Mysterious disappearance of UFO-linked Air Force general sparks search

[Trailspotter]

I'd be interested in seeing current studies that are more reputable, then. I was trying to spare you the title, as it was evident.
I think the full paper is available here, at Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01746-3

Actually, this paper is at Humanities & Social Sciences Communication, one of many Nature portfolio journals published by Springer Nature:

 

[Ann K]

Perhaps any current interest in the subject of UAPs simply has more to do with the physical presence of more things in the air. Not many years ago, airplanes with lights and weather balloons (plus the occasional kite) were the only artificial objects to be seen, and "space ships" were pretty much universally viewed as the entertaining stuff of science fiction. We now have satellites by the hundreds and drones (large and small) by the many thousands. Anyone who chooses to go out on a dark night and look up can almost be assured of spotting something of interest, and anyone who gets a photo or a video is likely to milk it for "fame and fortune" in some small measure.

So is the subject best studied as a sociological phenomenon? Our assembled body on this site has done a good job of explaining the physical, but I don't think we are well positioned to explain it to people who value affirmation over explanation. I don't have any expertise in that area and I certainly have no solutions to offer, but some of you might.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I think y'all are chugging along okay now. We'll have to wait and see how things go. Hopefully evidence for you will arise.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

So is the subject best studied as a sociological phenomenon?

Yes, but that is already being done.
I'm ok with both: Studying UFOs as a social/psychological/archetypal phenomenon and also studying the real flying objects.
The two things don't necessarily need to be correlated.

 

[Ann K]

Yes, but that is already being done.
I'm ok with both: Studying UFOs as a social/psychological/archetypal phenomenon and also studying the real flying objects.
The two things don't necessarily need to be correlated.

But we don't HAVE any "real flying objects" that are UFOs. Sociology, one of the "soft sciences", still has facts and figures to work with, but there have been no solid objects to study except the mundane.

That means, of course, that they cannot be correlated...

 

[Ann K]

I think y'all are chugging along okay now. We'll have to wait and see how things go. Hopefully evidence for you will arise.

You exhibit a distressing lack of skepticism. Are you sure this is the right forum for you?

 

[Todd Feinman]

You exhibit a distressing lack of skepticism. Are you sure this is the right forum for you?

I'm not skeptical about the existence of anomalous objects. And I generally try to let folks do their own thing on this forum without challenging them much anymore. It certainly hasn't been easy. But I think (hope) folks here would like to be more than just an echo chamber for reactionary skepticism; forums are a place to challenge one's opinions, and learn, if possible. It's good to accept that others might have different opinions, or experiences that are different.
Initially I felt like it was my responsibility to communicate what I've seen to other people, but I see that it is mostly a hopeless endeavor, and that's been quite illuminating for me.
I've mentioned it before, but I'm amazed at how much time some people who have never seen what I would consider real UFOs, spend totally obsessed with them; skeptics and believers alike. If I hadn't seen what I'd seen, I'd be more focused on other things.
I do find it fascinating to watch people who have never seen something truly shocking fight about something I've seen. Watching the shells from scientist and believers and influencers flying overhead, while I work on projects.
But did I know I would eventually see that comment from you? —Yes.