Claim: UFO's May Be Stealth Aliens Living in Caves, on the Dark Side of the Moon or Alaska

[John J.]

Yes, to echo NorCal Dave, a belated "Hi!"

One plausible reason for not making contact is that it could risk cultural contamination.

Does that mean every sighting / every person who believes that UFOs are alien craft is an example of the alien's failure?

They're very well represented in popular culture.

 

[Mendel]

The quote I'm thinking of is this one from the paper (bold by me):

We are not arguing that UAP do have a cryptoterrestrial explanation, but simply that they could, and the judicious approach is to consider all valid theories until the evidence decisively demonstrates they should be rejected.

Apply this logic to any scam (Nigerian prince, inheritance, penis enlargement pills), and it quickly becomes clear that "it might be valid" is a bad principle to live by (but the hall mark of the con man trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge, penny stocks, etc.). Remember that AARO's historical report has exposed the scammers! As have many debunkers!

 

[Mendel]

One plausible reason for not making contact is that it could risk cultural contamination. It may be more interesting to observe an undisturbed primitive civilization than to try to make friends. Arguably, since we are such a fresh technological civilization, and the majority of other technological civilizations are probably vastly older than us (assuming rapid extinction following technological development isn't too common), then we could be a major interest for observation. Our era could be a rare and pivotal moment in the natural evolution of intelligent life. I've heard people suggest that for a highly developed technological civilization, it could be similar in a way to observing abiogenesis.

The only precedent for this is in fiction.
It's not plausible at all, unless you suspend disbelief.

I disagree. These are logical arguments with clear assumptions. We make similar arguments when we propose that ET life might be likely to be carbon based or require water.

There is no "logic" involved in these arguments. They do not progress from established assumptions to conclusions, but are wholesale speculation.

 

[beku-mant]

The only precedent for this is in fiction.
It's not plausible at all, unless you suspend disbelief.

There is no "logic" involved in these arguments. They do not progress from established assumptions to conclusions, but are wholesale speculation.

I am not sure what you're disagreeing with specifically, or what alternatives you think capture 100% of the probability weight.

 

[beku-mant]

Even Jacques Vallée has stated ...

I don't view the complete body of UFO or alien encounter reports as a package deal. It is even possible that we have been visited by probes and none of the UFO sightings or alien encounters are true encounters with aliens or alien technologies. It's also possible that some fraction of sightings are sightings of alien technologies.

So, I would not consider the estimation of millions of encounters to be reliable. I also don't agree with Jacques Vallée's argument based on this estimation, even if it were accurate.

Does that mean every sighting / every person who believes that UFOs are alien craft is an example of the alien's failure?

They're very well represented in popular culture.

I don't think we could reliably deduce how extraterrestrials would interact with us. There are many possibilities for what their goals or motivations would be, how they would think or compute, what forms they might take, biological or artificial intelligence, etc. But in response to an argument that aliens coming here would never result in what seems to be happening now, I think you can come up with plausible counter examples.

 

[Mendel]

I am not sure what you're disagreeing with specifically, or what alternatives you think capture 100% of the probability weight.

I am disagreeing with you calling your speculation "plausible" and a "logical argument". I don't see any grounds to designate it as such.

I do not understand your use of "probability weight" in this context.
I suspect it's a rewording of "if you can't 100% explain it, it's aliens (NIH)".

 

[Mendel]

But in response to an argument that aliens coming here would never result in what seems to be happening now, I think you can come up with plausible counter examples.

The logic of your argument is backwards. You assume that aliens came here and are hiding, then make assumptions based on that, and then use these unfounded assumptions to argue that it's plausible that aliens came here and are hiding. That is circular reasoning, and logically invalid.

 

[beku-mant]

I think the speculation that aliens might send probs is for more logical than a bunch of Greys and Nordics or Lumarians hiding out under Mt. Shasta. But it's still just speculation.

Sure, but I wouldn't pretend to know even what probes from a civilization thousands of years or more ahead of us would be like. For example, I could not rule out that some might use biological mechanisms as a form of technology. My guess would be that the combination of extraterrestrial and (likely) much more advanced than us, would probably result in something very weird, possibly even beyond my ability to comprehend at this moment.

 

[beku-mant]

I am disagreeing with you calling your speculation "plausible" and a "logical argument". I don't see any grounds to designate it as such.

I do not understand your use of "probability weight" in this context.
I suspect it's a rewording of "if you can't 100% explain it, it's aliens (NIH)".

The thought experiment that starts with the assumption that extraterrestrials have come here, was already being carried out. It is commonly done in fact by people who are disbelievers. It's just that often it is done for the purpose of finding what could be argued to be inconsistencies between the assumption and some set of claims (sightings, encounters), or between the assumption and the body of empirical evidence. One example would be, if they are coming here, we should have photographic evidence, etc. I'm simply engaging in the same thought experiment, with the same base assumption (if they have come here), and then using what we know from science, such as the known laws of physics, distances between stars, the fact that we are a fresh technological civilization, etc., and then drawing logical implications based on that (e.g., long distances imply long communication delays, make back and forth travel impractical, etc.) and then forming an argument for why deciding to remain hidden or not make contact isn't strictly nonsensical. There are plausible reasons why some ET civilization might make that choice.

If you're objecting absolutely to the thought experiment, then I guess you also object to the thought experiment based arguments that people make to shed doubt on the ET visitation hypothesis as well. Otherwise, if you're participating in the thought experiment, then you're implying that aliens coming here would definitely make contact and would not hide themselves. If that's your argument, then I will wonder what is the logic that brought you to that conclusion.

I suspect we are not exactly on the same page.

 

[Mendel]

For example, I could not rule out that some might use biological mechanisms as a form of technology.

"The term biotechnology was first used by Károly Ereky in 1919 to refer to the production of products from raw materials with the aid of living organisms." ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology )
This is not incomprehensible.

 

[Mauro]

............

Now, I don't have any proof of this but I'm pretty sure nobody has proof that it DID NOT happen. So, by the authors logic, the theory that UFOs are really just part of a Hollywood secret marketing campaign:

we argue this possibility should not be summarily dismissed, and instead deserves genuine consideration in a spirit of epistemic humility and openness.

I await someone proving my HAM (Hollywood Alien Marketing) idea wrong .

Double thumbs up!

 

[Mendel]

The thought experiment that starts with the assumption that extraterrestrials have come here, was already being carried out. It is commonly done in fact by people who are disbelievers.

Yes. They do it when arguing with believers, who already accept this as a premise, and the argument type is reductio ad absurdum, which proves something true by showing that the opposite must be false: it is true that there are no aliens here, because it is impossible for it to be true that there are.

If you want to show that aliens must be hiding here using that same type of logic, you must first assume that they're not hiding here, and then show that this is false. (Since there's no hard evidence that aliens exist, the idea that there aren't any aliens here can't be refuted. The argument fails.)

If you want to argue against such a reductio ad absurdum, you need to present it, and then successfully disprove a step, e.g. "interstellar travel is hard". (Coincidentally (or not!) the topic of this thread.)

 

[Mendel]

the fact that we are a fresh technological civilization,

This is speculation, as we have no way to measure the "freshness" of a "technological" civilisation. (What even is a "technological civilisation", as opposed to one that is not?)

You then use that speculation to propose a "cultural contamination" ethos that has its only precedent in fiction, used by authors who wish to present an alien society from our perspective.

I submit that it is generally recognized that communication is the primary prerequisite for peaceful co-existence.

 

[Mauro]

I submit that it is generally recognized that communication is the primary prerequisite for peaceful co-existence.

Total lack of communication or minimal communication (say some bits every tens of years, on interstellar distances) would be perfectly fine too

 

[Mendel]

Total lack of communication or minimal communication (say some bits every tens of years, on interstellar distances) would be perfectly fine too

to not communicate with people who are not here is fine

but a stranger who sat in my living-room and did not communicate would be scary
"You interest me. I'm just observing you. Carry on."

 

[captancourgette]

But this guy is Jesus....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuy_García

And this guy was Jesus Christ (well up until he changed his name)

Spoiler

[/spiler]

 

[John J.]

What even is a "technological civilisation", as opposed to one that is not?

In fairness to @beku-mant, I think I used that phrase first (without really thinking of a definition), if not on this thread then elsewhere.

Forced to invent a definition, I'd waffle something like "A society where engine/ electrical-powered machinery is in widespread use, affecting most of the people in that society, and where there's a widespread understanding that such machinery can be improved within someone's lifetime, and that other machinery/ manufactured devices will be developed which will also affect many in that society".

Clunky, I know. If allowed I'd chuck in something about effective real-time long-distance communication by technical means, use of scientific methodology, purpose-built scientific instruments, but frankly it's all a bit of a hodgepodge!

But you're right of course, e.g. there was an Acheulean technology

Spanning ca 1.7–0.1 Myr, the Acheulean is the longest-lasting technology in prehistory.

Ignacio de la Torre, The origins of the Acheulean: past and present perspectives on a major transition in human evolution,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, July 2016.

 

[Ann K]

It is even possible that we have been visited by probes and none of the UFO sightings or alien encounters are true encounters with aliens or alien technologies. It's also possible that some fraction of sightings are sightings of alien technologies

Sorry, but I've lost your meaning here. If we have been "visited by probes", are they not an example of "alien technologies"?

But in response to an argument that aliens coming here would never result in what seems to be happening now, I think you can come up with plausible counter examples.

What, precisely, do you think "seems to be happening now"? That phrase would suggest that you are presupposing some level of actual alien visitations among the UFO reports, and as yet we have no reason to think that, given the complete absence of credible evidence for the proposition.

 

[jarlrmai]

In fairness to @beku-mant, I think I used that phrase first (without really thinking of a definition), if not on this thread then elsewhere.

Forced to invent a definition, I'd waffle something like "A society where engine/ electrical-powered machinery is in widespread use, affecting most of the people in that society, and where there's a widespread understanding that such machinery can be improved within someone's lifetime, and that other machinery/ manufactured devices will be developed which will also affect many in that society".

Clunky, I know. If allowed I'd chuck in something about effective real-time long-distance communication by technical means, use of scientific methodology, purpose-built scientific instruments, but frankly it's all a bit of a hodgepodge!

But you're right of course, e.g. there was an Acheulean technology

Spanning ca 1.7–0.1 Myr, the Acheulean is the longest-lasting technology in prehistory.

Ignacio de la Torre, The origins of the Acheulean: past and present perspectives on a major transition in human evolution,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, July 2016.

There's an attempt to classify technological civilisations with the Kardashev scale

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

I think it veers too much in to sci-fi speculation to be that useful though

 

[Mendel]

Forced to invent a definition, I'd waffle something

maybe it's more efficient to refer to existing definitions, like the Kardashev scale, which classifies civilisations according to their energy consumption. They typically consider technological-ness of a society on a sliding scale, making "freshness" a useless concept.

 

[Mendel]

Sorry, but I've lost your meaning here. If we have been "visited by probes", are they not an example of "alien technologies"?

I understood @beku-mant to refer to visits that went unobserved and left no evidence.

 

[JMartJr]

I understood @beku-mant to refer to visits that went unobserved and left no evidence.

So that it is possible there may conceivably have been alien probes/ships/etc. and none of them were observed as UFOs -- the whole UFOs=aliens thing CAN be false even if there have been totally unrelated (unobserved) visits? Interesting concept!

(Just re-stating it so you can correct me if I've misread...)

 

[Ann K]

I understood @beku-mant to refer to visits that went unobserved and left no evidence.

Fair enough. Also very convenient, since we cannot debunk anything that "went unobserved and left no evidence".

 

[John J.]

Sort of sniffing around the background of the Lomas/ Masters/ Case paper, I found an article by Michael P. Masters,
"Ancient Astronauts, Anthropology, and Pseudoscientific Claims", published in The SCU Review #7, October 2021
("SCU" being the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies- the link is to an online PDF of the whole journal).

To my surprise- considering what an unmitigated Gish-gallop the Lomas/ Masters/Case paper is- it's a pretty reasonable critique of some "Ancient Astronaut" claims.

I can't help but wonder what on Earth made him write the 2024 paper with Lomas and Case.

I've screen-grabbed Master's 2021 article, click to enlarge if interested.



Interestingly, The SCU Review PDF includes a clickable link to its contributing member list.

I don't know its date; the Oct. 2021 SCU Review states there are 81 contributing members; there are 135 on the spreadsheet.

Members include a Christopher Mellon and a Hal Puthoff.
Maybe some of the other names are familiar to people here?
Wondered briefly if first name "D", last name anonymous but among the G's, might be David Grusch
(the list appears to indicate if the members have military experience or not, "MIL") but I don't think he's in Florida?

 

[jdog]

Sorry, but I've lost your meaning here. If we have been "visited by probes", are they not an example of "alien technologies"?



What, precisely, do you think "seems to be happening now"? That phrase would suggest that you are presupposing some level of actual alien visitations among the UFO reports, and as yet we have no reason to think that, given the complete absence of credible evidence for the proposition.

I agree.

What we do have evidence of is a mass sociocultural experience.

What we don't have evidence of is any physical manifestation of "something happening."

 

[jarlrmai]

Fair enough. Also very convenient, since we cannot debunk anything that "went unobserved and left no evidence".

We can't even know if anything at all occurred by the very definition, if something is not observed and left no evidence it is indistinguishable from something that didn't happen.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Members include a Christopher Mellon and a Hal Puthoff.
Maybe some of the other names are familiar to people here?

Yeah, along with Puthoff's side kick Eric Davis there's also the UAPx guys Kevin Knuth and Matt Szydagis. Phyliss Budinger also has ties to various UFO meta-material claims. She helped test the aerator windmill part UFO piece Vallee thinks was removed from inside a crashed UFO:

While she concluded it was very terrestrial, that might be because, as Dr. Master's points out in the OP paper and his other works, aliens might be from the future:

Budinger also was involved in testing supposed pieces recovered from the supposed Ubatuba UFO crash. Budinger and her colleagues agree that the sample they tested isn't a good one, but the story is just too good not to:

The ideal UFO artifact useful for isotope testing should 1) be something physical in a solid state, 2) have been witnessed or otherwise determined to be clearly involved with a UFO, and 3) have acceptable provenance and adequate data collection. These criteria are not easy to meet, first because the events themselves are rare (far less than 0.1% of UFO reports), and also because of the lack of investigative resources to meet points 2 and 3. Although the Ubatuba samples are not conclusively tied to a UFO event, the rarity of such a sample, the interesting circumstances of how it became available, and the long history of prior testing motivated this new analysis

https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/36/jse_36_1_Powell.pdf

Discussed more here:

Thread 'Meta Materials From UFOs'

Jun 16, 2023

The claim of recovered materials from UFOs, crashed or otherwise, comes in various forms and pops up in various UFO/UAP related threads. These claims can also derail other threads as the notion of recovered meta materials is a small or tangential part of a greater claim. The case of whistleblower David Grusch comes to mind. One of his many claims involves reverse engineering of "materials of non-human origins", which can lead to Gary Nolen and Jaque Vallee's work on supposed UFO material and then Tom DeLong's TTSA (To The Stars Acadamy)'s claim of meta-materials and onto the late Art...

• NorCal Dave
• Replies: 134
• Forum: UFOs and Aliens

• 

Some aspects of Szydagis now taken down OpEd are discussed here:

Thread 'Szydagis' point 3: Interstellar travel is too hard'

Oct 18, 2022

Another point from Szydagis' lengthy discussion supporting the possibility of alien visitors:

Consider a craft with 1g of acceleration (9.8 m/s²) as well achievable with our current tech, just not sustainable long term due to fuel requirements. Putting the fuel issue aside, we could do this today without killing the occupant. This 1g acceleration is sufficient to achieve near-light speed in 1 year

https://uapx-media.medium.com/addre...-criticisms-against-studying-uap-5663335fe8c8

The phrase "Putting the fuel issue aside" struck me as hand-waving away...

• Ann K
• Replies: 369
• Forum: UFOs and Aliens

• 
• 

Thread 'Szydagis : Addressing the Most Common Criticisms Against Studying UAP'

Oct 17, 2022

Addressing the Most Common Criticisms Against Studying UAP

https://uapx-media.medium.com/addre...-criticisms-against-studying-uap-5663335fe8c8

From the article:

Despite numerous newspaper articles from trustworthy sources in the
mainstream media [1], despite Pentagon admissions [2] and Congressional hearings [3], interest in UAP studies is met with laughter and derision, both from inside and outside of the scientific community, including from prominent science communicators [4]. Why is this the case? Let's break down the common criticisms of...

• Duke
• Replies: 7
• Forum: UFOs and Aliens

Thread 'Szydagis Point #2: “It’s curious that Asia and Africa have so few sightings, and sightings stop at the Canadian and Mexican borders."'

Oct 20, 2022

Continuing on with Dr. Szydagis' article on "debunking the debunkers" I'll offer up some thoughts on point #2. I'm calling this a kind of Straw Man necklace or hat. Szydagis is responding to an actual misguided quote, but it's not really from a debunker or a debunk of anything specific, nevertheless, Szydagis attempts to place this idea around the neck or onto the head all debunkers.

The actual quote as used by Szydagis is as follows and is footnoted as (75):

It's curious that Asia and Africa have so few sightings despite their large populations, and even more surprising that...

• NorCal Dave
• Replies: 42
• Forum: UFOs and Aliens

• 
• 

Knuth's UAP claims have been discussed here to, but I can't find them at the moment. I recall a long YouTube video with him and Szydagis. Also of note I think the 2 of them through UAPx got involved with the dubious film A Tear in the Sky, discussed here:

Thread 'A Tear In The Sky - Nimitz/Tic-Tac/Catalina UFO Documentary'

Apr 4, 2022

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yXGl15sJYM


This documentary follow the work of UAPx, as they revisit (roughly) the area of the 2004 Nimitz UFO sightings, and try to find something interesting flying in the airspace between Catalina Island, Long Beach, and Laguna Beach.

They use a variety of equipment:

Two things they feature in the trailer are a "wormhole", and a "Navy Tic-Tac". The latter shows up in thermal footage

Before zooming in it reminded me of the Chilean UFO (an A340) - and of course that region is very...

• Mick West
• Replies: 93
• Forum: UFO Reports from the US Military and Government

So yeah, the UFO click is a relatively small group of interconnected folks.

 

[Scaramanga]

I don't view the complete body of UFO or alien encounter reports as a package deal. It is even possible that we have been visited by probes and none of the UFO sightings or alien encounters are true encounters with aliens or alien technologies. It's also possible that some fraction of sightings are sightings of alien technologies.

Not viewing the entirety of UFO encounters as a package deal is precisely what allows people to get away with ignoring the ever growing list of debunks and trying to salvage UFOlogy with a ' but what about case XYZ ?' approach. Never mind all the previous case XYZs that were presented in such manner and got debunked. It is clutching at straws.

Exactly the same thing happens with ghosts, bigfoot, Mothman, etc, etc. People want to believe...and they maintain that belief through an endless series of ' but what about... ?'

 

[beku-mant]

What, precisely, do you think "seems to be happening now"?

I think a lot of people's descriptions of their UFO sightings are accurate descriptions, that there is a real, unconventional, mystery behind at least some UFO experiences, and that getting to the bottom of the mystery should be a high priority for the scientific community. Government information about the topic should be made transparent.

I may be biased about that, because I am a UFO witness myself. I have some perspective, because of my own sighting, that many other skeptics may lack. I understand why people like yourself would be so doubtful. I don't present my own experience as evidence that should sway your beliefs. But I think that overall there is a strong case to be made that even disbeliever skeptics should take the topic seriously, even the possibility that extraterrestrial technology is at place in some instances.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If you're objecting absolutely to the thought experiment, then I guess you also object to the thought experiment based arguments that people make to shed doubt on the ET visitation hypothesis as well. Otherwise, if you're participating in the thought experiment, then you're implying that aliens coming here would definitely make contact and would not hide themselves. If that's your argument, then I will wonder what is the logic that brought you to that conclusion.

Thought experiments are fine and fun and on the one hand I could see where that's all this paper is. As noted upthread by @John J., 2 of the authors are also editors of the journal this appeared in. That journal is Philosophy & Cosmology and seems to have originated in Ukraine back in 2013 or so. Of the 16 editors, 1/2 are based in Ukraine:

http://ispcjournal.org/editorial-board/

We see that 6 of these board members have Doctorates in "Philosophical Sciences", 6 have advanced degrees in Philosophy with Theology, Economics and Law rounding out the rest. I would think these are people that think and discuss the nature of humanity and reality. A quick glance at a random issue brings up an article by another Editorial Board member Rafael Pulido-Moyano:

Towards a Spiritual Model of Cosmic Education Based on Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

From the abstract:

The author holds that this world has no future unless spirituality becomes the substrate of educational processes. In NVCE, which is a proposal to raise the educational building from spiritual pillars, to educate is to guide others and ourselves on the path that leads to the nondual experience. From the nondual vedantic perspective, cosmic education is the path through which human beings progressively dissolve their limited individualities into the nature of God.

http://ispcjournal.org/31-6/

It's over my head but sounds like we need to learn how to "dissolve" our "individualities into the nature of God". Sound very Thought Experiment to me. Which is fine, this journal seems to be a lot of this kinda thing. A lot of "what about this?"

However, I don't think that's how the authors are presenting this paper. It's not a thought experiment, rather it's an attempt to provide possible answers to the UAP question, which is giving as prima facia. Dr. Masters didn't go on CBS and talk about a thought experiment related to aliens. He asserted that aliens fit the model of future evolved humans. That means aliens are real to being with. Something for which there is no evidence.

We can come up with all kinds of fun and interesting concepts about aliens and where they're from, what they do why they're here and so on, but its just that, a thought experiment and speculation about something that there is no evidence for.

 

[Ann K]

I think a lot of people's descriptions of their UFO sightings are accurate descriptions, that there is a real, unconventional, mystery behind at least some UFO experiences, and that getting to the bottom of the mystery should be a high priority for the scientific community. Government information about the topic should be made transparent.

And yet... When we have a sighting that has a lot of information (time and location and direction, or multiple witnesses, or photos or videos), we find that again and again, people have mistaken mundane events for mysterious ones, or the multiple witnesses all describe something differently. How can they be considered "accurate" if that's the case? Should we call witness A accurate because he saw something mysterious, and disregard the others although B, C, and D were just as reliable, just as sober, and just as articulate, yet they didn't see anything out of the ordinary? We have seen airline pilots (assumed by most people to be reliable witnesses) report other "planes" that turned out to be Venus, and a good many of them breathlessly reporting UFOs that turned out to be Starlink satellites.

If we come up with some new methods that can distinguish between "accurate descriptions" and "inaccurate descriptions", they would have to compare sightings with some genuine alien craft. We have none. So for the moment, we have to take every report with a large grain of salt, since there is no evidence of what you call "real unconventional mysteries". As for government transparency, we are still faced with the people who, when they read a governmental report that says we have no evidence of UFOs, choose to disbelieve it and say "See, they're hiding something from us" because they have chosen their beliefs in spite of the lack of evidence.

I get it, a good many people want to believe that E.T. has landed, but that remains an unfounded belief.

 

[beku-mant]

I get it, a good many people want to believe that E.T. has landed, but that remains an unfounded belief.

Part of the perspective that my own sighting has provided me with, is the recognition of inconsistencies between what (at least some people such as my self) experience and what goes through their minds, and the mental image that many skeptics like yourself portray about people who have UFO sightings and what goes through their minds.

I can say confidently that you don't properly understand all of the people you think you do, nor what they experienced or why.

Sure, for some, it may be about what they want to believe and they will apply faulty reasoning to convince themselves, and also some just want to disbelieve and will apply faulty reasoning to convince themselves. But some have found good reasons to take the topic seriously, and want to apply sound reasoning and a scientific process to figure out what's going on.

 

[Mendel]

Part of the perspective that my own sighting has provided me with, is the recognition of inconsistencies between what (at least some people such as my self) experience and what goes through their minds, and the mental image that many skeptics like yourself portray about people who have UFO sightings and what goes through their minds.

I can say confidently that you don't properly understand all of the people you think you do, nor what they experienced or why.

Sure, for some, it may be about what they want to believe and they will apply faulty reasoning to convince themselves, and also some just want to disbelieve and will apply faulty reasoning to convince themselves. But some have found good reasons to take the topic seriously, and want to apply sound reasoning and a scientific process to figure out what's going on.

I can confidently say that you do not properly understand what we think goes through people's minds, because "faulty reasoning" is not how I would describe it.

In most cases, people are trying to make sense of novel experiences by using concepts they've been previously exposed to, which is generally how humans make sense of the world.

That is why pilots described "racetrack" sightings of Starlink on-position reflections as if they were the lights of aircraft in a holding pattern: making sense of something they saw using the knowledge they had. In fact, at first nobody knew that Starlink satellite observations could take on that appearance!

The observation itself was accurate, the pilot's interpretation of it was incorrect, but not through faulty reasoning, but simply because they did not know what it was, and it was similar to something they knew. (Then some motivated parties, rather than working to explain the observation, were eager to sell this as UFO sightings that require a government UFO program, disclosure, etc.)

Often, this sense-making is informed by popular culture: in the 19th century, people would have used ghosts where 20th and 21st century people use aliens to make sense of novel sensations.

That said (and coming back to the topic at hand), both the far side of the moon and Alaska have been mapped, and the existence of alien outposts there can be confidently denied. No matter what an observer's experience was, this is not the correct explanation.

 

[FatPhil]

With this paper, Michael P. Masters turns scientific methodology on its head:
Because we have no real evidence for extraterrestrials on Earth, that is evidence that they might be hiding.

This looks quite like an instance of the Linda paradox (more formally the "Conjunction Fallacy"). He seems to be taking P(visited ^ hiding) as larger than P(visited). I'd have given him P(hiding | visited) being quite high. But you can't get from the latter to the former.

 

[Scaramanga]

I think a lot of people's descriptions of their UFO sightings are accurate descriptions, that there is a real, unconventional, mystery behind at least some UFO experiences, and that getting to the bottom of the mystery should be a high priority for the scientific community. Government information about the topic should be made transparent.

I may be biased about that, because I am a UFO witness myself. I have some perspective, because of my own sighting, that many other skeptics may lack. I understand why people like yourself would be so doubtful. I don't present my own experience as evidence that should sway your beliefs. But I think that overall there is a strong case to be made that even disbeliever skeptics should take the topic seriously, even the possibility that extraterrestrial technology is at place in some instances.

The problem with UFOs is that time and again the 'evidence' just melts away the minute it is properly analysed. Just look at Mick West's analysis of the 'go fast' UFO video as an example. I recall the documentary with Lou Elizondo and 'experts' claiming the craft was doing thousands of mph. Mick West effectively proved it was doing under 40mph. It was probably just a balloon.

I would not rule out that some small percent of 'UFOs' are unknown atmospheric phenomenon...particularly the Hessdalen lights. But that's a far cry from alien visitation.

I've gone from being a believer to being someone who totally disputes that there is any evidence at all, let alone 'strong evidence', for alien visitations. The world is full of people who don't recognise Venus when they see it, who think an aircraft contrail pointing downwards means an object 'falling' rather than simply moving away, who confuse birds, lens flare, Starlink, even the Moon, for extra-terrestrials.

 

[Edward Current]

Part of the perspective that my own sighting has provided me with, is the recognition of inconsistencies between what (at least some people such as my self) experience and what goes through their minds, and the mental image that many skeptics like yourself portray about people who have UFO sightings and what goes through their minds.

I can say confidently that you don't properly understand all of the people you think you do, nor what they experienced or why.

Sure, for some, it may be about what they want to believe and they will apply faulty reasoning to convince themselves, and also some just want to disbelieve and will apply faulty reasoning to convince themselves. But some have found good reasons to take the topic seriously, and want to apply sound reasoning and a scientific process to figure out what's going on.

It sounds like you had an up-close, life-changing encounter. Personally I am very sympathetic with such accounts. The conviction of experiencers is indeed compelling. However, I've argued — given the mismatch between the vividness of these accounts and the dearth of physical evidence for them — that these experiences are subjective rather than objective. I struggle to understand why experiencers resist this conclusion so strongly, when to me it seems rather obvious. (Perhaps it would be more appropriate to reply on that thread rather than this one.)

 

[NorCal Dave]

Part of the perspective that my own sighting has provided me with, is the recognition of inconsistencies between what (at least some people such as my self) experience and what goes through their minds, and the mental image that many skeptics like yourself portray about people who have UFO sightings and what goes through their minds

That's a good point and something I am sometimes guilty of myself. So many UFO stories are such hyped up nothings and it seems the more hype the more coverage and the more popular the hypsters become. Sitting behind David Grusch at the congressional UAP hearings wasn't any sort of scientist or skeptic, rather it was journalist turned UFO/paranormal mystery monger George Knapp next to his protégé ex-fashion designer Jeremy Corbel. These 2 still think Bob Lazar had ALL his collage records erased by the MiBs and has samples of element 115 in his kitchen. Yet, here they are as guests of congress front and center. It clouds one's judgment.

So, when the recent claim of 13 people seeing a UFO at the Red Rocks amphitheater began appearing, I was doubtful. There was no evidence like video or photos and the claim of 13 witnesses came from only one person and only one person was talking about what was seen. I will confess I suspected a hoax, or at least someone hyping up something much more mundane. My bad.

It seems likely now, thanks to Metabunk member @flarkey, that this person, and maybe 12 others, actually did see what was described and that it was a Starlink launch/deployment. I was definitely leaning towards just another person shouting UFO for whatever reason. It appears flarkey's solution made its way to the claimant who is so far rejecting it seems, but does show I was being a bit closed minded at first, something many of us have been conditioned to do unfortunately.

Red Rocks UFO discussed here with flarkey's solution:

Thread 'Claim: 13 people witness UFO at Red Rock Arena Colorado [Starlink]'

Jun 29, 2024

[ADMIN UPDATE: This appears to be Starlink, see: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...ock-arena-colorado-starlink.13524/post-318663 ]

https://nuforc.org/sighting/?id=181776

https://nypost.com/2024/06/29/us-news/dozen-spot-ufo-soaring-above-red-rocks-amphitheater/

Occurred: 2024-06-05 01:00 Local
Reported: 2024-06-05 10:43 Pacific
Duration: about 30 seconds
No of observers: 12

Location: Golden, CO, USA
Location details: North of Red Rocks about a mile or so, hovering...

• jarlrmai
• Replies: 36
• Forum: UFOs and Aliens

I can say confidently that you don't properly understand all of the people you think you do, nor what they experienced or why.

Most definitely. We can only go with what we're told. But sometimes the way things are told will create a reaction in me and probably others as well. Going back to the Red Rocks UFO above, when you have a chance to look at it, you'll note his description is a combination of objective observations like "three levels of windows like an office building" and very subjective observations like "...as it knew it was being watched".

How does someone seeing some lights in the sky determine the lights had cognitive knowledge this guy was looking at it? The witness is anthropomorphizing the lights he's seeing and more to the point repeating an often-heard trope in UFO sightings, the idea that the aliens were just bopping around and "OH shit, the humans saw us! Activate the cloaking device". Now this could just be cultural conditioning, or it could an attempt to add layers to a simple observation and juice up the story.

And it goes both ways, skeptics need to listen better to what people are saying, but as in the Red Rocks case, if a solution is presented showing that at the exact time and in the exact spot the witness was looking there is in fact a Starlink deployment that was predicted to be visible, then it's disingenuous to shrug it off and say it's not Starlink, it's a UFO.

But some have found good reasons to take the topic seriously, and want to apply sound reasoning and a scientific process to figure out what's going on.

Which is good. I would argue that sound reasoning and scientific process is what happens here on this site. When the Navy GOFAST video was released, many in the UFO community immediately said it was traveling at incredible speeds and couldn't be explained. Not sound reasoning, just hype. It was Mick here on this forum, among others, that studied the video and determined it was a case of parallax making a slow-moving object appear to move faster than it was. Or the Chilian Air Force helicopter FLAIR UFO video that was touted as "unexplainable" by some supposed Chilian generals and journalist Leslie Kean. Again, people on this forum (not me) studied it and found the UFO was in fact an Iberian Air AB340 departing Santiago.

In cases where there is very little evidence to work with, just a blurry photo or description, not much can be done with them. Any scientific process is dependent on the evidence being studied. If there's not much to study, not much is going to come of it. And often, when there is sufficient evidence, the UFO becomes explained.

 

[beku-mant]

It sounds like you had an up-close, life-changing encounter. Personally I am very sympathetic with such accounts. The conviction of experiencers is indeed compelling. However, I've argued — given the mismatch between the vividness of these accounts and the dearth of physical evidence for them — that these experiences are subjective rather than objective. I struggle to understand why experiencers resist this conclusion so strongly, when to me it seems rather obvious. (Perhaps it would be more appropriate to reply on that thread rather than this one.)

I'll see if I can contribute to that thread at some point.

 

[beku-mant]

This looks quite like an instance of the Linda paradox (more formally the "Conjunction Fallacy"). He seems to be taking P(visited ^ hiding) as larger than P(visited). I'd have given him P(hiding | visited) being quite high. But you can't get from the latter to the former.

I don't see where this is coming from. The only argument about probability was to say that they think the probability that the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis is correct is very small, but non-zero.

Masters first argues that "Hypotheses for such phenomena tend to fall into two classes: conventional terrestrial explanation (e.g., human-made technology), or an extraterrestrial explanation", and then he argues that there should be a third class hypotheses, that cover unconventional terrestrial explanations, which they label the "Ultraterrestrial hypothesis, which includes as a subset the "cryptoterrestrial" hypothesis". And they make arguments for why, despite being very unlikely, these possibilities shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

 

[beku-mant]

That's a good point and something I am sometimes guilty of myself. So many UFO stories are such hyped up nothings and it seems the more hype the more coverage and the more popular the hypsters become.

When I was a young kid I found some old books laying around, I think one about George Adamski, and one by Eric Von Danakin. Even as a kid who essentially just started reading, I felt my intelligence was insulted. To be honest, I was so dissapointed, or annoyed, that I threw the books in the trash. Then we had the tabloids: bat boy found in cave, Elvis had a baby with an alien, etc. And we had the Ancient Aliens TV show. The History channel went from a history channel to a paranormal entertainment channel, along with the Discovery channel. Now we have a reality TV show about Skinwalker Ranch that hypes up everything from bugs to led lights in the distance as a paranormal, UFO related mystery.

There is more than enough non-sense going on to not only convince people that it's all nonsense, but to anger people and make them push back against the whole UFO subject altogether.

Before I had my UFO sighting, my view was that most of what we see about UFOs is made for entertainment, to sell books, documentaries, and TV shows. Some was run of the mill delusion. But, that there might be something to some of the events.

As a UFO witness who is a skeptic by nature, what I saw was compelling enough to convince me that some UFOs are probably unconventional. I am probably even more annoyed by much of the unscrupulousness within the UFO entertainment industry (although I don't think all people in the business are unscrupulous).

But, I've also come to learn that this kind of unscrupulousness is pretty much everywhere. It's in politics, it's in social media, it's in popular science articles, its in advertising, it's in YouTube videos (where misleading clickbait titles and thumbnails has become the norm). It spans topics including health, diet, science, spirituality, economics, international relations, politics, etc. It's just a general property of human culture, maybe human nature, at this point. It would be that way if some UFOs are real unconventional technologies, and it would be if they weren't. And you could use the cynicism that you get from observing this property to cast doubt on just about any claim.

The way to get past that, is through a responsible scientific approach. Keep an open mind within the confines of what we know, and suspend belief until we can verify something objectively to a high enough degree of certainty. In the mean time, you have no choice but to use thought experimentation, and subjective reasoning, to determine what is worthwhile to investigate.

From years of looking into the topic from a serious point of view after my own sighting, I feel like there is reason enough to convince even a skeptical minded person that has not had an experience of the scientific merit of studying the phenomenon, and even to be open to the possibility that some UFO sightings have unconventional explanations. I will admit that you may need to steel-man this point of view to come to that conclusion.