Is there a “UAP phenomenon” worth studying?

[Todd Feinman]

I think it's possible that things will just bump along with some anomalous footage coming out but with the problems jdog mentioned. But the sightings will continue and the military will continue to report them. And things might just go back to a steady simmer and folks lose interest so they can get back to playing Halo or some cr*p. Maybe it'll come to a head if we start thinking about using nukes.

 

[jumbobob]

Oh and FYI - things aren't looking good for the believers:

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

The problem is, if you give me a two-year-old video of, say, a dot of light over the ocean that appears to show anomalous acceleration, what am I supposed to do with that as a researcher? I can't go back and set up sensors and there's no more data available than what the camera recorded.

I completely agree.
That is exactly why looking at old, isolated videos is a dead end for science.
My point about further analysis is precisely to move away from that: proactive, systematic monitoring with multi-sensor networks and open data in real-time.
If that happens, I think I'd support it.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I completely agree.
That is exactly why looking at old, isolated videos is a dead end for science.
My point about further analysis is precisely to move away from that: proactive, systematic monitoring with multi-sensor networks and open data in real-time.
If that happens, I think I'd support it.

Well not a real "dead end" actually!
When the info is sufficient, things can be debunked and they do.
What I mean is that if more interesting data would show up, it won't show in blurry videos alone.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I completely agree.
That is exactly why looking at old, isolated videos is a dead end for science.
My point about further analysis is precisely to move away from that: proactive, systematic monitoring with multi-sensor networks and open data in real-time.
If that happens, I think I'd support it.

And see if it shows up, I suppose. I certainly understand why people want to know or believe. Life is short. We want some understanding out of the universe.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

And see if it shows up, I suppose. I certainly understand why people want to know or believe. Life is short. We want some understanding out of the universe.

I will probably never know, I'm at peace with that.
Along with many murder cases.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I will probably never know, I'm at peace with that.
Along with many murder cases.

You wouldn't want to interact on a daily basis with the objects I've seen. Up close. Many people just wouldn't be able to deal with it. It is one thing to see a distant light source doing odd things, but another to see things closer. I'm surprised some people don't have heart attacks seeing them. But, it wasn't like that when I saw them. Like I said, like encountering a wild animal far stranger and more intelligent. Scintillating so. Weird.
But, if I had a Hollywood alien show up and do things to me, I would certainly probably have a heart attack.

 

[Mendel]

To say that UFOs/UAPs deserve more scientific study allows everyone to nod in agreement while avoiding the hard parts; which UFOs and which scientists and why?

I've always disagreed with that, for reasons stated above.

Having a collection of unresolved UFO cases is neither good nor bad, merely a fact of life. To maintain perspective, keep in mind that 100% of murders don't get solved either.

Studying murders more thoroughly might be more fruitful! (your grammatical problem notwithstanding, you meant "not 100% of murders get solved")

A scientist who is open-minded. F

don't be so open-minded your brain falls out
in a UFO context, that usually means "what if we forgot about physics for a minute"
at that point, you're no longer a scientist
prime example is Avi Loeb, who straight up ignores what the actual scientists say, for as long as he can getvaway with it
that's not science, science is 90% communication, 50% of it with the past (there is no science without a library) (and there is no scuentific UFO book) (because there haven't been any UFOs)

On a more serious note, this is a thing I've noticed so far in this thread.
Can we actually conclude that the only reason to further analyze the "anomalies" would be if they're intelligent

if they were intelligent, they'd be talking to us

But "no explanation' is exactly what I find interesting. Simple as that.

I've stated before (and I think you agreed) that it's super easy to create unexplained reports
the problem is, they fall short of "unexplainable"

I completely agree.
That is exactly why looking at old, isolated videos is a dead end for science.
My point about further analysis is precisely to move away from that: proactive, systematic monitoring with multi-sensor networks and open data in real-time.
If that happens, I think I'd support it.

you have not understood how the LIZ works
every sensor has a LIZ
no matter how good it is
everyone is carrying smartphones these days, but UFO photos have not gotten better
see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/

Well not a real "dead end" actually!
When the info is sufficient, things can be debunked and they do.
What I mean is that if more interesting data would show up, it won't show in blurry videos alone.

the way it works is that the not-blurry data is not interesting
the blurry data is only interesting because you can't yet see that it's not interesting

 

[Ann K]

I have friends who do scientific research who do not look into it because they are uninterested, and 99% rightfully so.
There are others who still entertain the possibility that someone should study those things as well (aerial anomalies in general), but won't do so for various reasons (mind you some of it is stigma, but also that they care for other stuff much more).

Off topic. We are discussing whether there is actually something to study, not whether you want "them" to be studied. The question is, do "they" exist at all?

Yeah but this "assumes" that even those cases are anomalous but many here think they are not.
I also have no idea on the Ariel case but that's for its specific thread.
When we have pilots and radar systems malfunctions, it could be just errors, and only that, but who knows 100%?
That's my take.

Off topic.

If there really are those cases of something landing somewhere and leaving traces on the ground (Zamora like), the idea of an occurrence like this being studied by serious scientists is better than to leave it to UFO buffs to speculate.
There still ARE people who do these things.

Off topic.

The "rare anomalies" exist and are reported.
Even if in the end it's just mistakes.

Off topic.

I just don't get the impression from all this that "there's no direction, nothing to even think of studying".
But I don't know more than you do.

If you don't know, that would be a good time to stop.

With current technology, and more open data that can be shared and reviewed by others?
Probably yes, it does matter in my view.

You're back on your old insistence on "open data". We've heard all that before. Oh, and it's off topic.

And I wouldn't accept any BS "oh well we have interesting cases but, you know, security".
Of course, I suck it up already, but if science has to be done…

Off topic.

100% agree

Thats what the "like" button is for.

my opinion on that is that anomalies do not have to be anything intelligent at all without knowing.

Off topic.

Well I'd be happy to find out more not easily unidentifiable stuff, there's no specific need to look for things that "defy physics".
Just for things that elude the current identification models.

Off topic.

I guess we'll see in the next years, or not.
Wanna bet? I won't.
(Not advocating for Disclosure, and the movie about it is…see my other thread spoiler alert)

Off topic.

I gave up at that point, although I know you've also posted a lot of stuff on page 2. Yes, I know you're not the only one (and I have been guilty as well), but again and again, you have been the one who drops in off-topic comments that do nothing to further the question of whether there actually is something to be studied. Take a deep breath before posting more, OK? You managed to derail the last thread. Stop doing it on this one, please.

 

[Mendel]

the blurry data is only interesting because you can't yet see that it's not interesting

this is also the reason why it's entirely useless for science to study

(to answer the title question)

 

[Ann K]

And see if it shows up, I suppose. I certainly understand why people want to know or believe. Life is short. We want some understanding out of the universe.

As you say, life is short. But so many fascinating things have been discovered in recent years in every scientific discipline, REAL things about REAL entities. That's why this thread is asking about the very existence of UAPs. I cannot understand why people are so intent upon spending their short lives on something that has never been shown to exist at all.

 

[FatPhil]

you have not understood how the LIZ works
every sensor has a LIZ
no matter how good it is
everyone is carrying smartphones these days, but UFO photos have not gotten better
see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/

This is no accidental lack of understanding - it's been explained half a dozen times now - it's deliberate.

the way it works is that the not-blurry data is not interesting
the blurry data is only interesting because you can't yet see that it's not interesting

You're overlooking the cases where the blurry data is simply not interesting - noise is not intrinsically interesting, sometimes it's just noise.

 

[Todd Feinman]

As you say, life is short. But so many fascinating things have been discovered in recent years in every scientific discipline, REAL things about REAL entities. That's why this thread is asking about the very existence of UAPs. I cannot understand why people are so intent upon spending their short lives on something that has never been shown to exist at all.

Well, you do have scientists actively looking for extraterrestrial life, looking for habitable exoplanets, sending probes to Mars, maybe other places. So scientists have an interest in alien life, though some perhaps believe in the Anthropic Principle, or the Great Filter stuff. They're just sure that we'd find them first, and if they came here they would want to communicate with us in a way we are used to.
I've heard claims like "we're going to find life in 20 years" and stuff like that. You don't know.

 

[Ann K]

Well, you do have scientists actively looking for extraterrestrial life, looking for habitable exoplanets, sending probes to Mars, maybe other places. So scientists have an interest in alien life, though some perhaps believe in the Anthropic Principle, or the Great Filter stuff.

Habitable exoplanets do not translate to "They're right here in our own atmosphere". And the exploration of Mars has diddly squat to do with "alien life" (in the UAP sense), but is a geological exploration that might lead to more information about planetary formation in general.

I'm the mother of one of those involved in Mars exploration, as my daughter has been part of the science team for both Curiosity and Perseverance. When Curiosity blasted off, the announcer on the PA system said something like "And there goes Curiosity, on its way to discover potential alien life" ...and a collective groan went up from the VIP viewing stands, from the people that knew that was NOT its mission, just a bit of popular fiction. Any "alien life" they might encounter (but haven't yet) is expected to be some signature of long-dead stuff on the order of microbes, but that would have to come from terrestrial analysis when samples are returned in a few years.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I'm the mother of one of those involved in Mars exploration, as my daughter has been part of the science team for both Curiosity and Perseverance.

Wow! Very cool. I thought things were looking up for ancient Mars life, but yeah, need those samples. Then you have to figure out if life arose independently on Earth and Mars. That would be good to know, if ever possible.