> "We have 50 to 100-ish new reports each month," said Sean Kirkpatrick, director of Nasa's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
> But he said the number of those sightings which are "possibly really anomalous" are 2% to 5% of the total database.
So... 1-2 per month that are even in the "possible" category, and given the anecdotes around lunch microwaves and "turns out it was a commercial aircraft" this is not going to be the all-revealing report some folks are looking for.
Kirkpatrick's slide notes of those UAP's typical characteristics:
round, 1-4 meters diameter, white/silver/translucent, at 10K-30K feet altitude, up to Mach 2, no thermal exhaust
That is quite revealing in my book. Those are no conventionally powered "drones".
"So many"? I just quoted the part of the article that says it's 1-5 people per month with "possibly really anomalous" reports.
And no, it's neither clearly "real" nor "air-borne". What gets recorded on instruments, including video, is an imperfect reflection of what's happening, and to think that because something has been recorded means it's real is not accurate.
"Extraordinary" is no scientific category, it's purely subjective bias based on limited knowledge, aka "ignorance". Basing (in)actions on ignorance and faulty logic is never advisible.
These objects exist in a domain of low observability due to common limitations of our sensor technology. Additionally, you assume them to be entirely passive and observed by uniform chance alone. Which presumably should lead to them turning up in somebody's living room. That is nonsense of course.
"Extraordinary" is absolutely a scientific "category", used to describe ideas that not only lack explanation given current understanding, but also substantially upend that current understanding.
These "objects" do not exist simply because recorded measurements could be explained by their existence. Without also providing a way to fit the existence of these objects into reproducible, falsifiable explanations that globally conform to all other theories of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., what you have is nothing more than a wild claim.
In other words, "extraordinary" is a euphemism for lazy pseudoscience. Do the work before making the claim.
You never assume a claim as just real. You take the approach of a skeptic and attain all information before coming to a factual conclusion. If no conclusion is reached it is put in the pile of I don’t know.
I’m taking a different approach to disclosing UFOs
If they did come out and say “ yeah we’ve known for a while” you have to realize that the world economy would crash.
Eventually there would be
Instant transportation for everyone and
Free energy for everyone
That is why disclosure will never happen until the powers that be all die off or something unimaginable happens.
Half the world isn't reporting UFO sightings, only 2%-5% of 50-100 (which is 1-5) monthly are considered "possibly really anomalous" (per the article).
Now if you think 1-5 monthly is "too many" to be considered "crazy" people, I've got some bad news...
> The number of people you know who have already had close encounters is incredible, it cannot be that they are all crazy, something has to be true
How many people in this world claim to have had close encounters with supernatural entities-deities, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts, etc? It cannot be that they are all crazy, something has to be true
If you aren’t convinced by that argument, you shouldn’t be convinced by your own, because its logic is the same
If you show "uneducated" people wild stuff, they will give even wilder recounts of that experience. That doesn't make the event unreal.
Religious or "esoteric" explanations are simply representations in a pre-scientific world view. That doesn't necessarily render the events represented "unscientific" (which people equate to "unreal").
You could use this argument to either support or refute all world religions. I don’t understand how you could argue that large numbers of people can’t be wrong (see most of history)
I don't understand, this particular comment doesn't even show up in the comment page for that use profile? It's so bizarre haha. somebody should @ dang and ask
edit:
I think the sequence of events was this:
- user posted a genuine comment
- people replied to the original comment
- user edited the comment and changed it to that random sequence of letters and digits
- replies now appeared out of context
- the edited post was flagged in the short time span between me seeing it, and checking the comments page on the user profile (which is why I couldn't see it)
I imagine they're blasé about it precisely because they know these belong to no known actor, so far, they haven't shown any kind of signs of aggression towards anyone.
So, I think, these are viewed more like animals than anything else. Is that the right approach? Maybe? But maybe if anyone tried to touch them, shoot them down or whatever, we don't know what kind of reaction we'd get from them.
I dislike that the article is filled with the false positive (FP) anecdotes. It’s important to state that there are many false positives, there must be. However, the focus should be on minimizing these FPs while maximizing true signal, and investigating these in depth. Everything that is potentially true signal, is what I want to read about, not something something microwaves during lunchtime.
Idle comment: the popular UFO/UAP discourse, has a major new strand predicated on the hypothesis that the phenomena are associated not with ETs in the "these are the ships they flew here in, or away craft from their mothership parked elsewhere in the solar system,"
but rather with some civilization whose presence in the solar system and indeed on earth predates our own,
which shades over in one subset, into a set of hypotheses about panspermia or humanity being engineered.
Some with these views parse official statements from a different direction than most, believing they discern carefully chosen language which plays to consensus ideas about what might be being investigated and what might be known.
Idle response: physics as we know it make using metal bricks to travel between star systems vanishingly unlikely. It's way too costly in terms of both energy/materials and time.
What I believe "wrap speed" technology will turn out to be, as well as the truth about the nature of life and ultimately our civilization, is that ancestral intelligence forms have learned to use much more ephemeral expressions capable of harnessing quantum entaglement-like interaction to travel and manipulate reality. Getting even more outlandish: I think this solves Fermi paradox as well as the enigma of how fast hunter-gatherer apes suddenly went from farming villages to orbital stations. We are a colony of such beings into more hoarse matter. They found an ecosystem, and figured out a way to inject people into it as a way to maybe imprison and/or re-educate unruly types.
And now our material techniques have advanced far enough that we can actually begin to detect some of their activities.
What I find frustrating is that the committee members state that out 800 cases in their database, only 2%~5% of them show "truly anomalous" properties, that they only have a limited number of sightings with high-quality data, and yet instead of showing that, they only show examples of low-quality data with no "anomalous properties".
We all understand that the vast amount of the examples they have will be misidentified jets or balloons, it is only to be expected, but that is of no interest to the audience. If there are high-quality observations of anomalous objects, that is what should be showcased, even if they remain unidentified.
36 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 91.2 ms ] thread> But he said the number of those sightings which are "possibly really anomalous" are 2% to 5% of the total database.
So... 1-2 per month that are even in the "possible" category, and given the anecdotes around lunch microwaves and "turns out it was a commercial aircraft" this is not going to be the all-revealing report some folks are looking for.
That is quite revealing in my book. Those are no conventionally powered "drones".
You have to explain why so many people err in the same way, if you want to claim those reports to be counter-factual.
He shows a video of one of those "round" (rather spherical) objects. While not going at Mach 2 in that instance, it's clearly real and air-borne.
And no, it's neither clearly "real" nor "air-borne". What gets recorded on instruments, including video, is an imperfect reflection of what's happening, and to think that because something has been recorded means it's real is not accurate.
Your "It's not clearly real or airborne" is interesting. Technically, you are correct, but it's a remarkably absurd stretch here.
The level-headed approach would clearly be, to assume it was real and attain better data.
Why are these videos always so grainy, out of focus, and otherwise unclear? Perhaps when clear and unambiguous video is captured there is no mystery…
These objects exist in a domain of low observability due to common limitations of our sensor technology. Additionally, you assume them to be entirely passive and observed by uniform chance alone. Which presumably should lead to them turning up in somebody's living room. That is nonsense of course.
These "objects" do not exist simply because recorded measurements could be explained by their existence. Without also providing a way to fit the existence of these objects into reproducible, falsifiable explanations that globally conform to all other theories of physics, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., what you have is nothing more than a wild claim.
In other words, "extraordinary" is a euphemism for lazy pseudoscience. Do the work before making the claim.
I said, you assume the observation to be real. That does not say you already knew what it was.
Eventually there would be Instant transportation for everyone and Free energy for everyone
That is why disclosure will never happen until the powers that be all die off or something unimaginable happens.
My two cents.
Now if you think 1-5 monthly is "too many" to be considered "crazy" people, I've got some bad news...
How many people in this world claim to have had close encounters with supernatural entities-deities, spirits, angels, demons, ghosts, etc? It cannot be that they are all crazy, something has to be true
If you aren’t convinced by that argument, you shouldn’t be convinced by your own, because its logic is the same
If you show "uneducated" people wild stuff, they will give even wilder recounts of that experience. That doesn't make the event unreal.
Religious or "esoteric" explanations are simply representations in a pre-scientific world view. That doesn't necessarily render the events represented "unscientific" (which people equate to "unreal").
FWIW, I checked spk-17's profile - there's no key or trick mentioned to help the clueless like me decipher this.
edit: I think the sequence of events was this:
- user posted a genuine comment
- people replied to the original comment
- user edited the comment and changed it to that random sequence of letters and digits
- replies now appeared out of context
- the edited post was flagged in the short time span between me seeing it, and checking the comments page on the user profile (which is why I couldn't see it)
DoD, NASA & Co react with pointedly blasé attitude, pretending there was nothing remarkable about that.
Does HN buy into that?
So, I think, these are viewed more like animals than anything else. Is that the right approach? Maybe? But maybe if anyone tried to touch them, shoot them down or whatever, we don't know what kind of reaction we'd get from them.
but rather with some civilization whose presence in the solar system and indeed on earth predates our own,
which shades over in one subset, into a set of hypotheses about panspermia or humanity being engineered.
Some with these views parse official statements from a different direction than most, believing they discern carefully chosen language which plays to consensus ideas about what might be being investigated and what might be known.
What I believe "wrap speed" technology will turn out to be, as well as the truth about the nature of life and ultimately our civilization, is that ancestral intelligence forms have learned to use much more ephemeral expressions capable of harnessing quantum entaglement-like interaction to travel and manipulate reality. Getting even more outlandish: I think this solves Fermi paradox as well as the enigma of how fast hunter-gatherer apes suddenly went from farming villages to orbital stations. We are a colony of such beings into more hoarse matter. They found an ecosystem, and figured out a way to inject people into it as a way to maybe imprison and/or re-educate unruly types.
And now our material techniques have advanced far enough that we can actually begin to detect some of their activities.
We all understand that the vast amount of the examples they have will be misidentified jets or balloons, it is only to be expected, but that is of no interest to the audience. If there are high-quality observations of anomalous objects, that is what should be showcased, even if they remain unidentified.