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.

 

[Andreas]

This thread is beginning to lose focus, so I'd like to ask a simple question. Those who believe that studying the "UAP phenomenon" scientifically is both reasonable and possible: do you also believe that Bigfoot can be studied scientifically? (I'm not referring to folklore, psychology, or sociology, but to Bigfoot as a real entity.) After all, one can theoretically speculate about its food sources, evolutionary history, habitat, and how it has managed to avoid detection for so long. But shouldn't we first establish that Bigfoot actually exists before conducting such studies? If you think that studying Bigfoot—or demanding the release of classified government files about it—is a ridiculous proposition, while studying UAPs is perfectly reasonable, then what exactly is the difference?

 

[Todd Feinman]

I don't have a foot in that game. Have you thought about a poll for Metabunkers? That might be interesting.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

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

(to answer the title question)

Psychology is a science and maybe applies best to the study of any kind of UAP phenomenon.

 

[Ann K]

Psychology is a science and maybe applies best to the study of any kind of UAP phenomenon.

I think a psychologist would need the answer to this thread's topic first, because he would have to consider whether a subject is believing in real things, or unreal things.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Psychology is a science and maybe applies best to the study of any kind of UAP phenomenon.

Not going to hurt, probably. But I don't think they'd be able to help me. You might have to invoke sociology to try and explain things, as is done already. I believe psychologists have looked at UFO witnesses. Certainly popular delusions and the madness of crowds kind of thing to explain mass sightings, involing popular culture to explain UFO forms, etc.
I thought Google AI showed an increase in "soft science" interest, but there are no samples to analyze (publicly at least) so likely there is no increase in hard science interest.

 

[NoParty]

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

I take some comfort in your assertion that you don't know more about those murders.

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

Oh, I think intelligent beings would have multiple reasons for not talking to us...

...like encountering a wild animal far stranger and more intelligent.

978-0393316049

...The sad truth, however, is that after seeing piles of videos, we still have no real reason to believe that's the case.

In all seriousness, I am shocked at how much hay (and monetizing) people have been able to make,
out of the piles & piles of militantly empty, worthless low-res videos & grainy photos.

This sad realization has me braced for a total onslaught when some truly mysterious & interesting
(at least at first blush) actually DOES show up. If charlatans & dimwits can get the dreck we've seen thus far, puffed up
into serious-sounding headlines & movies, imagine what a shit show it will be if/when something halfway decent actually shows up.
I have in mind that weird viral video from ~2014, in which a Russian car (see below) in an intersection initially appears to come out of thin air. Eventually, the optical illusion was explained, sans magic or aliens, but the random circumstances really WERE pretty weird, at first. Statistically, hundreds of billions of traffic incidents will yield a few that are freaky illusions.
I'm thinking that odds are that something similar will eventually happen in the UFO/UAP field,
and I cringe to think what people--who have made a hobby or career out of successfully making mountains out of molehills--will be able to go with an actual interesting illusion... Will they be able to con Congress into wasting a
trillion tax dollars on an optical illusion?
{1:15}
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQALBUY7OH4

 

[Todd Feinman]

I think you all might be losing the battle with the public. People are fascinated by alien stuff. But part of studying it now is getting to the bottom of the crazy stuff congresspeople are being told. It has to be investigated. It's far beyond hazing or misunderstandings at this point and it is dangerous even if you think UFOs are bunk.
Liars should be prosecuted.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I take some comfort in your assertion that you don't know more about those murders.

Haha I assure you I don't!

 

[Todd Feinman]

You're gonna be really sorry when you find out that the real truth is: bipedal plasmas.

 

[JMartJr]

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

100% agree. Let me try to phrase it differently, see if that helps with understanding of the point...
Pedantry ensues:

----------------------------------------------------
Anything detected by a camera is either:

1) going to be resolved to the point that you can see clearly what it is, or
2) it is not going to be resolved clearly enough to see what it is. (Edit to quickly add -- thoss that can be identified are either never reported as UFOs, or are debunked and should -- but too often are not -- removed from the set of evidence concerning UFOs!)

This will always be true, and always has been true. This is a function of the quality of the camera, the size/distance of the thing being imaged, and stuff like how hazy the air is, is the lens clean, etc..

Better cameras will be able to resolve things that are smaller and/or further away.

During the decades that interest in UFOs has been a thing, cameras and imaging systems have improved.

Improved cameras have not led to acquiring sharp, high quality UFO pictures, that is, those that can be resolved clearly enough to see what they are while also remaining mysterious UFOs. A with the other cameras that are not as good, better cameras produce UFO pictures that show things that are too far away and/or too small to be resolved.

Over time, how far away an object of a given size can be resolved has increased. This has not led to good clear UFO pictures being produced. When an object of the size and distance that used to be UFOs are resolved by better cameras, and all that is seen are planes, birds, balloons, etc. No "real" UFOs. The only UFOs are out in what we call here the "LIZ" -- the Low Information Zone, where objects are too far away for their size to be imaged clearly. They can be detected, we can see a blur or a blob, but nothing is seen clearly.

This has been the case over 75 years.

No camera will ever be able to resolve everything in front of it, no matter how small and far away. There must always be things just too far away to be resolved -- things that can be detected as blobs, points a few pixels across, etc.

But UFOs remain out in this Low Information Zone. If UFOs are a real, new and distinct phenomenon, thay would, for example, have to know it was safe to fly in close enough to Cmdr. Fravor's plane to be clearly seen, knowing he was not capturing images, but then know exactly how far away to get from Underwood's plane so that an indistinct video of a blurred blob could be captured. And they have judged this exactly right, every time, for decades.

This seems extremely unlikely if UFOs are a real new. unique phenomenon. They would have to unerringly always remain just too far from every camera that might take an image for the image to be clear and sharply resolved. Every time, no mistakes, for decades, all over the world.

Or, there is no phenomenon out on the world of "UFOs," they are the inevitable result of the limitations of every camera that will ever exist, with mundane items sometimes being too far away to image sharply and similar inability to to correctly identify other mundane phenomena, and some number of hoaxes and tall tales.

(Hoaxes are a separate subject, and in my view account for every reasonably clear structured UFO image I have encountered in too many years wandering around this ol' world and being interested in such things has been a likely hoax, either by the person taking the picture or with the person taking the picture being hoaxed. Discussions of such images have happened in their own threads, any images that somebody wants to discuss that do not already have a thread can have a thread started. A discussion specifically of how one decides a given image is a likely hoax should, I think, have it's own thread.)

End pedantry! ^_^

 

[Ann K]

I think you all might be losing the battle with the public. People are fascinated by alien stuff. But part of studying it now is getting to the bottom of the crazy stuff congresspeople are being told. It has to be investigated. It's far beyond hazing or misunderstandings at this point and it is dangerous even if you think UFOs are bunk.
Liars should be prosecuted.

"Crazy stuff" is continually being fed to the public, with no distinction about which are serious posts, which are merely reposts by people who don't much care but like stirring the pot for publicity or profit, and which are downright hoaxes. Why do you think the situation is any different when that crazy stuff is being told to congress members instead of just to the general public? After all, those elected to congress are drawn from the same mixed pool of skeptics and the gullible. Why does it have to be investigated? And why do you think it's dangerous?

FIRST give evidence that there is anything material behind the phenomenon. Then we'll talk. If there are no material extraterrestrial objects invading our air space, there is nothing to study.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Why do you think the situation is any different when that crazy stuff is being told to congress members instead of just to the general public?

Because if they are being lied to by members of the military or certain intelligence agencies then we have a real problem. Again, substitute the word "unicorn" and you will see how strange things have become and why something has to be done. Human-unicorn hybrids. Unicorns living among us. Other countries trying to ride the unicorns before we do. Transmedium unicorns.. you get it.

 

[Andreas]

But UFOs remain out in this Low Information Zone.

And this is the important part: the strange stuff always appears just beyond reach, just beyond the line of sight. Throughout human existence, people have probably always seen things they couldn't identify and interpreted them as various mythological beings or phenomena. People saw lights in the sky and believed they were dragons. In Sweden, people often believed they saw the mighty lindworm traveling across the night sky. Later, people saw mysterious hot-air balloons, zeppelins, and then, lo and behold, spaceships.

It's no surprise that some people claim the UAP phenomenon can be explained in religious terms, involving fallen angels and demons. But no matter what, no matter when or where, it's always the distant things just out of reach that are interpreted and transformed into the foundation of human imagination.

This is a subject well worth studying. UAPs, not so much.

 

[JMartJr]

It's no surprise that some people claim the UAP phenomenon can be explained in religious terms, involving fallen angels and demons. But no matter what, no matter when or where, it's always the distant things just out of reach that are interpreted and transformed into the foundation of human imagination.

With the note that, before cameras were so ubiquitous, when it was not to be expected that a Very Close Encounter UFO report might have pictures, there were reports of UFOs getting very close. Sometimes even disgorging occupants to outer about, or harass humans, or even kidnap folks. People touched them, had them damage their cars in a near-collision, were burned by their exhaust That seems a lot less common now. Not completely unheard of, at least to the extent of "I saw it close enough to see it was a flying tick-tack with little fins, but did not get pictures". But extreme close encounters seem to no longer a common sort of UFO report. Might the commonness of cameras, meaning that such a claim would be expected to come with some really amazing pictures, be a factor in this? I think so.