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

And they make arguments for why, despite being very unlikely, these possibilities shouldn't be summarily dismissed.
On the other hand, investigations of this topic for decades by multiple agencies and individuals has produced no proof that any cases fall outside the "normal stuff that is not recognized by the experiencer" category, and ample evidence that normal stuff misperceived or unrecognized by the experiencer can produce a very wide array of sightings and reports -- given the incredible reports that turned out to be just normal stuff.

That leads to dismissing extraordinary explanations, pending the possible future emergence of some strong evidence, not dismissing them summarily but dismissing them for cause. Phrased differently, there is no need to consider in fanciful explanations when in fact we have not established that there is anything beyond observer misidentification/misperception going on at all -- an "out there" explanation is not needed if there is nothing that really needs explaining.
 
They did say this in the paper:
they dont assign an appropriate low probability. if they would, they wouldnt write a science fiction fantasy piece camouflaged as serious science.

the probability that aliens exist isnt even 100%. it sounds reasonable that we arent alone in this massive universe (i think so too) but its not a given.

factor in that the most credible supporting evidence are stories. then followed by blurry videos of distant lights that dont show anything anomalous at all and only become supposedly extra-ordinary due to corresponding stories. these witnesses can all be credible and reputable but still be wrong at the same time.

then you have self proclaimed experts in a field, who genuinely think they have figured it all out and are smarter than the rest and "only ask questions" while spreading a shit ton of misinformation (graham hancock anyone?).

im not even talking about all the hoaxers and grifters (ross coulthart & co) and legit crazy people that muddy the waters to an extreme extend.

theres also always massive goal post shifting going on. someone can talk about "mountains of (anecdotal) evidence of ET" and when this narrative dies then they just introduce "cryptoterrestrials" to move around the extraterrestrial hypothesis. then everyones like "ah yeah, cryptoterrestrials, of course! smart!". "the videos are blurry because of the super advanced cloaking and possibly even due to space time warping" thats seriously how shitty videos are explained, while high quality videos of bright flashing lights are explained with "thats exactly how bob lazar described them, these lights have been reported since thousands of years. its their anti gravity propulsion beam". so what is it?

at this point they could also say its elvis and bigfoot surfing around between dimensions, standing on their clouds and thats just how we perceive it. sounds ridiculous? of course it does, but it follows the same unfalsifiable reasoning methodology.

at the end a realistic probability for "aliens have visited earth" would be the lowest possible number approaching zero.
 
Last edited:
then you have self proclaimed experts in a field, who genuinely think they have figured it all out and are smarter than the rest
You say this while making it sound as though you have figured it all out and are smarter than the rest.
at the end a realistic probability for "aliens have visited earth" would be the lowest possible number approaching zero.
Your estimation is just as valid as estimating that the probability is the highest possible number approaching 1.
 
Phrased differently, there is no need to consider in fanciful explanations when in fact we have not established that there is anything beyond observer misidentification/misperception going on at all -- an "out there" explanation is not needed if there is nothing that really needs explaining.
We differ in opinion about whether there is something that needs explaining. I would argue you have too low of a threshold when it comes to the scientific rigor required to accept an explanation for a particular event and generalize too much applying those explanations to other unexplained events.
 
You say this while making it sound as though you have figured it all out and are smarter than the rest.

Your estimation is just as valid as estimating that the probability is the highest possible number approaching 1.

I don't think that's the case. We have had an extensive discussion on this site of the known physical difficulties of reaching earth (even from our nearest celestial neighbors), to the point that those difficulties completely overshadow the unknown likelihood of intelligent alien life existing in the first place. I think it's a minuscule probability that aliens have reached earth, and must of necessity be much smaller than the likelihood of alien life existing.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/szydagis-point-3-interstellar-travel-is-too-hard.12698/unread
 
I don't think that's the case. We have had an extensive discussion on this site of the known physical difficulties of reaching earth (even from our nearest celestial neighbors), to the point that those difficulties completely overshadow the unknown likelihood of intelligent alien life existing in the first place. I think it's a minuscule probability that aliens have reached earth, and must of necessity be much smaller than the likelihood of alien life existing.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/szydagis-point-3-interstellar-travel-is-too-hard.12698/unread
As a computer scientist, I feel like it is a pretty easy problem actually. It is hard if you think about it from a manual labor perspective, but very easy if you have sufficiently advanced automation technology (robotics and AI), and enough patience.

Scientists and engineers working on the problem tend to say that it's within reach, but may take a 100 years or more until we're able to pull it off (exploring the nearest stars).

I think people tend to confuse the conversation about how difficult it will be for us to explore other stars within our lifetimes, and the conversation about whether interstellar travel is within reach for a sufficiently advanced civilization. There are no technical barriers that I am aware of that cannot be overcome. And distances are not too far, considering speeds that are attainable, and the amount of time for it to have happened.

I think the pivotal parameters are how sparsely populated the cosmos are with intelligent life, and how long a space faring civilization would last. You can come up with assignments to those parameters such that civilizations pop-up and die off too far apart in space and time to come into contact. But you can also assign them such that civilizations would almost certainly come into contact.

I think AI and robotics has the potential to essentially make a civilization (or its technological continuation in whatever forms) outlast their originating solar systems.
 
Last edited:
As a computer scientist, I feel like it is a pretty easy problem. It is hard if you think about it from a manual labor perspective. But very easy if you have sufficiently advanced automation technology (robotics and AI).

Well ...if you recall this was a question about alien LIFE reaching earth, not alien technology. I'll grant you that robotics may be a bit more likely than living creatures, but you still face the time factor, in that our postulated intelligent life form would have to have reached their stage of technological capability at this time minus the number of years it takes to travel here. That reduces the probability by another factor.

I'm not even going to address the additional factor of "why would they want to come here?" :)
 
Well ...if you recall this was a question about alien LIFE reaching earth, not alien technology. I'll grant you that robotics may be a bit more likely than living creatures, but you still face the time factor, in that our postulated intelligent life form would have to have reached their stage of technological capability at this time minus the number of years it takes to travel here. That reduces the probability by another factor.

I'm not even going to address the additional factor of "why would they want to come here?" :)
It's not that practical to send humans, because we don't fare well in space, and there would be radiation hazards, and the travel times would be large, and you'd likely be sending them into a terrifying abyss that they'd never come back from. And you wouldn't need to if you have sufficient advancement in robotics, which you likely would have if you were advanced enough to try and send humans anyways.

But, if we had to send humans as a matter of survival, for example, if our descendants had survived long enough to be threatened by the red giant phase of the Sun, or even if we just really wanted to send "human" representatives for the sake of it, I don't think it would be impossible. I put human in quotes because we could be talking about so much time from now that it might be a stretch to call our descendants humans anymore.

Anyway, you would have a number of ways to approach the problem, such as sending frozen embryos, cloning technology, genetic engineering for survivability under the conditions, and so on. It's pretty hard to imagine where the continuation of these technologies go much farther down the line from now.

It's not theoretically impossible, it's just how likely you think it is depends on your level of optimism about technological progress and human survival.

I know Carl Sagan is well respected as a skeptic and astrophysicist, and he was optimistic even about sending humans on an interstellar mission:

Sagan says the technology to build a ship that can travel anywhere close to light-speed is probably thousands of years away, but a ship using nuclear fusion technology may be able to travel about 10% the speed of light. With Alpha Centauri being 4.3 light-years away, a voyage there would take 43 years, meaning it would be feasible for humans to travel there within a lifetime. But he proposes that to travel any further, we might need "multigenerational" spacecraft, where generations of humans would be born and live their lives, so that subsequent generations might reach other solar systems.

https://www.shortform.com/blog/interstellar-space-travel/

Another notable expert is Von Neumann. He is widely considered to be a candidate for the smartest person to have ever lived, and one of the most prolific physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists. He wouldn't have spend so much of his time working out designs for interstellar space exploration if he didn't think it was feasible.

And then you have Stephen Hawking, who famously warned against CETI, based on the risk that an ETI that receives our signals could come here and be hostile towards us.

Sean Caroll, who actually doesn't take the UFO topic very seriously, still argues that it is much more likely that we find extraterrestrial probes here than that we detect signals coming from other stars.

It is much more efficient to just send probes, and just park, and just sit there, and wait for an intelligent civilization to arrive in that solar system.


Source: https://youtu.be/i0k-6K8rHFk?t=81
 
Last edited:
And they make arguments for why, despite being very unlikely, these possibilities shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

As I said before, I think some of what these guys propose can be summarily dismissed. My theory that Hollwood is hyping up UFOs is as vapid and lacking in evidence as is the authors theory that Cryptoterrestirals are hiding out in a hollow earth. There is simply NO valid evidence for either idea.

I forgot who said it, but I'll paraphrase (something we're not usualy supposed to do here, but I know someone will post the real quote) it as: "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I think that is something this paper violates. As noted before they offer often wild speculations and outright science fiction as valid theories, then demand those speculation be disproven. You and I do not have to prove there are NO Lumarians living under Mt. Shasta. Likewise, there is no burden upon you and I to prove Dr. Masters speculation that aliens are future humans is wrong. It's his burden of proof.

In the case of Master's aliens/future humans argument, his evidence is that "greys" look like what he thinks future humans would evolve to look like. I would counter, "greys" are a result of cultural conditions and that idea doesn't require all the problems with time travel.

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.

Indeed!

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.

I don't want to get off topic in this thread about the paper, but would like to discuss this further with you. I'm thinking a new thread about the possibility of scientifically studying UFOs would be more appropriate. It's kind of a lose subject, so may end up in General Discussion or the ChitChat sub-forums, but I'll get it going and let the mods put it in the best place. Might not be till tomorrow.
 
I forgot who said it, but I'll paraphrase (something we're not usualy supposed to do here, but I know someone will post the real quote) it as: "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
But the distinction between a hypothesis and a claim needs to be made. It is arguably reasonable to dismiss a claim without evidence, if you just mean ignore, but I don't think it would be scientific to summarily dismiss a hypothesis because of a lack of evidence. You could argue it is reasonable to simply not concern yourself about a hypothesis, if you don't think it is useful.

And you don't need to believe in a hypothesis as a likely explanation for it to be useful, you could even have the opinion that a hypothesis is near impossible, and still find it useful, because if you are able to rule it out through a rigorous scientific process, then your opinion can be elevated from speculation to a scientifically supported theory.

If they were making a claim that the crypto-terrestrial hypothesis is the correct hypothesis, then they would have the burden of proof. If they are simply suggesting we should make an attempt to rule it out scientifically in order to be sure, that's a different story.

Second, there is evidence when it comes to the UFO phenomenon. There just isn't enough evidence of sufficient quality to form strong scientific conclusions at this point. That doesn't mean there isn't enough evidence to justify applying the scientific process and search for better evidence.
 
Last edited:
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.
So that's where the views you ascribe to us came from!

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.
If there is "reason enough", bring the evidence and argue the case. Metabunk deals in claims that have evidence to them, and this claim does not.

Past experience shows that there is no "scientific merit" to study "the phenomenon" from a physics, engineering or military standpoint, though it makes an interesting subject for psychology and the social sciences.
 
So that's where the views you ascribe to us came from!


If there is "reason enough", bring the evidence and argue the case. Metabunk deals in claims that have evidence to them, and this claim does not.

Past experience shows that there is no "scientific merit" to study "the phenomenon" from a physics, engineering or military standpoint, though it makes an interesting subject for psychology and the social sciences.
I submit that there is merit, and that outright rejection of the merit and stigmatization of the topic are also interesting subjects for psychology and social science.
 
I submit that there is merit, and that outright rejection of the merit and stigmatization of the topic are also interesting subjects for psychology and social science.
Show me evidence of stigma. Congress has held a widely publicized hearing on the subject with only UFO proponents as witnesses. That's promotion, not stigmatisation.

Show me evidence of scientific merit. The very same hypothesis was investigated years ago, and merit was found to be absent.
From the AARO historical report ( see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaros-historical-uap-report-volume-1.13375/ ):
SmartSelect_20240714-140544_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20240714-140639_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20240714-140715_Samsung Notes.jpg


There is no reason to believe that repeating the effort today would yield a different result.
 
Which, as I pointed out, is a rule of thumb that applies to claims of fact, not hypothesis formation.
Cite a source, please.

For scientific hypothesis formation, I'd expect evidence that something unknown to traditional science exists. Otherwise, the hypothesis is superfluous.
 
I would argue you have too low of a threshold when it comes to the scientific rigor required to accept an explanation for a particular event and generalize too much applying those explanations to other unexplained events.
I would respectfully disagree with that assessment of my thinking. Let's say that I am waiting for sufficient evidence that there is a phenomenon that needs to be explained before plunging into trying on assorted extraordinary explanations. It is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- I'd add that ordinary evidence does not justify extraordinary speculative explanations.
 
... 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...

The problem with this line of reasoning is that anything which can possibly be imagined has a very small, but non-zero, probability of existing, ie. there is a small, but non-zero probability that Greek Gods (Zeus and gang) do actually exist, or leprechauns, or Zeta Reticuli lizards, the Matrix, or Yog-Sothoth, or anything and anything. So this kind of reasoning is totally useless, it does not help in gaining knowledge. Make yourself a favor and ditch it.
 
In the case of Master's aliens/future humans argument, his evidence is that "greys" look like what he thinks future humans would evolve to look like.
(I apologize, here's a new tangent.) Doesn't the term "greys" presuppose that our future selves would have to start all over and design a brand new circulating fluid that doesn't contain nice red hemoglobin? In other words, NOT descendants of humans, but a starting-from-scratch (but similarly shaped) species?
 
Doesn't the term "greys" presuppose that our future selves would have to start all over and design a brand new circulating fluid that doesn't contain nice red hemoglobin?

Not if they're using concealer; maybe grey is just an aesthetic choice. (And some mammals have grey skins).

A bigger problem for the greys is that there's no real reason to believe they exist, outside of being a trope of pop-culture / contemporary folklore (and a source of income for woo-merchants).

Edited to add: We could start a thread, "Grey's Anatomy". Maybe a spin-off book, or a TV series...
 
Last edited:
Show me evidence of stigma. Congress has held a widely publicized hearing on the subject with only UFO proponents as witnesses. That's promotion, not stigmatisation.

Show me evidence of scientific merit. The very same hypothesis was investigated years ago, and merit was found to be absent.
From the AARO historical report ( see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaros-historical-uap-report-volume-1.13375/ ):
View attachment 70149
View attachment 70150
View attachment 70151

There is no reason to believe that repeating the effort today would yield a different result.

This is not a very fair assessment. There is an argument to be made that serious investigation of UFOs has led to changes in opinion about the merit of scientific investigations of UFOs and quality of the evidence. The scientific consultant to project blue book, J. Allen Hynek is a good example, which also happens to directly contradict the claims in your screenshot.

Skepticism

In response to numerous reports of "flying saucers", the United States Air Force established Project Sign in 1948 to examine sightings of unidentified flying objects. Hynek was contacted to act as a scientific consultant to Project Sign. He studied UFO reports and decided whether the phenomena described therein suggested known astronomical objects.

When Project Sign hired Hynek, he was skeptical of UFO reports. Hynek suspected that they were made by unreliable witnesses, or by persons who had misidentified man-made or natural objects. In 1948, Hynek said that "the whole subject seems utterly ridiculous," and described it as a fad that would soon pass."

In his 1977 book, Hynek said that he enjoyed his role as a debunker for the Air Force. He also said that debunking was what the Air Force expected of him.

Change of opinion

In April 1953, Hynek wrote a report for the Journal of the Optical Society of America titled "Unusual Aerial Phenomena," which contained one of his best-known statements:

"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?"

In 1953, Hynek was an associate member of the Robertson Panel, which concluded that there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, and that a public relations campaign should be undertaken to debunk the subject and reduce public interest. Hynek would later lament that the Robertson Panel had helped make UFOs a disreputable field of study.

As UFO reports continued to be made, some of the testimonies, especially by military pilots and police officers, were deeply puzzling to Hynek. He once said, "As a scientist I must be mindful of the lessons of the past; all too often it has happened that matters of great value to science were overlooked because the new phenomenon did not fit the accepted scientific outlook of the time."

In a 1985 interview, when asked what caused his change of opinion, Hynek responded, "Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn't give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have an explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren't going about it in the right way. You can't assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there was something to all this."

Hynek remained with Project Sign after it became Project Grudge (though he was far less involved in Grudge than he had been in Sign). Project Grudge was replaced with Project Blue Book in early 1952, and Hynek remained as scientific consultant. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, Blue Book's first director, held Hynek in high regard: "Dr. Hynek was one of the most impressive scientists I met while working on the UFO project, and I met a good many. He didn't do two things that some of them did: give you the answer before he knew the question; or immediately begin to expound on his accomplishments in the field of science."

Though Hynek thought Ruppelt was a capable director who steered Project Blue Book in the right direction, Ruppelt headed Blue Book for only a few years. Hynek has also stated his opinion that after Ruppelt's departure, Project Blue Book was little more than a public relations exercise, further noting that little or no research was undertaken using the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not a very fair assessment. There is an argument to be made that serious investigation of UFOs has led to changes in opinion about the merit of scientific investigations of UFOs and quality of the evidence. The scientific consultant to project blue book, J. Allen Hynek is a good example, which also happens to directly contradict the claims in your screenshot.
Hynek has not produced anything of scientific merit from his UFO studies. These studies have not contributed to human knowledge.

Regarding the "changes of opinion", we already know that UFOlogy can influence public opinion; remember I granted it makes a good subject for the social sciences?
The thesis under discussion is whether UFOlogy has merit from a physics/engineering standpoint. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of showing a tangible result. There is no evidence anywhere that suggests such a result might be forthcoming (before and until official contact with an alien civilisation is made).

UFOlogy hasn't even contributed knowledge about UFOs, which is the bare minimum I'd expect of any serious field of study.
 
Last edited:
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.

I've had a UFO sighting as well. It's all well documented, and to this day remains unexplained. You can't beat actually seeing something yourself...as then you are not reliant on someone else's perception. No amount of 'I know what I saw' persuades me, because in the back of my mind there is always doubt that the person really does know what they saw. With a personal sighting, you don't have to rely on anyone else's reliability. But, of course, by the same logic as the above I'd also not expect anyone else to accept my own 'I know what I saw'.

That said, all I can really claim is that I saw something baffling and very uncommon or unusual in the sky. I cannot assert that it was aliens...in fact I now very much doubt that it was. I'd go with it being some rare atmospheric plasma effect. In recent years all manner of new atmospheric phenomenon have been discovered. Earthquake lights, Sprites, jets, green blobs ( the most recent one ), an aurora-like phenomenon oddly known under the acronym 'Steve'...and a host of others. I suspect there's some as yet undiscovered ones that my sighting fits into.
 
an aurora-like phenomenon oddly known under the acronym 'Steve'
I saw what very closely matches the description of Steve during the big aurora display earlier this year, except as far as I can find information, Steve aligns E-W, and what I saw aligned N-S. So there may be one more out there to be discovered -- if so, if there IS a N-S aligned Steve, I hope they'll call it "Jim." (STEVE is an acronym for Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement, I have not worked out an acronym for JIM yet...)
3-16-steve-lake-minnewanka.jpg

"STEVE," from https://www.newsweek.com/auroras-steve-citizen-science-848015
 
I saw what very closely matches the description of Steve during the big aurora display earlier this year, except as far as I can find information, Steve aligns E-W, and what I saw aligned N-S. So there may be one more out there to be discovered -- if so, if there IS a N-S aligned Steve, I hope they'll call it "Jim." (STEVE is an acronym for Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement, I have not worked out an acronym for JIM yet...)
It's clearly an electromagnetic effect, so must involve Maxwells J-field.
Probably it's induced by changes in the J-field.
And it's N-S, eh? So along a meridian...
 
I suspect there's some as yet undiscovered ones that my sighting fits into.
I considered the possibility of an atmospheric phenomenon as a possible explanation for my sighting too. But there is no known atmospheric phenomenon that fits what I saw, and, if I am being honest with myself, an undiscovered atmospheric phenomenon also seems unlikely given the details of what happened, unless it were an artificially induced and controlled atmospheric phenomenon, or advanced form of electronic warfare. But I can't ignore the fact that the incident fits into a pattern of reported incidents, and many of these incidents are multiple credible witness events, from ordinary people, as well as staff at military bases, and some are corroborated by radar data. It would be foolish of me to dismiss the possibility that what I saw fits this pattern because it is based on the same phenomenon, or that some of what we are seeing actually are mass-full objects exhibiting extraordinary maneuvers as they would appear to be.

And if so, then it would appear to be (1) a form of technology that is discontinuous with the progress of publicly known technology (although appearances may be deceptive), and (2) of the same character as things reported as far back as the 40's, when breakthrough technology of this character is even less plausible and moreover an electronic warfare based explanation would also be less plausible in that era.

I've heard that the consensus here is that technology discontinuous with the development of known technology would be sufficient to convince that it were built by extraterrestrials. I am more skeptical than that, and I would still remain open to the possibility of undisclosed scientific breakthroughs. It would also be useful to breakdown what would be sufficient evidence of a big enough technological gap to support this conclusion and how you would make the determination.

But, no matter what the case is, whether it is an advanced form of electronic warfare, technological surprise, or extraterrestrials, I think it is a very big deal. If it is an undiscovered atmospheric phenomenon, that would also be a big deal for the scientific community. I think it is very unlikely that it could be entirely a psychological or social phenomenon, but in the spirit of epistemic humility, although I am highly skeptical, I wouldn't summarily dismiss it.

Maybe the Masters paper is good for kick-starting a debate about how much epistemic humility is healthy for the scientific community to have. It would seem, although I may be wrong and you can correct me, that on Metabunk, a low amount of epistemic humility is generally advocated.

The common argument is something like, if we entertain x, why not entertain leprechauns. But it is unreasonable to apply that argument generally, for all unproven hypotheses x. If you could formulate this argument in a nuanced and more valid way, and then argue for an objective way to apply it in different circumstances, so that you can make a robust argument why we should not have the amount of epistemic humility required to entertain the hypothesis they present, that would be a useful result in response to the paper.
 
Last edited:
I considered the possibility of an atmospheric phenomenon as a possible explanation for my sighting too. But there is no known atmospheric phenomenon that fits what I saw, and, if I am being honest with myself, an undiscovered atmospheric phenomenon also seems unlikely given the details of what happened, unless it were an artificially induced and controlled atmospheric phenomenon, or advanced form of electronic warfare. But I can't ignore the fact that the incident fits into a pattern of reported incidents...
Have we reached the point where this needs to be "disclosed," so to speak, and discussed -- whether in this or it's own thread? Unless I've missed it and it already has been discussed?
 
The auroral phenomenon known as Steve was seen by a very large number of people in the UK last Bonfire Night, since it coincided with several local fireworks displays. A friend of mine filmed it; curiously, the camera on a smartphone is very good at capturing the colours involved, better than the human eye most of the time.
 
The auroral phenomenon known as Steve was seen by a very large number of people in the UK last Bonfire Night, since it coincided with several local fireworks displays. A friend of mine filmed it; curiously, the camera on a smartphone is very good at capturing the colours involved, better than the human eye most of the time.

I've been able to confirm that my IPhone camera produces a pure black frame when filming a clear starry night, although when the stars are particularly bright, one or two stars may be bright enough for the phones camera to detect them. I've also found that my camera is unable to see helicopter lights in the distance. Yet my phone was able to capture the recent auroras, even though they were faint to the eye.
 
But I can't ignore the fact that the incident fits into a pattern of reported incidents, and many of these incidents are multiple credible witness events, from ordinary people, as well as staff at military bases, and some are corroborated by radar data.
Well, we have discussed many of these 'credible witness' accounts here on Metabunk, and many or most of them are actually much less impressive than they appear at first. Staff at military bases in particular seem to be fairly unreliable witnesses for some reason.

I think each witness account needs to be examined separately, because it seems likely that there is a very wide range of phenomena involved, and we can't always assume that there really are shared characteristics between different sightings. On the other hand, some phenomena (such as the Starlink satellites) are frequently associated with UFO/UAP reports, so there may be a common explanation for certain different events.
 
Have we reached the point where this needs to be "disclosed," so to speak, and discussed -- whether in this or it's own thread? Unless I've missed it and it already has been discussed?
I've only brought it up contextually when prompted to explain what I think is going on and why. I don't think it is very relevant to the discussion aside from explaining my own perspective, and to broaden people's understandings of other people's perspectives. To anyone else it is another anecdote and there are plenty nearly equivalent anecdotes already. The real takeaway, I think, should be that opinions about what might be going on are subjective, and often formed based on very different processes. It is worth it sometimes to consider processes other than your own. Resulting views can depend on a persons own experience, how informed they are about the body of relevant information and their philosophical or ideological beliefs, the rules of thumb they apply, and how it shapes their treatment of uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Masters paper is good for kick-starting a debate about how much epistemic humility is healthy for the scientific community to have.
Are you sure you should be discussing the "epistemic humility" of the scientific community when you are not exactly exhibiting it yourself? Please describe your experience, because you keep referring to it without presenting it. I promise you we are not going to dismiss it out of hand, but we are equally unlikely to accept it without asking questions.
 
Are you sure you should be discussing the "epistemic humility" of the scientific community when you are not exactly exhibiting it yourself? Please describe your experience, because you keep referring to it without presenting it. I promise you we are not going to dismiss it out of hand, but we are equally unlikely to accept it without asking questions.
Many people here have already pre-dismissed it, along with every other reported sighting, by ruling definitively that it's a social or psychological phenomenon. I've already gone through discussions about it with skeptics seeking to find mundane explanations or taking my experience as a case study in their psychology theory. It's not of interest to me, nor relevant to the post, to rehash it. But I will not bring it up again. In the future, I'll instead present other people's documented sightings if it seems useful to make my point.

Note, we ended up here because you proposed that the UFO phenomenon exists because people think it would be cool if aliens were here. I am not the only counter example to that assertion. It would be more productive to have a discussion about the veracity of that claim in my opinion than initiating a gang up on a witness despite the high likelihood that it would lead nowhere.
 
Last edited:
I've heard that the consensus here is that technology discontinuous with the development of known technology would be sufficient to convince that it were built by extraterrestrials. I am more skeptical than that, and I would still remain open to the possibility of undisclosed scientific breakthroughs. It would also be useful to breakdown what would be sufficient evidence of a big enough technological gap to support this conclusion and how you would make the determination.
Thank you for reading that thread! It was a great discussion.

Think about the speed of technological advance since the early Industrial Revolution. In about 150 years we went from early textile machines to flying machines, and in another 100 years, to the GPS. I daresay that if one day we were trying to figure out how to build a mechanized spinning jenny with non-interchangeable parts, and then the next day the GPS appeared, we'd recognize that as a technological discontinuity.

And I assume that technologically, aliens visiting us would be more than 250 years ahead? Mind you, that's under the premise that their technological evolution followed the same step-by-step timeline as ours, when surely, their technological lineage would be very different.

Seems like we'd definitely recognize a technological discontinuity if we saw it — one that rules out a mere breakthrough by humans. (That is why I use the phrase "far-breakthrough.")
 

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


External Quote:

Scientists have for the first time discovered a cave on the Moon.

1bc5b1c0-42a6-11ef-b83f-157e38fc9c03.jpg




At least 100m deep, it could be an ideal place for humans to build a permanent base, they say.

It is just one in probably hundreds of caves hidden in an "underground, undiscovered world", according to the researchers.

Countries are racing to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, but they will need to protect astronauts from radiation, extreme temperatures, and space weather.

Helen Sharman, the first British astronaut to travel to space, told BBC News that the newly-discovered cave looked like a good place for a base, and suggested humans could potentially be living in lunar pits in 20-30 years.
But, she said, this cave is so deep that astronauts might need to abseil in and use "jet packs or a lift" to get out.

Lorenzo Bruzzone and Leonardo Carrer at the University of Trento in Italy found the cave by using radar to penetrate the opening of a pit on a rocky plain called the Mare Tranquillitatis.

It is visible to the naked eye from Earth, and is also where Apollo 11 landed in 1969.

The cave has a skylight on the Moon's surface, leading down to vertical and overhanging walls, and a sloping floor that might extend further underground.
It was made millions or billions of years ago when lava flowed on the Moon, creating a tunnel through the rock.

The closest equivalent on Earth would be the volcanic caves in Lanzarote, Spain, Prof Carrer explains, adding that the researchers visited those caves as part of their work.
:eek: :eek::eek:

Have we found "their" lair?

BBC News, Science & Environment, Cave discovered on Moon could be home for humans, Georgina Rannard 15/07/2024
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce784r9njz0o
 
Thank you for reading that thread! It was a great discussion.

Think about the speed of technological advance since the early Industrial Revolution. In about 150 years we went from early textile machines to flying machines, and in another 100 years, to the GPS. I daresay that if one day we were trying to figure out how to build a mechanized spinning jenny with non-interchangeable parts, and then the next day the GPS appeared, we'd recognize that as a technological discontinuity.

And I assume that technologically, aliens visiting us would be more than 250 years ahead? Mind you, that's under the premise that their technological evolution followed the same step-by-step timeline as ours, when surely, their technological lineage would be very different.

Seems like we'd definitely recognize a technological discontinuity if we saw it — one that rules out a mere breakthrough by humans. (That is why I use the phrase "far-breakthrough.")

My position is that yes, there would be some threshold in the amount of discontinuity at which point we could treat it as the best scientific theory that it was built by extraterrestrials. Even at that point, all kinds of people would object to calling it a scientific fact, saying, what about crypto-terrestrials, what about time-travelers, what inter-dimensional beings, break away civilizations, and so forth.

I don't see much of a need for goal post shifting. There is just the theories and our estimated confidence in the theories based on the evidence. We can have a varying degree of confidence from near 0 to near 1.

I think that you cannot determine what the significance of the technological gap is without having direct access to the technology, to see how it works and by which principles. The building of the pyramids and other ancient structures come to mind. Some people think the precision and scale of ancient stone work is discontinuous with the technology they had at the time. But if we observed them being made, we would see how they did it. Then we could point out that it's not discontinuous. Or for the sake of the thought experiment, if they wielded nuclear powered lasers that they found sitting in a box on a hill, we'd come to a different conclusion. The case about ancient stonework may not be compelling enough for enough of us to actually jump to aliens to be a good example. But it might be on one end of a spectrum of hypotheticals, where the gap seems progressively more difficult to explain and more likely to be mistaken for an un-gap-able discontinuity when it's not.
 
Last edited:
Many people here have already pre-dismissed it, along with every other reported sighting, by ruling definitively that it's a social or psychological phenomenon. I've already gone through discussions about it with skeptics seeking to find mundane explanations or taking my experience as a case study in their psychology theory. It's not of interest to me, nor relevant to the post, to rehash it. But I will not bring it up again. In the future, I'll instead present other people's documented sightings if it seems useful to make my point.
If we have a witness right here to explain things and answer questions, surely that is of greater evidentiary value than a written report with nobody at hand to flesh out the details, isn't it?
 
Back
Top