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

[NorCal Dave]

Ah....France is the one country where an official government agency ( GEIPAN...part of the French Space Agency ) collates all UFO reports. Ironically, what NASA are only just now doing with UFOs, France was already doing as far back as 1977.

That's because they have Vallee. Oui?

 

[Gary C]

...

The rest of the section goes on to talk about how, since things in sciences like cosmology can't be replicated, there is no need to have replication in the study of UAPs:

The concept of "reproducibility" is a hallmark of the scientific method, and so it is a common sub-argument against UAP studies: you cannot reproduce strange encounters; thus, you mustn't study them. That reasoning is fair when applied to psychics claiming to view the future, but not to UAP. We have just established that sightings occur in different countries. There are also "common shapes," implying reproducibility in descriptors. (Although the U.S. government thinks shapes should be classified! Why? (91)

Most damning of all: not all of the established sciences can rely on reproducibility in its most pure or direct form anyway! Take, for instance, cosmology — without access to the multiverse (if it even exists, of course), we have only 1 Universe or cosmos to study, with 1 Big Bang and 1 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). We can do computer simulations, of course, and come close to reproducing the conditions of the Big Bang in the highest-energy particle (LHC) or ion colliders (RHIC), but that's not the same as having multiple universes or many CMBs to study. Yet, cosmologists can still do their work.

Not being a cosmologist, I'll let someone else tackle this.

All EC from the Szydagis article: https://uapx-media.medium.com/addre...-criticisms-against-studying-uap-5663335fe8c8

Just an amateur astronomer myself but his example of reproducibility is flawed. Concepts such as the existence of a Multiverse are theoretical in nature. There is nothing to 'reproduce' since no one is claiming to have actually discovered evidence for such things.

In contrast, astronomical observations of the large scale cosmos can be reproduced, either by a non-affiliated group repeating an original set of observations, or increasingly, by parallel observations of the same phenomena using a different method. For example, a distant supernova can now be studied in the gamma ray, x-ray, visible, infrared, microwave, and radio frequency bands as well as by neutrino "telescopes" and gravitational wave detectors.

(Apologies if I didn't get the quoting quite right. Not used to the software here yet.)

Given his credentials, that's a somewhat egregious error.

 

[Skalman]

Ah....France is the one country where an official government agency ( GEIPAN...part of the French Space Agency ) collates all UFO reports. Ironically, what NASA are only just now doing with UFOs, France was already doing as far back as 1977.

And while they are not a government agency, UFO-Sweden has a fairly comprehensive archive which probably contains every non-classified UAP report since 1989 and a lot of the earlier reports as well (they lost parts of their earlier archive due to a schism in the organization) and they work closely with the Swedish military when it comes to UAP:s. AFAIK if anyone in the military sees something and they don't know what it is, they give the report to UFO-Sweden to see if they can solve it since they are the experts.