and Partnerships;

* David Grinspoon, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and a frequent advisor to NASA on space exploration;

* Scott Kelly, former NASA astronaut, test pilot, fighter pilot and retired U.S. Navy captain;

* Matt Mountain, president of The Association of Universities for Research and Astronomy and a telescope scientist for NASA's James Webb Space Telescope;

* Warren Randolph, deputy executive director of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Accident Investigation and Prevention for Aviation Safety department;

* Walter Scott, executive vice president and chief technology officer at the space technology company Maxar;

* Joshua Semeter, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Boston University and director of the school's Center for Space Physics;

* Karlin Toner, acting executive director of the FAA's Office of Aviation Policy and Plans and formerly director of the FAA's global strategy;

* Shelley Wright, associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego's Center for Astrophysics and Space Studies.

[PC2]

So...nothing is real and we can't actually know anything. Suddenly, your positions make a lot more sense when we discover that you apparently view reality as wholly and personally subjective.

For that I think there is an objective reality that exists and it's real and we can have partial knowledge of it, but our personal subjective models and understanding of reality can only ever be incomplete approximations which can always be improved but never perfected.

[Endus]

To rule out Halucinations, birds, balloons , the Nasa UFO Study Team

You need expert’s, professors, multi million dollar programs spend since years (us gov), and high tech equipment, military , to rule out all those things.?

No, actually. All you need is some actual incontrovertible evidence that backs your claims of extraterrestrial origins.

Right now that list of evidence stands at "absolutely fucking nothing".

Come on, i think we are beyond that point .

Thats something more.

* Anamaria Berea, associate professor of computational and data science at George Mason University, research affiliate with the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, and research investigator with Blue Marble Space Institute of Science in Seattle;

* Federica Bianco, joint professor at the University of Delaware in the Department of Physics and Astrophysics, the Biden School of Public Policy and Administration and the Urban Observatory;

* Paula Bontempi, dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island (URI) and a professor of oceanography at URI;

* Reggie Brothers, operating partner at AE Industrial Partners in Boca Raton, Florida and formerly CEO and board member of BigBear.ai in Columbia, Maryland;

* Jen Buss, CEO of the Potomac Institute of Policy Studies in Arlington, Virginia;

* Nadia Drake, freelance science journalist and contributing writer at National Geographic;

* Mike Gold, executive vice president of Civil Space and External Affairs at Redwire in Jacksonville, Florida and previously NASA associate administrator for Space Policy and Partnerships;

* David Grinspoon, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and a frequent advisor to NASA on space exploration;

* Scott Kelly, former NASA astronaut, test pilot, fighter pilot and retired U.S. Navy captain;

* Matt Mountain, president of The Association of Universities for Research and Astronomy and a telescope scientist for NASA's James Webb Space Telescope;

* Warren Randolph, deputy executive director of the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Accident Investigation and Prevention for Aviation Safety department;

* Walter Scott, executive vice president and chief technology officer at the space technology company Maxar;

* Joshua Semeter, professor of electrical and computer engineering at Boston University and director of the school's Center for Space Physics;

* Karlin Toner, acting executive director of the FAA's Office of Aviation Policy and Plans and formerly director of the FAA's global strategy;

* Shelley Wright, associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego's Center for Astrophysics and Space Studies.

That's an appeal to authority fallacy. I don't care about their credentials. I care about the evidence. Credentials can't make facts out of nothing. And I repeat; there is currently not a single extant data point that incontrovertibly indicates alien life is responsible for any UAPs.

Not that the team's even supporting your claims, I'm just pointing out that having credentials is neither argument nor evidence.

Plus, I can pull directly from the team's own FAQ;

https://science.nasa.gov/uap/faqs

10. Are there any data supporting the idea that UAP are evidence of alien technologies?
No. Most UAP sightings result in very limited data, making it difficult to draw scientific conclusions about the nature of UAP.

11. Is there a possibility of life beyond Earth? Is NASA involved in the search for extraterrestrial life?
One of NASA’s key priorities is the search for life elsewhere in the universe: NASA has not found any credible evidence of extraterrestrial life and there is no evidence that UAPs are extraterrestrial. However, NASA is exploring the solar system and beyond to help us answer fundamental questions, including whether we are alone in the universe.

I added the underline in the above. The team acknowledges openly, agreeing with me, that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support the idea that UAPs are the result of alien activity. Not one piece of credible evidence supporting such a conclusion. It's all a big giant question mark at this point, but we'd actually need data points in that category before we could even start drawing hypotheses and testing them to come to some conclusions about it, and right now we don't even have a single point of data.

[SovietBabeyyy]

As i said for me it’s enough that’s not man made and it shows intelligent behaviour.

You can’t throw People out of their Comfort zone (Aliens).

Step by step for now UFOs got the attention they deserve.

I am fine when they explain this phenomena with shape shifting rocks, that are intelligent.

A rare natural phenomenon

I dont care if it’s Aliens. I am also happy with rock explanation.

I just admit something is happening that’s … very bizarre and you can’t dismiss the exissts those objects in the sky.



10. Are there any data supporting the idea that UAP are evidence of shape shifting flying rocks?
No. Most UAP sightings result in very limited data, making it difficult to draw scientific conclusions about the nature of UAP.

[

[Endus]

As i said for me it’s enough that’s not man made and it shows intelligent behaviour.

No evidence supporting either conclusion. You're making that up.

[SovietBabeyyy]

It's all a big giant question mark at this point,

I can agree here, i only attributed to them signs of intelligent behaviour, and said UFOs (the real unexplainable) are a real thing.

- - - Updated - - -

No evidence supporting either conclusion. You're making that up.

Ok so they don’t show intelligent behaviour?

Curious how they avoided detection, followed jets, maked unnatural maneuvers, dazzling speeds, fleet formations etc

And you think its a possibility that’s human made?
(Example: China waiting for the right moment since 70 years?)

I am tired to discuss with someone, who doesn’t even want to attribute intelligent behaviour.

[Endus]

Ok so they don’t show intelligent behaviour?

This isn't a meaningful claim in the first place. Ants show "intelligent behaviour".

Plus, plenty of human-made craft are piloted by humans and thus show human intelligence behind their operation. So it's still not a suggestion of alien lifer.

Without actual evidence, you may as well claim that it's all just fairies doing magical shit. That's a claim that has exactly as much evidence for it as "aliens". Meaning "zero evidence, you're imagining things".

And you think its a possibility that’s human made?

Even in cases where it's definitely a vehicle, yes, the chance that it's human-made is orders of magnitude higher than that it's aliens, since we have plenty of evidence of human engineering, and none that alien life even exists.

(Example: China waiting for the right moment since 70 years?)

I have no idea what you're even trying to say, here.

[Shadowferal]

My point on that is that it's impossible to prove a hypothesis is true with any amount of repeated observations and tests.

And here we have more confirmation that you know nothing about science.
I realize you never went to school, and as usual I'm wasting time with this but here's a bit you would have learned...in elementary school; Science works with testable ideas
Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true.

[Forogil]

And here we have more confirmation that you know nothing about science.
I realize you never went to school, and as usual I'm wasting time with this but here's a bit you would have learned...in elementary school; Science works with testable ideas

That is missing a key part, which PC2 may gotten right.

A hypothesis in science is falsified if the data contradicts it, but it can never be proven true - regardless of the amount of data that seems to support it. (Well, at least that is the ideal picture from K. Popper, in practice it is messier.)

That key concept is falsifiable.

[PC2]

Science works with testable ideas
Only testable ideas are within the purview of science. For an idea to be testable, it must logically generate specific expectations — in other words, a set of observations that we could expect to make if the idea were true and a set of observations that would be inconsistent with the idea and lead you to believe that it is not true.

Yes science is about testable explanation but I was not talking about science in this thread because most UFO theories are either not testable at all or they are not testable with current knowledge/tech. So when a theory of an unexplained observation can't be scientifically tested then all we can do in these cases is use reason and critical thinking to try to figure out what is true or false.

[Forogil]

What science can tell you is that certain things, like gravity or the spherical shape of the Earth, are facts.

Not making a strong case with those examples: Isaac Newton discovered that Earth is roughly an ellipsoid - not a sphere (and then others measured the minor bumps on that ellipsoid, which is necessary for actual using things like GPS). That is how most actual science work nowadays - something is often shown to not be entirely correct, but the new result isn't that different.

Gravity has a similar story - where Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's; and people are searching for its replacement; while also aggressively trying to test the theories in painstaking detail (like between masses micro-meters apart).

[Santti]

Not making a strong case with those examples: Isaac Newton discovered that Earth is roughly an ellipsoid - not a sphere (and then others measured the minor bumps on that ellipsoid, which is necessary for actual using things like GPS). That is how most actual science work nowadays - something is often shown to not be entirely correct, but the new result isn't that different.

Gravity has a similar story - where Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's; and people are searching for its replacement; while also aggressively trying to test the theories in painstaking detail (like between masses micro-meters apart).

It's entirely correct to call Earth spherical in shape. It means round, or more or less round. And it is. An apple is spherical, for instance.

[SovietBabeyyy]

People believe in a Big Bang, life, universe from nothing.

But aliens, ufos not possible!