Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 199

Thread: Pentagon UFO Report

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,091
    Come to think of it, anyone hypothesizing that these are advanced flying devices would probably want to wonder why they didnít use stealth technology.
    As above, so below

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Come to think of it, anyone hypothesizing that these are advanced flying devices would probably want to wonder why they didnít use stealth technology.
    Good point.

    Though I suppose if they were that advanced, then humans would pose no threat so there is no need to worry about them being detected.?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,103
    There are reasons beyond "no threat" for using stealth. Look at zoologists in the wild.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    There are reasons beyond "no threat" for using stealth. Look at zoologists in the wild.
    Yes, I'd considered that. But why do zoologists, bird watchers etc.. camouflage themselves? Generally, because their presence could be interpreted as a threat by the animals they are observing.

    When you go to the zoo to see the animals they have nowhere to hide, and you are safe from attack by the enclosure. So there's no need to be stealthy.

    I just don't think its a forgone conclusion that an advanced technology would feel the need to remain completely hidden.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,103
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Yes, I'd considered that. But why do zoologists, bird watchers etc.. camouflage themselves? Generally, because their presence could be interpreted as a threat by the animals they are observing.
    Generally, because they want to observe the subjects without the subjects' knowing they're there. The observations don't have the same meaning if they are influenced by the presence of the observer.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Yes, I'd considered that. But why do zoologists, bird watchers etc.. camouflage themselves? Generally, because their presence could be interpreted as a threat by the animals they are observing.

    When you go to the zoo to see the animals they have nowhere to hide, and you are safe from attack by the enclosure. So there's no need to be stealthy.

    I just don't think its a forgone conclusion that an advanced technology would feel the need to remain completely hidden.
    I've also understood this in the more general sense of an impact on behavioral pattern. Animals in the zoo normally do not perceive human visitors as threat, so if this was all that's needed you might as well study them there (some zoologists/ethologists actually do sometimes). But of course there's more to it, and once you take the troubles to set out into the wild, your motivation would turn around a natural setting of proper non-disturbance; you don't want to probe how animals behave in the presence of a human observer, which is always different, whether perceived as danger or not. So maybe stealth isn't the best wording, or rather just one of the the possible means for achieving what we might better describe as non-interference.

    The leap from fuzzy blobs on infrared images and eyewitness' descriptions of giant tic-tacs to advanced technology is quite an immense one by the way, one doesn't have to feel the justification. There does at first seem to be something extraordinary, at least regarding the Nimitz case from back in 2004, which I take to be kind of a starting point for a whole slew of subsequent reports, all of them in comparison very (!) much less convincing however, these already have a certain air of rehashing and show a stark contrast in vividness. But even then, extraordinary only in the way that human psychology just is. Especially so in extraordinary, stressful times and circumstances and maybe it's just me, but I feel slightly reminded, wave-like character and all, to yet another stretch of cases that happened just shortly after WW2, then mostly in the NW-US. You've all heard about the foo fighters, that's where it started I suppose. So now it was tic-tacs. What was then the harrowing experience of, say Pearl Harbor and the war at large, that stirred up people and understandably alarmed, could there've been something like that, a vague parallel back in November 2004? Very different times, at least for people in North America and Europe. Just think of it, if you're old enough to recall.

    Technology very probably would have been another factor, a sort of glitch or error or really multiple might well have been a trigger even, but surely we're still talking human technology, what else. Add communications to the mix, or what another user already mobilized convincingly as multi-level failure or dynamics, I fail to see anything that goes beyond that. We also know of similar stories and fads in the context of war theaters, of course including the Iraq engagement, that too is about the same time window, 03/04. What would make this only harder to understand for some is the amount of time that lies between and just how much has changed.

    The case for super-sophisticated espionage isn't strong but would once again seem to rather be the result of specifically national fears or worries, or indeed interests: China wasn't nearly where it is today, the same holds for Russia mostly. K-141 ('Kursk') went down only a couple of years before, they couldn't even do that much. A mere display, with capabilites like that in the pipes? Hardly.

    By the way:
    https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/33/1/26
    In this paper, we have worked under the assumption that these UAPs were physical craft asdescribed by the pilots. The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leavesone searching for other possible explanations. One very clever explanation suggested by one of thereviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser ormaser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radarreflective region possibly explaining much of the observations.
    If find this (generally) a most intriguing possibility, the arguments against are strong however. Be warned also the paper isn't exactly neutral.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    Generally, because they want to observe the subjects without the subjects' knowing they're there. The observations don't have the same meaning if they are influenced by the presence of the observer.
    Fair point, which makes sense, which in this case they would obviously go to the effort of cloaking/camouflage... so we would never detect anything, which means this could already be happening unknown to us.

    But if the outcome of the observation, experiment or mission was not likely to be affected by the subject being aware then its less of a requirement to go "under cover".

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by eigenlicht View Post
    I've also understood this in the more general sense of an impact on behavioral pattern. Animals in the zoo normally do not perceive human visitors as threat, so if this was all that's needed you might as well study them there (some zoologists/ethologists actually do sometimes). But of course there's more to it, and once you take the troubles to set out into the wild, your motivation would turn around a natural setting of proper non-disturbance; you don't want to probe how animals behave in the presence of a human observer, which is always different, whether perceived as danger or not. So maybe stealth isn't the best wording, or rather just one of the the possible means for achieving what we might better describe as non-interference.

    The leap from fuzzy blobs on infrared images and eyewitness' descriptions of giant tic-tacs to advanced technology is quite an immense one by the way, one doesn't have to feel the justification. There does at first seem to be something extraordinary, at least regarding the Nimitz case from back in 2004, which I take to be kind of a starting point for a whole slew of subsequent reports, all of them in comparison very (!) much less convincing however, these already have a certain air of rehashing and show a stark contrast in vividness. But even then, extraordinary only in the way that human psychology just is. Especially so in extraordinary, stressful times and circumstances and maybe it's just me, but I feel slightly reminded, wave-like character and all, to yet another stretch of cases that happened just shortly after WW2, then mostly in the NW-US. You've all heard about the foo fighters, that's where it started I suppose. So now it was tic-tacs. What was then the harrowing experience of, say Pearl Harbor and the war at large, that stirred up people and understandably alarmed, could there've been something like that, a vague parallel back in November 2004? Very different times, at least for people in North America and Europe. Just think of it, if you're old enough to recall.

    Technology very probably would have been another factor, a sort of glitch or error or really multiple might well have been a trigger even, but surely we're still talking human technology, what else. Add communications to the mix, or what another user already mobilized convincingly as multi-level failure or dynamics, I fail to see anything that goes beyond that. We also know of similar stories and fads in the context of war theaters, of course including the Iraq engagement, that too is about the same time window, 03/04. What would make this only harder to understand for some is the amount of time that lies between and just how much has changed.

    The case for super-sophisticated espionage isn't strong but would once again seem to rather be the result of specifically national fears or worries, or indeed interests: China wasn't nearly where it is today, the same holds for Russia mostly. K-141 ('Kursk') went down only a couple of years before, they couldn't even do that much. A mere display, with capabilites like that in the pipes? Hardly.

    By the way:
    https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/33/1/26


    If find this (generally) a most intriguing possibility, the arguments against are strong however. Be warned also the paper isn't exactly neutral.
    Thanks, a few interesting points!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    If some observed phenomena are stealthy aliens, they must be particularly bad at stealth or they wouldn't be observed!

    Which begs the question, if they are aliens, and are so easily spotted, why haven't they been proven by now?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If some observed phenomena are stealthy aliens, they must be particularly bad at stealth or they wouldn't be observed!
    If I seriously thought they were ETs, I would say that they want to be seen, but only in ways that canít be confirmed, and engineer things to be that way. Of course, the same would seem to apply to cryptids and various supernatural creatures/phenomena . . . if they are assumed to be real, and not something else (like misidentification or hoax).

    But this is a key reason I donít take the claims very seriously, like my common complaint about fairly large and bright objects supposedly being seen easily in various out of the way circumstances, but never being detected coming to or leaving Earth, where stealth would be particularly difficult.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    But this is a key reason I don’t take the claims very seriously, like my common complaint about fairly large and bright objects supposedly being seen easily in various out of the way circumstances, but never being detected coming to or leaving Earth, where stealth would be particularly difficult.
    Yes, thermodynamics is a harsh mistress. Any device or vessel against the backing of cold space, no matter if it's invisible, will be detectable by its heat, in full view of the entire world. And that's not to mention atmospheric entry (though the "gravity control" model implies they could enter the atmosphere slowly)
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,842
    Near Earth optical stealth is incredibly difficult too. I read an article years ago about spooks trying to stealth spy satellites. It’s thought there were attempts to use a type of shaped, dark balloon that would be between the satellite and the Earth, deflecting radar, reducing the heat signature and made optically dark, both by color and the way it would tend to reflect light as seen from Earth.

    Supposedly, amateurs with binoculars had no real trouble finding them. The night sky, generally speaking, is optically very dark too, and there is a lot of sunlight, so in sites with minimal light pollution, it doesn’t take a lot of reflected sunlight to make a moving object stand out to Mark One eyeballs, especially when helped with binoculars.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    If I seriously thought they were ETs, I would say that they want to be seen, but only in ways that can’t be confirmed, and engineer things to be that way. Of course, the same would seem to apply to cryptids and various supernatural creatures/phenomena . . . if they are assumed to be real, and not something else (like misidentification or hoax).

    But this is a key reason I don’t take the claims very seriously, like my common complaint about fairly large and bright objects supposedly being seen easily in various out of the way circumstances, but never being detected coming to or leaving Earth, where stealth would be particularly difficult.
    This is kind of the premise of the story “Those Eyes”.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroesí wings we fly!

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    This is kind of the premise of the story “Those Eyes”.
    https://www.davidbrin.com/fiction/thoseeyes.html
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,091
    In this paper, we have worked under the assumption that these UAPs were physical craft asdescribed by the pilots. The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leavesone searching for other possible explanations. One very clever explanation suggested by one of thereviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser ormaser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radarreflective region possibly explaining much of the observations.
    Actually, this is something I find quite intriguing. An explanation like this would make a lot of sense, because if an object is created by an intersection of several beams of some sort, it's quite easy for it to "hover" indefinitely and it can move suddenly without worrying about thermodynamics or fuel, simply if the beams themselves are pointed in a different direction.
    As above, so below

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,842
    It is interesting, but I suspect simpler (mundane) explanations are more relevant.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2021-Jun-10 at 03:19 AM.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,842
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    This is kind of the premise of the story “Those Eyes”.
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Ah, I actually read that a long time ago but forgot the title. It has a nice tie in to elves. Really important to mention the author’s name (David Brin). I looked up “Those Eyes” and found a number of references, with a song title at the top of results, but also things like a sexual reference.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,804
    One very clever explanation suggested by one of the reviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser or maser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radar reflective region possibly explaining much of the observations.
    Lasers which ionise the air to produce an image are a real thing, and the results are impressive.

    https://youtu.be/YRZMdQOMPNQ

    I would also note that these displays are also very, very small. To make a 3D shape that could be seen from a passing jet aircraft would require a much bigger laser, so big that it would not be portable in any meaningful way.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    If some observed phenomena are stealthy aliens, they must be particularly bad at stealth or they wouldn't be observed!

    Which begs the question, if they are aliens, and are so easily spotted, why haven't they been proven by now?
    I agree with all the comments and I'm very sceptical about any of these UAP's actually being of alien origin. It is my opinion that any explanation to what some of these UAP's are will be quite "mundane" as mentioned by Van Rijn.

    However, we can't assume anything. We can't assume any advanced technological E.T would view or consider things the way we do. We also can't assume that just because we have not yet been able to prove any existence of visitations that they are/or have not happened. As I said, I remain very sceptical, even on the reports that are quite convincing, but I won't completely dismiss the possibility just because it doesn't fit into the expected model we assume as humans.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    I agree with all the comments and I'm very sceptical about any of these UAP's actually being of alien origin. It is my opinion that any explanation to what some of these UAP's are will be quite "mundane" as mentioned by Van Rijn.

    However, we can't assume anything. We can't assume any advanced technological E.T would view or consider things the way we do. We also can't assume that just because we have not yet been able to prove any existence of visitations that they are/or have not happened. As I said, I remain very sceptical, even on the reports that are quite convincing, but I won't completely dismiss the possibility just because it doesn't fit into the expected model we assume as humans.
    I have a problem with this line of thinking because it delves into proving a negative territory. It's basically saying the same thing as just because we have not yet been able to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster that we can't assume that it doesn't exist.

    Evidence and scientific analysis is all we can go by. And there is zero evidence of any "alien origin" for these Navy sightings.

    What seals the deal for me is that there is no independent evidence of these objects (or any objects for that matter) ever being of interstellar origins. No "UFO"s entering our earth's atmosphere. This despite the sheer number of observatories around the globe, the sheer number of astrophysicists studying the skies, the sheer level of technology we have that can track space junk the size of pins to asteroids in the outer solar system and beyond. Not one single shred of something "extraordinary" approaching, let alone entering the earth's atmosphere.

    This highly suggests that whatever you're seeing in these videos, no matter how outlandish it looks, must be of earthly origins even if we can never explain them.

    So until the majority of our observatories and astrophysicists start seeing the same objects coming towards earth and our atmosphere, there's literally nothing "alien" to see here.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    As I said, I remain very sceptical, even on the reports that are quite convincing, but I won't completely dismiss the possibility just because it doesn't fit into the expected model we assume as humans.
    I dismiss the possibility because it doesn't fit the facts we have available, not expectations.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    <snip>

    What seals the deal for me is that there is no independent evidence of these objects (or any objects for that matter) ever being of interstellar origins. No "UFO"s entering our earth's atmosphere. This despite the sheer number of observatories around the globe, the sheer number of astrophysicists studying the skies, the sheer level of technology we have that can track space junk the size of pins to asteroids in the outer solar system and beyond. Not one single shred of something "extraordinary" approaching, let alone entering the earth's atmosphere.

    This highly suggests that whatever you're seeing in these videos, no matter how outlandish it looks, must be of earthly origins even if we can never explain them.

    So until the majority of our observatories and astrophysicists start seeing the same objects coming towards earth and our atmosphere, there's literally nothing "alien" to see here.
    An excellent point and one I hadn't thought of before.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    I have a problem with this line of thinking because it delves into proving a negative territory. It's basically saying the same thing as just because we have not yet been able to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster that we can't assume that it doesn't exist.

    Evidence and scientific analysis is all we can go by. And there is zero evidence of any "alien origin" for these Navy sightings.

    What seals the deal for me is that there is no independent evidence of these objects (or any objects for that matter) ever being of interstellar origins. No "UFO"s entering our earth's atmosphere. This despite the sheer number of observatories around the globe, the sheer number of astrophysicists studying the skies, the sheer level of technology we have that can track space junk the size of pins to asteroids in the outer solar system and beyond. Not one single shred of something "extraordinary" approaching, let alone entering the earth's atmosphere.

    This highly suggests that whatever you're seeing in these videos, no matter how outlandish it looks, must be of earthly origins even if we can never explain them.

    So until the majority of our observatories and astrophysicists start seeing the same objects coming towards earth and our atmosphere, there's literally nothing "alien" to see here.
    Yes, but the CTs have a field day on this earthly observation. Given the enormous distances to the next galaxy, even, the chance that this is extraterrestrial is slim. One caveat of course, that there are physical sciences that we don't understand.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    I have a problem with this line of thinking because it delves into proving a negative territory. It's basically saying the same thing as just because we have not yet been able to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster that we can't assume that it doesn't exist.

    Evidence and scientific analysis is all we can go by. And there is zero evidence of any "alien origin" for these Navy sightings.

    What seals the deal for me is that there is no independent evidence of these objects (or any objects for that matter) ever being of interstellar origins. No "UFO"s entering our earth's atmosphere. This despite the sheer number of observatories around the globe, the sheer number of astrophysicists studying the skies, the sheer level of technology we have that can track space junk the size of pins to asteroids in the outer solar system and beyond. Not one single shred of something "extraordinary" approaching, let alone entering the earth's atmosphere.

    This highly suggests that whatever you're seeing in these videos, no matter how outlandish it looks, must be of earthly origins even if we can never explain them.

    So until the majority of our observatories and astrophysicists start seeing the same objects coming towards earth and our atmosphere, there's literally nothing "alien" to see here.
    I agree with everything you have said, I find the sightings very interesting but I'm not convinced they are of alien origin either (I have never advocated that they are). My point was that, at least they hold some credibility, in that what ever the UAP's were, it was witnessed by multiple persons and recorded by radar. Just to add, any interview I have seen from the pilots of these particular sightings, not one has "claimed" they are of alien origin, which is quite refreshing compared to most claims you hear about.

    On your comment on the line of thinking, I'm not sure if you have misinterpreted me. From some of the replies I have received it seems to me some people are wrongly assuming that I'm advocating that the Pentagon report and the tic-tac sightings are going to prove the existence of alien visitations. No, I'm very sceptical regarding alien visitations simply because of the size and age of the universe it seems to me that the likelihood of us ever been visited (assuming and advanced alien technology exists in the first place) is extremely low. In fact I'd almost claim impossible, based on what we know about the laws of nature and life as we know it.
    But, as I said, we cannot completely dismiss the possibility, we just don't know enough yet. We don't even know if life exists anywhere else let alone then make assumptions on capabilities (if assuming it does). So, its not about proving anything based on negatives, its about not dismissing possibilities just because we don't have a full understanding. I find it rather arrogant in fact when people dismiss possibilities that are plausible just because we have no evidence of such. If anything history has taught us this many times.
    Back when there was no evidence for black holes the vast majority of scientists dismissed that they could exist, even Einstein found the concept to be absurd, even though general relativity predicted that they might possibly be there. Now we have evidence that they do and its widely accepted as mainstream.

    If the conditions of life prove to be prevalent throughout the universe, then the possibility of life emerging and some of that life developing to be technologically advanced goes up. Maybe not by much, because again we are continually making assumptions, but there is a possibility and if there is a possibility then there is also a possibility, no matter how slim, regardless of opinion, that the Earth has been visited or observed. I don't like the idea, its my opinion that the Earth has not had any visitations, but my opinion is not science. So to dismiss it just because I don't think its possible would be short sighted and very arrogant of me.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I dismiss the possibility because it doesn't fit the facts we have available, not expectations.
    You are entitled to your opinion, and its one I share, we don't have the full facts, by definition alone - UAP.

    But complete dismissal is in my opinion either arrogant or short sighted. Until the full facts about something that has been witnessed and recorded are available with hard physical evidence to back them up, and a testable explanation is presented, then how can anything be dismissed? The facts don't prove that the sightings are of alien origin either so to claim they are is also arrogant and short sighted.

    I suspect that the report will present nothing new or exciting and that many of the sightings will remain UAP/UFO's. So by definition no explanation can be claimed or dismissed until testable evidence proves otherwise.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Exposed View Post
    I have a problem with this line of thinking because it delves into proving a negative territory. It's basically saying the same thing as just because we have not yet been able to prove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster that we can't assume that it doesn't exist.
    I think you may have mis-understood my particular line of thinking.

    If someone claims they have seen a "flying spaghetti monster" then I would, along with the vast majority dismiss it as a lie or an illusion etc.. But if it was witnessed by multiple people and something was recorded by video or radar then would you not consider the credibility of the sighting?

    This obviously doesn't prove that it was indeed a flying spaghetti monster, especially when there is no hard evidence to prove as such. But the evidence is suggesting that there was something witnessed, that is currently unexplainable with any absolute certainty. One could look at facts, based on the known laws of nature, science and our current understanding of the universe and conclude that there is a much more likely plausible explanation, therefore we can make an educated assumption that flying spaghetti monsters do not exist.

    So my line of thinking on this particular matter is that there is most likely an Earth based origin and explanation for the sightings (my personal opinion also), but until this is a certain fact, then it cannot be dismissed that its not.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,103
    Well, that depends. Is the thing on video something that looks clearly and distinctly like a flying spaghetti monster? Do we know what a flying spaghetti monster looks like? Because we don't know what alien spacecraft look like, so there's no reason to assume that what they're seeing is an alien spacecraft. We do know, however, that people can experience mass hallucination. That people can all be persuaded that they're seeing a specific thing en masse even when they're in fact seeing something else. That people can be persuaded that a fuzzy blob that may well be a floating speck of dust is really the thing they saw. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and that doesn't change when you add uncertain video or radar evidence. Remember, we also know that a lot of video and radar evidence can turn out to be faulty.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    You are entitled to your opinion, and its one I share, we don't have the full facts, by definition alone - UAP.

    But complete dismissal is in my opinion either arrogant or short sighted. Until the full facts about something that has been witnessed and recorded are available with hard physical evidence to back them up, and a testable explanation is presented, then how can anything be dismissed? The facts don't prove that the sightings are of alien origin either so to claim they are is also arrogant and short sighted.

    I suspect that the report will present nothing new or exciting and that many of the sightings will remain UAP/UFO's. So by definition no explanation can be claimed or dismissed until testable evidence proves otherwise.
    AFAIK any alien visitation would have to be either spottable in advance, or use alternate physics/thermodynamics such as cloaking, teleportation, or other means of approaching Earth undetected. The physics we know today says any object in space that uses energy makes heat, which we'd notice against a 3 Kelvin background. So if they come to Earth it's by something "magical", IE violates what we know now. I can easily dismiss the possibility of something whose odds are literally incalculable.

    That's my view, neither arrogant nor short sighted, just based on science.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    AFAIK any alien visitation would have to be either spottable in advance, or use alternate physics/thermodynamics such as cloaking, teleportation, or other means of approaching Earth undetected. The physics we know today says any object in space that uses energy makes heat, which we'd notice against a 3 Kelvin background. So if they come to Earth it's by something "magical", IE violates what we know now. I can easily dismiss the possibility of something whose odds are literally incalculable.

    That's my view, neither arrogant nor short sighted, just based on science.
    Iím sure thereís something Iím overlooking, but what if a ship approached slowly with a cooled shield facing the earth, and with heat projected away from it? The deceleration would be tricky, but what if you had a solar sail facing the sun and came in so that the sail was facing the sun while the shield faced the earth. The atmospheric entry might be tricky as well but if you did it over the ocean you might be able to make it look like a meteor or space debris.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I’m sure there’s something I’m overlooking, but what if a ship approached slowly with a cooled shield facing the earth, and with heat projected away from it? The deceleration would be tricky, but what if you had a solar sail facing the sun and came in so that the sail was facing the sun while the shield faced the earth. The atmospheric entry might be tricky as well but if you did it over the ocean you might be able to make it look like a meteor or space debris.
    We have many satellites looking at things from multiple angles. As it approaches Earth the visible side of a vessel would have to be facing at least one sensor at least part of its orbit. As cooling it long enough to approach us by light sail would require a huge hydrogen tanker, it'd be hard to miss that close up. See also the "stealth in space" arguments.

    A small package might conceivably be mistaken for a bit of debris if it's inert and the same temperature as a sunlit asteroid. But anything bigger than a breadbox approaching the Earth would interest many scientists who'd study the thing all the way down.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •