I think the Wall Street Journal had the best lede on this:
“U.S. intelligence officials have examined more than a dozen sightings of unexplained aerial objects that displayed no visible propulsion or that used technology beyond the known capabilities of the U.S. or its adversaries, according to a senior U.S. official describing a new report.“
Not to get too far off topic but the intelligence community isn't exactly a benchmark for truth and transparency. Within its arsenal is misinformation, and it's not afraid to use it.
Also, the recent reports I've watched and read all eventually mentioned "national security." Such mentions are euphemisms for more funding, more DOD budget, etc.
Granted, it could be aliens. Nonetheless there are plenty of earthlings who benefit from a misinfomation based narratives. Some of those benefitees are the source of the narrative.
Intelligence Agencies are designed to deceive. That's their primary function. It is completely within the realm of possibility that this is some psyop, ploy for funding, or tool designed to throw off some foreign adversary about our technical capabilities.
No, their primary function is to acquire information useful to decisions makers, including info others want to keep secret. Counterintelligence agencies, which are sometimes conjoined to intelligence agencies and sometimes separate have a primary function of preventing information that decisionmakers want to remain secret from being discovered. Deception is frequently an important technique in both intelligence and counterintelligence, and if understood broadly enough is integral to the purpose of counterintelligence.
Yes. But the USA doesn't have designated counterintelligence agencies. They're consistently referred to strictly as intelligence agencies. So it's important to clarify that the counterintelligence role is there even if it's not directly identified.
And, no their primary function is not to acquire information. Their primary funtion is to push and pull "information" to acheive the goals of The Republic. It's chess, not checkers.
Without knowing more, I would think most counterintelligence work is still done by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and maybe DIA. But I was replying to the specific claim that there were no "designated ... agencies", where I interpreted designated to mean specialized. The FBI, CIA, and NSA are monolithic organizations.
This is a poor title. What part of advanced technology and flying at considerable speed without discernable means of propulsion rules out aliens? Aliens weren't confirmed, or even mentioned, but my reading of the report is that aliens are more likely an explanation than I thought them to be yesterday, not less.
That's how I felt after reading it as well. Plus the part where it says that it's possible that we aren't getting any readings from them because they have advanced technology that we don't know how to create sensors for.
There are at least two possible ideas when you are something that doesn't show on the radar: 1. A technology so advanced it doesn't show up on sensors. 2. Light / condensation / ... effect which makes you think you're looking at a solid object where the isn't any.
Once you have decided that the UAPs are technological objects, sure, it starts to seem more plausible that aliens are involved. But nothing in the report [0] indicates to me that there is any degree of confidence that the weird, unexplainable UAPs are technological objects.
The train of thought that "we don't know what we saw, so ... aliens!" is somewhere between wishful and nutty. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.
2) claiming that it's _definitely_ "technology and flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion" is itself a stretch. Given the supposed behaviour, a _very_ big stretch. More likely it's equipment failure, lens flare, sundog, bug-on-the-lens, etc.
re #2: what's odd is that it is equipment failure that's been occurring for decades. One would hope that JIRA ticket wouldn't keep getting pushed back to the next sprint for 40+ years.
If it's not sensor artefacts, why have the readings not become clear over the last few decades, when the quality and quantity of sensors in use have improved by orders of magnitude? Why is it still liminal? Has the visibility of these things gotten worse in lockstep with the improvement in sensors?
Or (Occam's razor time) it was never real readings to begin with.
And, I never assumed a single cause and neither should you, don't oversimplify.
Every sensor has limits. There will be noise and artefact at those limits. You can't change that fact, with or without a f'n Jira.
LOL. You don't know shit, these craft are real and have been under development for nearly a century. They're going to fly one low over a US city eventually when it's time for a big funding boost.
1. I am not saying that these UAP are definitely aliens. I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. The report found that physical objects exhibited behavior that suggests advanced technology - including flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion.
It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what I wrote was more like "The report does not contradict aliens. The findings of the report are consistent with what we might expect from alien technology. I am updating my beliefs to increase the likelihood that these UAP are explained by aliens."
Your line about extra-ordinary claims is a bit misguided. For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion.
2. The DNI report says "a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" and "Some UAP appeared to ... move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion" and "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." That doesn't sound like "bug-on-the-lens" type observations to me.
Obviously I can't know how good the DNI evidence is. They haven't shared much of it. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude from the report that people are getting confused with lens flares or equipment failures though.
3. That doesn't seem like an argument at all. Any thing which we have observed for a while but haven't explained would fit this description of being "perpetually liminal". UFOs fit the description worse than most things because they aren't very "perpetual". UFO sightings go back ~70 years. That's hardly perpetual. It's also not the case that we always know roughly the same amount. This report for example uses evidence to advance our understanding, arguing that they are physical objects, that they may emit RF energy, and that they have capabilities we do not.
This is all a really roundabout, long winded way of demonstrating confirmation bias. The idea that there are aliens among us is obscenely unlikely, with debunked after debunked case. Stacking up a whole bunch of fallacious arguments doesn't add up to a good one, or even an ok one, or even a "maybe".
> For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence.
Like this. No it isn't. It's terrible evidence, it actually isn't evidence at all.
Whether or not aliens are "obscenely unlikely" addresses only your prior belief before reading this report. Does the report change your beliefs about aliens at all? If so, in what direction, more or less likely?
My point is that the observations of the report make me update towards aliens. The observations are consistent with the theory that alien craft operate in our atmosphere. Advanced technology that we don't understand. Doesn't appear to be ours. Yesterday, I wouldn't have said that was true or that we had good reasons to think it was true. Today, I'm more inclined to think it's true.
If my arguments are fallacious or terrible I'd appreciate you explaining how. Multiple witnesses with multiple sensors multiple times across years seems pretty persuasive. You think it's not evidence at all. Why not? What evidence would you expect to see?
The report did nothing to change my views on aliens. There are some events that we have very little information on, and so we can not explain, and so the answers could be anything and therefor imply nothing.
The reports are also consistent with angels - angels fly around, have capabilities beyond our technological understanding, and so on.
Your argument is fallacious because it's based on cherry picked, weak accounts that are inherently low-information, and said "it fits the theory".
I believe that 'aliens' exist. It just seems statistically likely, given the size of the universe. But I don't believe that there's other space-fairing life in our solar system, and the nearest celestial bodies are insanely far away. Trying to guess at what that sort of life would be like, how it would behave, or what evidence to expect, is again pointless - we have no information, it's totally baseless guessing.
The entire thing is nonsense. A theory that is based on a complete lack of information and evidence that itself lacks information.
Not compelling.
Personally, I think it's a combination of various perfectly terrestrial events:
1. People lying for attention (the vast majority)
2. Unmanned foreign vehicles that are actually spying on us
3. Equipment or natural aberration (weather events, smudges on lenses, equipment malfunction, lens glares, etc)
Note that unlike the alien theories...
The evidence for (1) and (3) is factual - repeatedly we have found this to be the case. (2) is the most fanciful, but requires far less of a leap of faith and fits within a context that we know does exist ie: technology we know publicly is under pursuit.
(1) Has been repeatedly the case
(2) Doesn't involve any insane advances in technology to explain some of these events, and we can understand the motivations as our own
Let me rephrase things a little bit. Consider two realities, Reality A (RA) and Reality B (RB). In RA there are no aliens operating craft in our atmosphere and the report was motivated by your 3 explanations or similar. In RB there are aliens operating in our atmosphere. In which reality, RA, or RB, is the DNI report more likely to be published? I think the answer is clearly RB. For one thing, RB has all the same reasons for a fake report as RA and it has the reason of alien craft being observed.
The DNI report should update your beliefs about aliens in proportion to the extent which you think the report is more likely to be authored in RB relative to RA.
Of the three explanations you offer 1 and 3 have serious problems. The events in question are reported by multiple witnesses and sensors. It's not reasonable to suspect that sensors, in multiple modalities, malfunction in the same way that coincidentally coincides with the reports of human witnesses.
It's similarly not reasonable to think that human witnesses are lying for attention. They are faking the sensor reports? So they can get the attention of reporting something that might discredit or embarrass them? They collude with other human witnesses to do this? It just doesn't seem very reasonable.
Explanation 2 is more coherent. I don't think it is a good explanation because we have no reason to think that significantly more advanced flying technology is in the hands of our competitors. If it were, they would likely not both keep it secret from us, and repeatedly fly it in front of our airmen and sensors in broad daylight.
We should not consider merely those two options, if you're speculating then there are a vast number of "possible" options that "cannot be ruled out". You're cherry picking, exhibiting confirmation bias etc. This is why there is a burden of proof on the hypothesis being proposed.
Disagree strongly with your "not reasonable" about sensors and people. A mish-mash of vague noisy readings cannot really be said to "coincide" much.
You can consider more realities than RA and RB, but RA and RB are still possible realities and what I wrote about them is still true. Even if you infinite other possibilities the relative likelihood of RA and RB still changes the way I describe.
If your radar reports some anomaly then the radar is probably malfunctioning. If the electro-optics report the same anomaly at the same time with the same characteristics, that's weird. If both these sensors, and others, agree on some strange data and you witness it with your own eyes and someone else does too... At some point you need to flip your conclusion from "sensor error" to "I'm observing something strange."
There's no basis that I'm aware of to refer to the observations as "A mish-mash of vague most readings".
I don't care to really delve into why I think my theories are obviously correct. The problem is that your entire line of reasoning is broken. When your evidence is weak and your possibilities are infinite you can not say that the evidence changes your view on one of those infinite possibilities - that's just confirmation bias.
> I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation.
> I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion.
Could also be angels.
Or IMHO, what I want it to be is visitors from a parallel Earth where the dinosaurs never died out and instead developed a hyper-advanced civilisation. They're now crossing the multiverse (temporarily, that's why they vanish again) and looking at us in complete bemusement, much as we would look at a world where humanity dies out in a nuclear war, and rats evolve and civilise roughly to the level of ancient Egypt or Sumer.
The problem with "you cant rule it out", and "the facts fit the conclusion" thinking about such nebulous phenomena is that there are a vast or infinite number of things that "you can't rule out" and also "fit". It's true but it's a far weaker claim than it seems. What "I want" is just wishful: Your chosen scenario is vanishingly unlikely among them, and assembled out of scraps of pop culture anyway. That's why previous generations say witches, demons, angel's etc. Apophenia describes the person's inner world, as much as the external one. Isn't it convenient that its still such a such a nebulous phenomena?
This is why the burden of proof falls squarely on ruling it _in_.
It could be angels or alternate reality Earths or whatever. Your prior belief in those things matters and the extent to which you think the observations reported in the DNI report match what you would expect to see were any of those the source of the phenomenon.
I think there is good reason to believe that aliens exist (size of the universe, number of planets) and traveling between star systems is consistent with what we know of physics. I also think observing advanced technology in the form of objects flying in our atmosphere is consistent with the "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation. A surprising observation that is consistent with a theory should add confidence to that theory.
"Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I am not saying "It was aliens." I am saying "There is no reason to think the report rules out aliens which the headline suggests, and, actually, the report is consistent with aliens and that's surprising."
I disagree entirely. It is key. You are discarding rationality here.
The "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation is basically ruled out by how it's always liminal observations, never progressing to solid evidence, always a good fit to the limits of the sensors.
You are failing to think rationally about probabilities in part because you attach to an idea like "burden of proof" which reduces to the discussion to something like "You can't prove to my satisfaction that it is aliens so I'll assume it's not." That's just ignoring the argument I've made above.
It's also not correct to say that there's never solid evidence. The DNI report suggests there is compelling evidence. I've not seen anything to suggest that the observed phenomenon are at the limits of our sensors.
Dude, the pentagon left the door wide open saying “we don’t have the technological capabilities to determine the origin of these phenomenon”. And that “we won’t be able to report the origin of these phenomenon until we have the technological capabilities to do so”. I mean what other answer is their besides “it’s aliens” (as in it’s non-human technology)
I can't help but think of Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - it seems like the Navy's reports could almost equally plausibly be attributed to dragons or spirits? I personally think the universe is probably packed with aliens, but it's a big place, so it'd be almost as improbable that they're flitting around Earth's atmosphere as dragons...
There are two things that just don't seem plausible at all for me in those stories:
1. Previous article mentions "For some Navy pilots, UFO sightings were an ordinary event: ‘Every day for at least a couple years’" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/17/ufo-sightin...) Is DoD too cheap for a bunch of GoPros? If the incidents are that common and a potential security issue, why don't we have validated days worth of high quality video footage already? It seems we can't keep army secrets secure from soldiers taking selfies, but a daily occurrence has barely one annual photo?
2. Given how many non-military flights there are every single day, how do we not have people noticing the same objects from them? Where are the flights with multiple people taking independent videos of the same unidentified object on their phones? (Essentially this issue https://xkcd.com/1235/)
1. Why do you assume that all the data that was made public is all the data there is? It's highly likely the government has additional classified information of much higher fidelity.
2. These phenomena are concentrated around military bases and other areas of "interest". Hardly places where you'd expect non-military flights to frequent.
1. "government has additional classified information" is basically "information doesn't exist" for us. It may also have classified information on Bigfoot or anything else.
2. The objects have to get to those places though. So either the assumption is that they're deployed right next to the base and the launch sites can't be detected, or it can travel in science-defying ways while avoiding all commercial air traffic, but can't avoid military aircraft and just taunts them. I still find both much less plausible than visual artefacts or people lying.
I would love for it to be aliens, but it seems like one of the least likely explanations. Occam's razor doesn't magically give you an answer, but humans flying drones seems like it should be the obvious explanation.
If aliens showed up on Earth it would be FAR more likely to be observed and photographed by multiple civilians than the military. Civilian eyeballs outnumber the military by a couple orders of magnitude. You'd probably see it on Instagram first.
You've got this opposite. If aliens were observing us, they would be far more likely to observe our capabilities and military installations than civilian stuff.
If I were studying a primitive species, I would be no more interested in their war fighting than any other aspect of their society. Maybe that is just me.
If they are concerned about our militaries more than other things, why would they not always be perfectly concealed?
What is the goal of this campain to re-introduce aliens into the public discourse? Interestingly, it seems that the "smart" people are now falling for it (washington post, hn, certain subreddits and podcasts...).
Assuming that "US Government" has a single coherent goal is an event worse error than assuming the same of e.g. Microsoft (1)
Quite possibly: one faction in one branch of "US Government" is manoeuvring for power / money / status from another branch. Uncovering "truth" might be quite irrelevant to this goal; there's a lot of post-truth stuff happening there at present.
When did aliens leave the public discourse? Right now there's a bit of a flare up, because that's how modern media works - some story is done, gets clicks, everyone rides the SEO trend for a while until something else crops up.
The most obvious explanation is that the American defense department is probing Chinese and Russian military with advanced drone technology and they would like the Chinese and Russians to think that the American military is also being probed and are equally baffled by it. PsyOps in other words. I doubt they are buying it. I assume that when the Chinese or Russians encounter any unexplained tech it is assumed to be the American military given our vast expenditures on military tech and our track record of high tech accomplishments.
I think it is way simpler than that. They want money for a new thing that will cost a lot and yield no results requiring more money. Hunting UFOs is an endless money pit.
That was a dumb pretext. Scott Ritter and others had debunked the weapons of mass destruction claim prior. Everyone knew George W. Bush was going to invade Iraq because Saddam had threatened to kill his father. He was going to finish the job daddy had failed to complete.
"Everyone knew George W. Bush was going to invade Iraq because Saddam had threatened to kill his father. He was going to finish the job daddy had failed to complete."
I suspect it was lobbying from AIPAC and from defense contractors that led the US into Iraq. Probably not personal vendettas by one man, even George Bush.
Since they had to start competing with an ever growing demand by population for increasing social serivces like Unversal Healthcare, and UBI, combined with current social services and debt taking up over 50% of the federal budget.
They see the writting on the wall, America can no longer fund its war machine unless there is an enemy, Russia / Cold War is played out even though they are still trying to beat that dead horse, China is not viewed as threat by most citizens as we get all of our cheap shit from them...
Nope Aliens makes a perfect scare for the masses to accept increases in taxation and debt
I think they can use propaganda to ferment a greater fear yes. it is new and unknown.
Their propaganda around "terrorists" is wearing thin. Today people are massively less fearful of the "big bad terrorist" then they were 10 years ago. They are less accepting of the military story that some goat farmer in a dessert is a "threat to national security" that needs a response by multi billion dollar weapons platforms
So now they have two competing treks the classic external threat which was always other nations but is harder and harder to sell to the people these days so the external threat has to become VERY external
Then you have the growing propaganda around internal threats, aka "Domestic Extremism" however it is very hard military make the case the American People are their enemy. The FBI sure, other paramilitary "law enforcement" sure, but that actual official military.. that is a sticky wicket. Though I from the recent report by Glenn Greenwald it seems maybe they are going to try that as well...
I beg to differ. The most obvious explanation is that we literally just don't know what these things are. The second most obvious is that these are foreign advanced drone technology. Saying that "we're actually trying to pull a psyop on our enemies" may or may not be more technologically feasible (at least, given the current state of the art of the private industry), but it's definitely not the most obvious.
I'm not going to call Occam's Razor, though, because militaries are up to spooky things.
71 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] thread“U.S. intelligence officials have examined more than a dozen sightings of unexplained aerial objects that displayed no visible propulsion or that used technology beyond the known capabilities of the U.S. or its adversaries, according to a senior U.S. official describing a new report.“
Also, the recent reports I've watched and read all eventually mentioned "national security." Such mentions are euphemisms for more funding, more DOD budget, etc.
Granted, it could be aliens. Nonetheless there are plenty of earthlings who benefit from a misinfomation based narratives. Some of those benefitees are the source of the narrative.
Let's not lose track of the context. It matters.
No, their primary function is to acquire information useful to decisions makers, including info others want to keep secret. Counterintelligence agencies, which are sometimes conjoined to intelligence agencies and sometimes separate have a primary function of preventing information that decisionmakers want to remain secret from being discovered. Deception is frequently an important technique in both intelligence and counterintelligence, and if understood broadly enough is integral to the purpose of counterintelligence.
And, no their primary function is not to acquire information. Their primary funtion is to push and pull "information" to acheive the goals of The Republic. It's chess, not checkers.
* Marine Corps Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Intelligence#Mari...
* United States Army Counterintelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Counterinte...
* Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Counterintelligence_an...
* National Counterintelligence and Security Center: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Counterintelligence_a...
Found via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counterintelligence_or...
AFAICT the NCSC is independent from the CIA, though both do fall under the DNI. And the DCSA does have "agency" in its name. ;)
The hierarchy became more complex and confusing after the 9/11 reorganization, and apparently has continued to do so.
https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2021-06-25/ufos-military...
[0] https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....
Because
1) Ruling _in_ aliens requires proof. Insisting that this specific scenario be ruled out is classic "shifting the burden of proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
The train of thought that "we don't know what we saw, so ... aliens!" is somewhere between wishful and nutty. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.
2) claiming that it's _definitely_ "technology and flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion" is itself a stretch. Given the supposed behaviour, a _very_ big stretch. More likely it's equipment failure, lens flare, sundog, bug-on-the-lens, etc.
3) the strong argument against this being real is how it is "perpetually liminal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354021
Or (Occam's razor time) it was never real readings to begin with.
And, I never assumed a single cause and neither should you, don't oversimplify.
Every sensor has limits. There will be noise and artefact at those limits. You can't change that fact, with or without a f'n Jira.
It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what I wrote was more like "The report does not contradict aliens. The findings of the report are consistent with what we might expect from alien technology. I am updating my beliefs to increase the likelihood that these UAP are explained by aliens."
Your line about extra-ordinary claims is a bit misguided. For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion.
2. The DNI report says "a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" and "Some UAP appeared to ... move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion" and "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." That doesn't sound like "bug-on-the-lens" type observations to me.
Obviously I can't know how good the DNI evidence is. They haven't shared much of it. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude from the report that people are getting confused with lens flares or equipment failures though.
3. That doesn't seem like an argument at all. Any thing which we have observed for a while but haven't explained would fit this description of being "perpetually liminal". UFOs fit the description worse than most things because they aren't very "perpetual". UFO sightings go back ~70 years. That's hardly perpetual. It's also not the case that we always know roughly the same amount. This report for example uses evidence to advance our understanding, arguing that they are physical objects, that they may emit RF energy, and that they have capabilities we do not.
> For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence.
Like this. No it isn't. It's terrible evidence, it actually isn't evidence at all.
My point is that the observations of the report make me update towards aliens. The observations are consistent with the theory that alien craft operate in our atmosphere. Advanced technology that we don't understand. Doesn't appear to be ours. Yesterday, I wouldn't have said that was true or that we had good reasons to think it was true. Today, I'm more inclined to think it's true.
If my arguments are fallacious or terrible I'd appreciate you explaining how. Multiple witnesses with multiple sensors multiple times across years seems pretty persuasive. You think it's not evidence at all. Why not? What evidence would you expect to see?
The reports are also consistent with angels - angels fly around, have capabilities beyond our technological understanding, and so on.
Your argument is fallacious because it's based on cherry picked, weak accounts that are inherently low-information, and said "it fits the theory".
I believe that 'aliens' exist. It just seems statistically likely, given the size of the universe. But I don't believe that there's other space-fairing life in our solar system, and the nearest celestial bodies are insanely far away. Trying to guess at what that sort of life would be like, how it would behave, or what evidence to expect, is again pointless - we have no information, it's totally baseless guessing.
The entire thing is nonsense. A theory that is based on a complete lack of information and evidence that itself lacks information.
Not compelling.
Personally, I think it's a combination of various perfectly terrestrial events:
1. People lying for attention (the vast majority)
2. Unmanned foreign vehicles that are actually spying on us
3. Equipment or natural aberration (weather events, smudges on lenses, equipment malfunction, lens glares, etc)
Note that unlike the alien theories...
The evidence for (1) and (3) is factual - repeatedly we have found this to be the case. (2) is the most fanciful, but requires far less of a leap of faith and fits within a context that we know does exist ie: technology we know publicly is under pursuit.
(1) Has been repeatedly the case
(2) Doesn't involve any insane advances in technology to explain some of these events, and we can understand the motivations as our own
(3) We know happens as well, as we have with (1)
The DNI report should update your beliefs about aliens in proportion to the extent which you think the report is more likely to be authored in RB relative to RA.
Of the three explanations you offer 1 and 3 have serious problems. The events in question are reported by multiple witnesses and sensors. It's not reasonable to suspect that sensors, in multiple modalities, malfunction in the same way that coincidentally coincides with the reports of human witnesses.
It's similarly not reasonable to think that human witnesses are lying for attention. They are faking the sensor reports? So they can get the attention of reporting something that might discredit or embarrass them? They collude with other human witnesses to do this? It just doesn't seem very reasonable.
Explanation 2 is more coherent. I don't think it is a good explanation because we have no reason to think that significantly more advanced flying technology is in the hands of our competitors. If it were, they would likely not both keep it secret from us, and repeatedly fly it in front of our airmen and sensors in broad daylight.
We should not consider merely those two options, if you're speculating then there are a vast number of "possible" options that "cannot be ruled out". You're cherry picking, exhibiting confirmation bias etc. This is why there is a burden of proof on the hypothesis being proposed.
Disagree strongly with your "not reasonable" about sensors and people. A mish-mash of vague noisy readings cannot really be said to "coincide" much.
If your radar reports some anomaly then the radar is probably malfunctioning. If the electro-optics report the same anomaly at the same time with the same characteristics, that's weird. If both these sensors, and others, agree on some strange data and you witness it with your own eyes and someone else does too... At some point you need to flip your conclusion from "sensor error" to "I'm observing something strange."
There's no basis that I'm aware of to refer to the observations as "A mish-mash of vague most readings".
> I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion.
Could also be angels.
Or IMHO, what I want it to be is visitors from a parallel Earth where the dinosaurs never died out and instead developed a hyper-advanced civilisation. They're now crossing the multiverse (temporarily, that's why they vanish again) and looking at us in complete bemusement, much as we would look at a world where humanity dies out in a nuclear war, and rats evolve and civilise roughly to the level of ancient Egypt or Sumer.
The problem with "you cant rule it out", and "the facts fit the conclusion" thinking about such nebulous phenomena is that there are a vast or infinite number of things that "you can't rule out" and also "fit". It's true but it's a far weaker claim than it seems. What "I want" is just wishful: Your chosen scenario is vanishingly unlikely among them, and assembled out of scraps of pop culture anyway. That's why previous generations say witches, demons, angel's etc. Apophenia describes the person's inner world, as much as the external one. Isn't it convenient that its still such a such a nebulous phenomena?
This is why the burden of proof falls squarely on ruling it _in_.
I think there is good reason to believe that aliens exist (size of the universe, number of planets) and traveling between star systems is consistent with what we know of physics. I also think observing advanced technology in the form of objects flying in our atmosphere is consistent with the "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation. A surprising observation that is consistent with a theory should add confidence to that theory.
"Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I am not saying "It was aliens." I am saying "There is no reason to think the report rules out aliens which the headline suggests, and, actually, the report is consistent with aliens and that's surprising."
I disagree entirely. It is key. You are discarding rationality here.
The "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation is basically ruled out by how it's always liminal observations, never progressing to solid evidence, always a good fit to the limits of the sensors.
It's also not correct to say that there's never solid evidence. The DNI report suggests there is compelling evidence. I've not seen anything to suggest that the observed phenomenon are at the limits of our sensors.
This report was an AP reading comprehension test.
Almost anything, really. But why not leap to the conclusion that you want it to be? I agree that it is a test of thought processes.
1. Previous article mentions "For some Navy pilots, UFO sightings were an ordinary event: ‘Every day for at least a couple years’" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/17/ufo-sightin...) Is DoD too cheap for a bunch of GoPros? If the incidents are that common and a potential security issue, why don't we have validated days worth of high quality video footage already? It seems we can't keep army secrets secure from soldiers taking selfies, but a daily occurrence has barely one annual photo?
2. Given how many non-military flights there are every single day, how do we not have people noticing the same objects from them? Where are the flights with multiple people taking independent videos of the same unidentified object on their phones? (Essentially this issue https://xkcd.com/1235/)
2. These phenomena are concentrated around military bases and other areas of "interest". Hardly places where you'd expect non-military flights to frequent.
2. The objects have to get to those places though. So either the assumption is that they're deployed right next to the base and the launch sites can't be detected, or it can travel in science-defying ways while avoiding all commercial air traffic, but can't avoid military aircraft and just taunts them. I still find both much less plausible than visual artefacts or people lying.
If I were studying a primitive species, I would be no more interested in their war fighting than any other aspect of their society. Maybe that is just me.
If they are concerned about our militaries more than other things, why would they not always be perfectly concealed?
Milwaukee, 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mkRgPGncn0
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOVHS/
To what end?
* US Government is telling the truth - goal may be to figure out what these are.
* US Government is lying - goal may be to mislead an adversary.
Those are just two examples. I find UFOs interesting because its hard to understand the government's intention here and fun to speculate.
Quite possibly: one faction in one branch of "US Government" is manoeuvring for power / money / status from another branch. Uncovering "truth" might be quite irrelevant to this goal; there's a lot of post-truth stuff happening there at present.
https://ritholtz.com/2013/07/organizational-charts-of-amazon...
I don't think there's much more to it than that.
I suspect it was lobbying from AIPAC and from defense contractors that led the US into Iraq. Probably not personal vendettas by one man, even George Bush.
They see the writting on the wall, America can no longer fund its war machine unless there is an enemy, Russia / Cold War is played out even though they are still trying to beat that dead horse, China is not viewed as threat by most citizens as we get all of our cheap shit from them...
Nope Aliens makes a perfect scare for the masses to accept increases in taxation and debt
Their propaganda around "terrorists" is wearing thin. Today people are massively less fearful of the "big bad terrorist" then they were 10 years ago. They are less accepting of the military story that some goat farmer in a dessert is a "threat to national security" that needs a response by multi billion dollar weapons platforms
So now they have two competing treks the classic external threat which was always other nations but is harder and harder to sell to the people these days so the external threat has to become VERY external
Then you have the growing propaganda around internal threats, aka "Domestic Extremism" however it is very hard military make the case the American People are their enemy. The FBI sure, other paramilitary "law enforcement" sure, but that actual official military.. that is a sticky wicket. Though I from the recent report by Glenn Greenwald it seems maybe they are going to try that as well...
I beg to differ. The most obvious explanation is that we literally just don't know what these things are. The second most obvious is that these are foreign advanced drone technology. Saying that "we're actually trying to pull a psyop on our enemies" may or may not be more technologically feasible (at least, given the current state of the art of the private industry), but it's definitely not the most obvious.
I'm not going to call Occam's Razor, though, because militaries are up to spooky things.
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27635934