Is there a “UAP phenomenon” worth studying?

[Andreas]

The analogy fails because studying UAPs does not mean assuming the conclusion.
Studying Bigfoot as a confirmed animal would be premature; studying Bigfoot reports would not be.

The point of scientific study is precisely to determine whether any genuinely anomalous objects are present in the data. How could that be established without studying it?

Yes, it does. It means assuming there is a UAP phenomenon that can be studied. If not—if it's just clutter in the LIZ and system malfunctions—then there's simply nothing there to study.

And the comparison with Bigfoot isn't that far-fetched, I think. People claim to have seen her, people have taken pictures and videos of her, and heck, there are even footprints and fur that have supposedly been found and collected. Using the same logic, doesn't all this evidence require a thorough government research program? Or perhaps even a dedicated task force?

Sorry for sounding sarcastic, but the point remains:
1. Establish whether there's a phenomenon.
2. Study the phenomenon.

Some people want to skip the first step, or they mistake the first step for "studying UAP."

 

[Todd Feinman]

So the scientists here don't want to study UFOs and repeat / copy and paste it over and over again as a hobby. I get it. Your words here will last and be referenced in the future.
Some other scientists do. I don't care.
Do you think I would ever be convinced that what I and others saw didn't happen because you tell me it couldn't have? Go pound a sand dune. It's your confirmation bias. I've known engineers, doctors, computer scientists. Sorry. Not as smart or good at seeing patterns. Kinda blinkered. Know a lot about a slice of something. The people you hate ARE scientists. And a wacky lot. I think they are and….others.. too. People still see UFOs. Up close.. You are losing the battle in the minds of the public. Bummer. Scientists claim stupid stuff all of the time.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-within-20-30-years-nasa-chief-scientist-says

Then there's Dyson spheres solar sails. More confirmation bias based on current paradigms and technology. Sigh. Scientists. And then the pareidolia around the Calvine photo. An island! A secret craft! Good lord.

 

[Andreas]

Do you think I would ever be convinced that what I and others saw didn't happen because you tell me it couldn't have?

This is not about dismissing people's personal experiences or questioning anyone's credibility. Nor is it about what someone does or does not believe. Everyone's right to their own beliefs is important to me. Rather, the point is that if a phenomenon is to be studied scientifically, it must first be identified and defined.

I am not claiming that everything we have not yet documented scientifically is therefore imaginary. Science will continue to make new discoveries in the future, some of which may challenge the prevailing consensus. But UAPs and UFOs do not constitute a homogeneous or clearly defined field of study.

Some people claim to have encountered extraterrestrials in dreams and visions. Others say they have traveled aboard flying saucers. Some report seeing small orbs floating through their living rooms, while others point to blurry videos showing objects they cannot explain. Yet when taken together, these claims provide very little—if anything at all—in the way of concrete evidence that science can meaningfully investigate.

Moreover, I see no reason to assume that these experiences are connected. Why should someone encountering large-eyed grey beings in their sleep be related to a distant, blurry dot captured on an infrared video released by the Pentagon? Before we can study a phenomenon, we first need to establish that there is a coherent phenomenon to study.

 

[Todd Feinman]

This is not about dismissing people's personal experiences or questioning anyone's credibility. Nor is it about what someone does or does not believe. Everyone's right to their own beliefs is important to me. Rather, the point is that if a phenomenon is to be studied scientifically, it must first be identified and defined.

I am not claiming that everything we have not yet documented scientifically is therefore imaginary. Science will continue to make new discoveries in the future, some of which may challenge the prevailing consensus. But UAPs and UFOs do not constitute a homogeneous or clearly defined field of study.

Some people claim to have encountered extraterrestrials in dreams and visions. Others say they have traveled aboard flying saucers. Some report seeing small orbs floating through their living rooms, while others point to blurry videos showing objects they cannot explain. Yet when taken together, these claims provide very little—if anything at all—in the way of concrete evidence that science can meaningfully investigate.

Moreover, I see no reason to assume that these experiences are connected. Why should someone encountering large-eyed grey beings in their sleep be related to a distant, blurry dot captured on an infrared video released by the Pentagon? Before we can study a phenomenon, we first need to establish that there is a coherent phenomenon to study.

Well, I'd take a look at historical accounts if you are trying to understand something so fugitive, as with ball lightning. It is how one would proceed in court. But you've isolated yourselves as a bunch of fanatics here with a hobby; not science. And you aren't helping your cause. Everything has gone the other way for y'all; and it's not just because many of you are poor communicators, and not especially outgoing. By automatically dismissing circumstantial evidence and witness testimony as 1000% unreliable in EVERY case —even with corroborative evidence, you do yourselves a great shooting to your feet and look silly to many.
You are in court. You refuse to listen to witnesses at ALL. You will not use them in a case. Only physical evidence will work. And it must have the DNA of the perpetrator on it.. Need I go further?

 

[Andreas]

By automatically dismissing circumstantial evidence and witness testimony —even with corroborative evidence, you do yourselves a great shooting in your feet and look silly to many.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sure some people think my worldview is silly, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[Todd Feinman]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sure some people think my worldview is silly, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

Me too. Other scientists have other views. Fine. That's what scientists think. I'd suggest using your real names so your colleagues know who you are. I use my name for precisely that reason.
I'd go further. I think other scientists can see how much bias is here. Statements are so dismissive that if you are shown to be wrong, no one will ever take you seriously again.

Even Google AI thinks you folks are biased!

"Metabunk is an online skeptical community and discussion forum founded by science writer Mick West, and it is frequently described by critics as having a "debunker bias." This means the platform is often perceived to operate with a predetermined goal of finding prosaic or mundane explanations for phenomena rather than purely impartial investigation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]"

Hobby. Not science.

 

[John J.]

People are fascinated by alien stuff.

I'd guess many posters here are more interested in, and have a greater knowledge of, reports of UFOs, aliens and other strange phenomena than the average member of the public. People are also fascinated by zombies and vampires.
It's hard to make an entertaining summer blockbuster in which the hero explains that an extraordinary claim is due to a misperception.

The people you hate ARE scientists.

Not agreeing with someone- or even finding their views/ claims (in some cases) absurd or actively unhelpful- does not equate to hate.

Speaking personally, the small number of actual people I can think of whose actions or words might evoke strong dislike for them as individuals have absolutely nothing to do with UFOs, paranormal phenomena or scientific controversies (with the possible exception of Andrew Wakefield).
I have frequently chit-chatted with a "UFO researcher" who has been mentioned in a thread here. I was invited to go camping with a group of people fascinated by crop circles (and who clearly thought they represented something extraordinary), and had a very enjoyable time. And found a previously-undocumented crop circle (which was nice, but no great surprise, they were popping up all over the area. Which is why we were there).

But you've isolated yourselves as a bunch of fanatics

Polarizing language is rarely helpful.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I'd guess many posters here are more interested in, and have a greater knowledge of, reports of UFOs, aliens and other strange phenomena than the average member of the public. People are also fascinated by zombies and vampires.
It's hard to make an entertaining summer blockbuster in which the hero explains that an extraordinary claim is due to a misperception.


Not agreeing with someone- or even finding their views/ claims (in some cases) absurd or actively unhelpful- does not equate to hate.

Speaking personally, the small number of actual people I can think of whose actions or words might evoke strong dislike for them as individuals have absolutely nothing to do with UFOs, paranormal phenomena or scientific controversies (with the possible exception of Andrew Wakefield).
I have frequently chit-chatted with a "UFO researcher" who has been mentioned in a thread here. I was invited to go camping with a group of people fascinated by crop circles (and who clearly thought they represented something extraordinary), and had a very enjoyable time. And found a previously-undocumented crop circle (which was nice, but no great surprise, they were popping up all over the area. Which is why we were there).


Polarizing language is rarely helpful.

You all routinely make fun of folks who have seen UFOs. It's a spectrum like scientists. And you lump in bad scientists with experiencers. And you base your entire judgement of the phenomenon on the crap the government releases, which is why I've heard that some think you are shills.
Ask Google AI if folks think it is biased here. Public opinion. Includes scientists.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I'm glad you didn't like that post, Ann. You can imagine what I think.

 

[John J.]

You all routinely make fun of folks who have seen UFOs.

I've seen UFOs.

 

[Todd Feinman]

So the scientists here don't want to study UFOs and repeat / copy and paste it over and over again as a hobby. I get it. Your words here will last and be referenced in the future.
Some other scientists do. I don't care.
Do you think I would ever be convinced that what I and others saw didn't happen because you tell me it couldn't have? Go pound a sand dune. It's your confirmation bias. I've known engineers, doctors, computer scientists. Sorry. Not as smart or good at seeing patterns. Kinda blinkered. Know a lot about a slice of something. The people you hate ARE scientists. And a wacky lot. I think they are and….others.. too. People still see UFOs. Up close.. You are losing the battle in the minds of the public. Bummer. Scientists claim stupid stuff all of the time.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-within-20-30-years-nasa-chief-scientist-says

Then there's Dyson spheres solar sails. More confirmation bias based on current paradigms and technology. Sigh. Scientists. And then the pareidolia around the Calvine photo. An island! A secret craft! Good lord.

What parts do you disagree with? All you do is make fun of folks. You even have a special section for it. A hobby.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

And you base your entire judgement of the phenomenon on the crap the government releases, which is why I've heard that some think you are shills.

This is simply entirely untrue.

This site is packed full of discussion threads with videos and photos and descriptions which come directly from firsthand witnesses who are members of the general public.

 

[Nourali]

Yes, it does. It means assuming there is a UAP phenomenon that can be studied. If not—if it's just clutter in the LIZ and system malfunctions—then there's simply nothing there to study.

And the comparison with Bigfoot isn't that far-fetched, I think. People claim to have seen her, people have taken pictures and videos of her, and heck, there are even footprints and fur that have supposedly been found and collected. Using the same logic, doesn't all this evidence require a thorough government research program? Or perhaps even a dedicated task force?

Sorry for sounding sarcastic, but the point remains:
1. Establish whether there's a phenomenon.
2. Study the phenomenon.

Some people want to skip the first step, or they mistake the first step for "studying UAP."

Framed that way, yes, I agree. But at the end of the day, establishing whether there is a real phenomenon will require investigations, and it seems fair to call that a 'study.

 

[John J.]

What parts do you disagree with?

You claiming that other people here hate people they disagree with (or who we think might be mistaken).
Do you hate people you disagree with about UFOs?

 

[Ann K]

You are so completely sure the phenomenon doesn't exist. Your mind is made up. Because you can't study it, it doesn't exist. What if something was causing similar hallucinations for people and that was a means of contact, but the mechanism hadn't been determined yet? It had an effect. People report these things.
If you think there is nothing to learn there, then do something else. Fix cameras or something. Landers and whatnot are designed to be able to look for life, some of them. Scientists do care. You are just a close-minded biased scientist who deosent care. Period. Bias. Some of you bad scientist are sure they exist. Others biased scientists are sure they don't. I'm sure I don't care about either. The arrogance and entitlement is the only commonality in the spectrum with scientist. It seems. I've known a lot of you. And you are just as wrong as everyone else can be.

Stop frothing at the mouth, and stop flaming away at those who disagree with you. "What if..." is all we have to support your point? What if leprechauns have a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? What if reindeer really could fly?

The fact remains that even with the more sophisticated techniques available nowadays, we still don't have any compelling reason to think there are NHI in our atmosphere. Monitoring the skies in case of terrestrial-enemy craft is a wise thing to do. But looking for other-worldly objects has NEVER proved to be a fruitful endeavor.

Scientists and skeptics proportion their beliefs according to the evidence. Got any UFOs you want to show us? No, you don't, you just have a story. We will start to take the subject seriously if one ever shows up, but that has not happened in all these years of tall tales. The logical conclusion at this time is that no, they don't exist as genuine objects. The time to accept their existence is AFTER they come here.

 

[Nourali]

Since the question of whether "there is a phenomenon" is central, I wanted to ask something. In the discussion on another thread that led to the creation of this one, I mentioned unexplained cases investigated by GEIPAN. My view was that it might be unnecessary to create threads for cases that have already been studied rigorously ? Do you think it would still be useful to create threads to discuss such cases, or not?

 

[Todd Feinman]

This is simply entirely untrue.

This site is packed full of discussion threads with videos and photos and descriptions which come directly from firsthand witnesses who are members of the general public.

And from those, and that is good. And that is an important thing you do here, it's true. But the bias is still there. And it's a lot of noise with people taking pictures of anything that is in the sky. Since by their nature, these experiences are often fleeting, it is useful to look at firsthand witness testimony across time to look for similarities in descriptions. A lot of places already do this. I think even AARO was looking at categorizing civilian reports. So, like some fugitive natural phenomenon, one can get an idea of what has been observed, and reported and see if it matches anything currently reported. Or even if it had been reported in the past at the same locations, etc. There have been studies done by other countries, scientists working for corporations. You might have to accept that the nature of the phenomenon is real or affects reality enough to be taken seriously, without having a chunk of it in a lab. But science requires one to keep the possibility open that something is not man made.
Some have admitted here that Occam's Razor is the rule. Anything not mundane doesn't exist. That's what Google AI says too.

 

[Todd Feinman]

The time to accept their existence is AFTER they come here.

Seen any sci-fi movies? Are you thinking like Independence Day? Or War of the Worlds? Star Trek? We know how contact would occur? It wouldn't start to occur at boundaries?

 

[Todd Feinman]

I've seen UFOs.

Good for you. Some LIZ camera artifact, right?

 

[John J.]

I mentioned unexplained cases investigated by GEIPAN. My view was that it might be unnecessary to create threads for cases that have already been studied rigorously ? Do you think it would still be useful to create threads to discuss such cases, or not?

It might be useful to start a new thread for each individual case studied by GEIPAN that you or others might want to discuss, Posting Guidelines https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

Or maybe have a more general thread about GEIPAN if it wasn't focussing on individual cases.

 

[Ann K]

You all routinely make fun of folks who have seen UFOs.

No, we just ask them to supply evidence for what they tell us. It's the prudent thing to do in a field which seems to have a high proportion of hoaxers and an even higher proportion of people who have been fooled by mundane things. So far none of the stories has turned up a "real UFO" or "real ET".

I am, however, seriously tempted to make fun of folks who quote Google AI as an authority to validate their claims...

 

[Todd Feinman]

No, we just ask them to supply evidence for what they tell us. It's the prudent thing to do in a field which seems to have a high proportion of hoaxers and an even higher proportion of people who have been fooled by mundane things. So far none of the stories has turned up a "real UFO" or "real ET".

I am, however, seriously tempted to make fun of folks who quote Google AI as an authority to validate their claims...

I'm not quoting it to back up my claims. Other people see it. You are losing and people see you as extremist debunkers not scientists. Look it up,
You're also apparently losing academically. Not in the hard sciences though, probably.

 

[John J.]

Some have admitted here that Occam's Razor is the rule. Anything not mundane doesn't exist.

That isn't what Occam's Razor says, or implies, not even remotely close.
William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar, it is all but certain he had a firm belief in the Nicene Creed and other tenets of his faith.

 

[John J.]

That's how you are using it here.

Give an example where I have said "Occam's Razor says anything not mundane does not exist".

Edited to add; I posted a quick bit about Occam's Razor here,

Occam's Razor, or the principle of parsimony, is often quoted as
"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" in English; originally Latin Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
(Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor).

More commonly it is paraphrased as
"The simplest explanation is the best".

This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power, one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions, and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions. Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models

(Wikipedia).

There are more complex variants along the lines of
"The simplest explanation that takes into account all the available evidence is usually the best".

What constitutes evidence, or relevant evidence, might be arguable.
The meaning of "simplest explanation" is sometimes misunderstood, for example if we're talking about the construction of the Giza pyramids, "Aliens did it" is a linguistically simple explanation which is easily understood, but it involves the "multiplication of entities" for which there is no evidence, i.e. intelligent extraterrestrial visitors in ancient Egypt, and it ignores available evidence about the evolution of pyramid building, known Egyptian abilities in quarrying and stonemasonry, etc. etc.)

 

[Todd Feinman]

Give an example where I have said "Occam's Razor says anything not mundane does not exist".

It's the basic premise of this forum. Many of you have already made up your minds that UFOs are not real; that's why you've come here. I am not quoting you in particular. I've heard every kind of crazy alien idea from scientists " from the future" high school stoner stuff, to self-replicating probes, to guided comets, to solar sails, to Dyson spheres to every kind of thing. They don't bother to look at historic reports. The larger patterns across disciplines. It's a gambit only based on hard physical evidence, thus brittle. They look silly.

 

[Ann K]

So, like some fugitive natural phenomenon, one can get an idea of what has been observed, and reported and see if it matches anything currently reported. Or even if it had been reported in the past at the same locations, etc.

The problem with verbal reports is that people talk to each other. People read the same stories and go to the same movies and belong to the same chat groups. The amount of person-to-person "contamination" (for want of a better word) is enormous, and very often unrecognized. Alien creatures morph from little green men to tall, blond, and silvery creatures, in the "description du jour". People see a lot more of "Bigfoot" after the movie "King Kong" comes out.

It's generally not deliberate (except in the cases that are hoaxes), but when someone describes something to another, that colors his own perception. In the same way, if a TV channel has a particular political stance, the viewers of that channel tend to believe the good things they say about their chosen party, as well as the bad things they say about their opponents. People may choose a channel because they agree with it, but the channel also chooses and grooms its audience; feedback and reinforcement goes both ways. Similarly, someone who talks mostly to other like-minded people gets into the same kind of spiral. Thats as true of UFO believers as it is of flat-earth believers.

Thats also true of scientists and skeptics, but we have a correction method that does not exist for many other groups. We have facts.

 

[JMartJr]

By automatically dismissing circumstantial evidence and witness testimony as 1000% unreliable in EVERY case

Can't speak for others, but that is not my position; it may look like it to somebody outside looking in!

To be clear, my position is that eyewitness testimony MAY be 100% accurate, perfectly describing what the witness observed. HOWEVER, it is also possible for eyewitness testimony to be in error for a number of reasons. Sometimes people make faulty observations. Sometimes their memory is not flawless. In extreme but presumably rare cases, people can hallucinate. Sometimes people tell tall tales.

Recognizing those problems does not mean that EVERY eyewitness testimony case is 1000% wrong -- many, maybe even most, might be correct in every relevant detail. But many are not, and there is no clear metric that I know to differentiate.

For that reason, eyewitness accounts do not have, for me, much useful evidentiary value. They can be very interesting, but they can't prove much of anything in and of themselves. They CAN be useful to supplement other, more tangible evidence. But where they contradict the tangible evidence, they should be set aside.

This is in no way intended as disrespectful or dismissive of witnesses. It is, rather, an attempt to scrupulously keep any faulty evidence out of the "evidence pool." It risks tossing out some accurate accounts with the inaccurate. That seems preferable, to me, to including incorrect information, if the goal is to determine if something is going on, and if so, what it is.

even with corroborative evidence, you do yourselves a great shooting to your feet and look silly to many.

With respect, I can't control what other people think I look like. I can only control what I do and say.