Are UAPs/UFOs finally being taken seriously?

[Moontanman]

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

 Hehe.  It does seem possible that a craft would leave something, even if it doesn't empty its latrine tank or toss out candy wrappers.*  Change to residual radiation levels, thermal stress to soil and plants, bits of an ablation shield if it entered atmosphere from orbit, tracks of some kind, traces of unusual chemical compounds if an airlock opened, unusual indentations in the ground, traces of biocide chems, if something was disinfected....I expect this list could go on at some length.  

 

(*Milky Way wrappers, perhaps)

Yes but such things have been detected, trace evidence is quite common in sightings that include landings. 

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes.

In the broader picture, we expect that laws of nature be followed. If you have to posit that the laws are different, somehow, then there needs to be independent evidence of this. Otherwise it's topologically the same as a conspiracy theory, where the lack of evidence is presented as proof of the theory.

I agree, but we do not have to posit the laws are different xomehow, who did in which sighting? 

[TheVat]

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Yes but such things have been detected, trace evidence is quite common in sightings that include landings. 

This would be worth linking here.  Who collected, how it was tested, what researchers it was shared with, where it is stored, etc.  

When an archaeologist finds axolotl remains in a stew pot in Aztec ruins, there's a chain of custody that may end up in a specimen drawer at a university or natural history museum.  One can formally request to see them, examine them, in some cases subject them to NDT.  

(some institutions you have to ask only once, but some you have to axolotl...)

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Why would there be a null hypothesis for something unexplainable?

Are we talking about things that are unexplainable? How do we know that they are unexplainable?

I was under the impression these were unexplained/unidentified. That's not the same thing. A large number of the UAP reports were resolved, meaning they were explained, and therefore not unexplainable.

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Assuming its mundane is no different than assuming its sensational. Both have little evidence to lean one way or the other. 

There's a huge difference between them.

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I don't believe in ghosts, alien visitations or any other sensational phenomena, simply because I haven't seen enough credible evidence to convince me of such. But then I also  don't  just assume everything that is currently unexplained has/will have a mundane explanation. 

You don't have a default assumption about whether something is natural or supernatural? How do you proceed to investigate?

An apple falls from a tree. Do you initially assume gravity, or do you assume ghosts?

You see hoof prints in North America. Do you initially assume they are from horses or zebras?

Which direction leads to a massive waste of time and effort as you begin to investigate?

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

But there are question marks by many leading scientists hanging over our understanding of the laws of nature. The standard model and relativity are our best models for this, yet both are either incomplete, or not quite correct. 

Incomplete is not the same as wrong. And these tend to come with fairly well-defined areas where we know we need better models. When an apple falls from a tree we don't question it because General Relativity doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics. We know those issues appear at the Planck scale.

 

9 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I was listening to a lecture from  Sabine Hossenfelder just the other day, where she was discussing about FTL travel and communication. How there are speculative, but potentially possible, ways around it and advanced aliens (if they were to exist) may have discovered how to use this knowledge.  Does this make her a crackpot? 

Yes, we've been discussing this in another thread. She is discussing the issue within the confines of science. Does she discuss aliens in any of this? 

[Intoscience]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

There's a huge difference between them

No difference, you are making an assumption on an unknown. Whether that assumption is mundane or sensational is irrelevant. Investigations should assume nothing, and follow all possible paths until each path can be dismissed. Some of those paths can be quickly dismissed or prioritised as lower due to either the cost in time and resources or the least likely based on experience that's fine.

But starting with a presumption is not a good investigative tactic.    

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, we've been discussing this in another thread. She is discussing the issue within the confines of science. Does she discuss aliens in any of this?

I watched the video, this wasn't the lecture I was referring to. However the content is the same. Thanks

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Incomplete is not the same as wrong. And these tend to come with fairly well-defined areas where we know we need better models. When an apple falls from a tree we don't question it because General Relativity doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics

As normal you misrepresent what I said to strengthen your own arguments. I said -  either incomplete or not quite correct

At no point did I say that incomplete was the same as wrong. So what are you trying to argue?

If both theories are incomplete then there is something missing, that something will do one of 3 things. It will either supersede one or both models or it will consolidate them. At the same time (speculation time) it may provide a discovery at a deeper level of how the universe works, that is sensational compared to our current understanding. Or it may cement the current models at a deeper level. 

We know far less about 90+% of the observable universe than we now about the remaining. So if someone was to present you with a theory  based on less than 10% of the observed data (already with holes in it) of which appears totally different than the remaining 90+%, stating that they had a complete working model you would laugh the theory out of the room.  

15 hours ago, swansont said:

You don't have a default assumption about whether something is natural or supernatural? How do you proceed to investigate?

You make no assumption either way from the start.

You gather the evidence you have. You then proceed by process of elimination starting with the easiest simplest, most cost effective lines of enquiry. You then slowly methodically dismiss possibilities and/or put difficult lines of investigation to one side for a later time when all the easier lines of enquiry have been investigated. At the end of the investigation if there is no conclusion, you can either make an assumption based on likelihood or experience, or/at the same time remain open minded about the other possibilities.   

[Moontanman]

On 4/13/2023 at 10:14 AM, TheVat said:

This would be worth linking here.  Who collected, how it was tested, what researchers it was shared with, where it is stored, etc.  

I have linked them to UFO threads many times, the "chain of evidence" is never good enough because the first people on the scene are never scientists. These things never occur in a laboratory setting and are seldom investigated at all by scientists until well after the fact.   

On 4/13/2023 at 11:15 AM, swansont said:

Are we talking about things that are unexplainable? How do we know that they are unexplainable?

I was under the impression these were unexplained/unidentified. That's not the same thing. A large number of the UAP reports were resolved, meaning they were explained, and therefore not unexplainable.

 

A significant number of UFO sightings are never "resolved" and not necessarily from a lack of data. No matter how good the data is the bar is always lifted higher as the data becomes less easily dismissed.   

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

A significant number of UFO sightings are never "resolved" and not necessarily from a lack of data. No matter how good the data is the bar is always lifted higher as the data becomes less easily dismissed. 

And we never seem to get the details of these incidents, with all this great data. We’re told they exist, but that seems to be the end of the road.

[Moontanman]

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

And we never seem to get the details of these incidents, with all this great data. We’re told they exist, but that seems to be the end of the road.

As it will always be as long as the subject is assumed to be false due to no good evidence. Good evidence cannot be collected by definition. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

As it will always be as long as the subject is assumed to be false due to no good evidence. Good evidence cannot be collected by definition. 

I think Aesop wrote about this phenomenon.

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

No difference, you are making an assumption on an unknown. Whether that assumption is mundane or sensational is irrelevant. Investigations should assume nothing, and follow all possible paths until each path can be dismissed. Some of those paths can be quickly dismissed or prioritised as lower due to either the cost in time and resources or the least likely based on experience that's fine.

The presumption that it's mundane is supported by the sheer volume of all the mundane things that happen every minute of every day. And all of the experimental evidence supporting all of our theories.

I can assume my TV works by the known workings of digital electronics. I don't have to give equal weight to the idea that it's tiny goblins inside the box. You can only reach a conclusion that it's goblins if you eliminate the possibility that it's mundane science. IOW, the conclusion that it's goblins requires that you conclude that the mundane science is in fact wrong, which you can't do unless you have sufficient evidence — something that we know is not the case.

And then you need a coherent model of the goblins.

 

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

As normal you misrepresent what I said to strengthen your own arguments. I said -  either incomplete or not quite correct

At no point did I say that incomplete was the same as wrong. So what are you trying to argue?

Did I claim that you did? I said incomplete is not the same as being wrong.

Unless you are in the domain of relativity or the standard model where the model is incomplete, you are in the realm where it is experimentally confirmed, i.e. accepted to be correct. If some phenomenon doesn't follow the model, then you need to have sufficient evidence to show that this is the case.

You can ask for clarification with accusing me of misrepresenting you, and when you make that accusation, it would be nice if it were actually the case.

 

 

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

If both theories are incomplete then there is something missing, that something will do one of 3 things. It will either supersede one or both models or it will consolidate them. At the same time (speculation time) it may provide a discovery at a deeper level of how the universe works, that is sensational compared to our current understanding. Or it may cement the current models at a deeper level. 

We know far less about 90+% of the observable universe than we now about the remaining. So if someone was to present you with a theory  based on less than 10% of the observed data (already with holes in it) of which appears totally different than the remaining 90+%, stating that they had a complete working model you would laugh the theory out of the room.  

Unless one is positing that UAPs are dark matter or dark energy phenomena, I don't see the relevance. And it's not that we know nothing about DM and DE, so there are constraints.

 

18 hours ago, Intoscience said:

You make no assumption either way from the start.

If you want to reinvent the wheel every time, that's up to you. But it's not how science proceeds.

 

 

[Moontanman]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I think Aesop wrote about this phenomenon.

 

do tell?

[Intoscience]

On 4/15/2023 at 1:45 AM, swansont said:

Did I claim that you did? I said incomplete is not the same as being wrong

Ok, I'm more than happy to admit my error, I will apologise for my accusation towards you.

On 4/15/2023 at 1:45 AM, swansont said:

If you want to reinvent the wheel every time, that's up to you. But it's not how science proceeds

It's not about reinvention though is it? I was just pointing out that any presumption whether its more likely or not is a presumption. Just because a mundane presumption is more appealing than a sensational one doesn't automatically qualify ahead. 

The null starting point is exactly that null. No presumptions, just a set of assumed odds based on previous experience.

In my line of work I do many investigations over a variety of subjects, environments, disciplines. I have learnt from experience that you cannot start any investigation with any presumption, even when you have an initial assumption (gut feeling from experience). Sometimes the sensational (though admittedly rare) pops up very unexpected.    

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Sometimes the sensational (though admittedly rare) pops up very unexpected.

And you have to eliminate the mundane to conclude the sensational.

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Sometimes the sensational (though admittedly rare) pops up very unexpected.

I'm curious to see some examples of these rare cases.

[Intoscience]

55 minutes ago, Genady said:

I'm curious to see some examples of these rare cases.

In science? I'm not an authority in science.

JWT is producing some sensational imagines that seem to be contradicting well established mainstream theories. 

[Genady]

Just now, Intoscience said:

In science? I'm not an authority in science.

JWT is producing some sensational imagines that seem to be contradicting well established mainstream theories. 

New and unpredicted, yes. Sensational and contradicting, no.

This is the purpose of this instrument - to deliver new data which were unknown before.

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And you have to eliminate the mundane to conclude the sensational.

Very true I have no argument with that. One could argue you have to eliminate the sensational to conclude the mundane.  The odds are the mundane will trump by far the vast majority, but that is still no reason to presume the mundane to begin with.  

Just now, Genady said:

New and unpredicted, yes. Sensational and contradicting, no.

This is the purpose of this instrument - to deliver new data which were unknown before.

What about the large galaxies that have been imaged that seem to contradict the mainstream view either on how galaxies may form or the age of the observable universe?

I would suggest that this (if verified) to be both sensational and contradicting. I guess it all depends on your interpretation of sensational.  

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

What about the large galaxies that have been imaged that seem to contradict the mainstream view either on how galaxies may form or the age of the observable universe?

I would suggest that this (if verified) to be both sensational and contradicting. I guess it all depends on your interpretation of sensational. 

Galactic evolution is very far from having a well established mainstream theory. There are several models, each one having open questions. The new data set limits to these models.

What is sensational is delivery of the new findings by popular media.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Intoscience said:

Very true I have no argument with that. One could argue you have to eliminate the sensational to conclude the mundane.  The odds are the mundane will trump by far the vast majority, but that is still no reason to presume the mundane to begin with.

But you have to, in order to eliminate it.

 

[mistermack]

On 4/17/2023 at 12:31 PM, Genady said:

I'm curious to see some examples of these rare cases.

I would say that the discovery of the finite speed of light was something sensational. And then the fact that time can run at different rates. And that we all evolved from a common ancestor and there's no need for a god.

We're used to it all now, but it was all truly sensational at the time. 

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would say that the discovery of the finite speed of light was something sensational. And then the fact that time can run at different rates. And that we all evolved from a common ancestor and there's no need for a god.

We're used to it all now, but it was all truly sensational at the time. 

These are good examples.

+1

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would say that the discovery of the finite speed of light was something sensational. And then the fact that time can run at different rates. And that we all evolved from a common ancestor and there's no need for a god.

We're used to it all now, but it was all truly sensational at the time. 

The invariance of the speed of light can be found in the theory, which is confirmed by experiment. That the value was finite dates back to at least the late 1600s

https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/ole-roemer-speed-of-light

All this, and evolution from a common ancestor - all was backed by evidence, and had a theoretical foundation. That’s what convinced people.

[Alex_Krycek]

@Moontanman

Excellent article and interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKwglRgwDM

https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft

Critical mass is building...

[Moontanman]

12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

@Moontanman

Excellent article and interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJKwglRgwDM

https://public.substack.com/p/us-has-12-or-more-alien-space-craft

Critical mass is building...

Thank you for the links, I'm not sure how much this guy should be believed, so far he does seem to have to credentials! 

[Bufofrog]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Thank you for the links, I'm not sure how much this guy should be believed, so far he does seem to have to credentials!

Yep, it is all very exciting. 

However, I'll bet you a dollar that he turns out to be a loony toon and his stories are just that; stories.  It would be neat if there really were ETs here but the whole idea of the governments of the world hiding the truth seems silly to me.

[Genady]

What is a critical mass of nothingness?

[TheVat]

I remember years ago when senator Harry Reid was saying there were ET spacecraft materials in the hands of the military but he couldn't get in to see them.  Nothing came of that, either.  

If a foreign government made an experimental craft of some new material, and the US recovered a fragment, what would be learned from  materials analysis and would it differentiate the sample from ET sources?  Say it was a new carbon composite - would an ET necessarily use carbon and other elements with different isotopic concentrations that would provide a definitive signature?

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

However, I'll bet you a dollar that he turns out to be a loony toon and his stories are just that; stories. 

Shellenberger is a fan of shoddy science and often busy attacking environmentalists and climate scientists.  He seems kind of a nut.