Tim Phillips lends credence to the existence of anomalous black triangle UFOs

[Edward Current]

But the evidence doesn't support your hypothesis.

There's tons and tons of definitive, unambiguous evidence for misperception, mis-interpretation, mis-remembering, lying, and hoaxing.

I already admitted we don't have conclusive evidence. But I think we have sufficient evidence to take it seriously

Do we? All I know of is stories, stories about conclusive evidence, and lots of very inconclusive, vague, and bad evidence, which has been binned together into one category by way of motivated reasoning, with no coherent theory on why they should be binned together so.

 

[John J.]

But I think we have sufficient evidence to take it seriously, and not dismiss it.

We have irrefutable evidence that people report seeing large black flying triangles.
There is no physical evidence that large black flying triangles* exist. We know large numbers of people have reported seeing other things that are unlikely to objectively exist, and events which are unlikely to have happened.

I believe people honestly think they've seen large black flying triangles, just as I believe some people are honest in their accounts of seeing Adamski-style flying saucers, the Loch Ness Monster, Yetis and ghosts.
But I think it's unlikely that any of those things has an objective existence, independent of but as described by their experiencers.

Having ideas about these remarkable phenomena that isn't "they were seen, so they're objectively real, now let's discuss how they work" is not being dismissive. It is an attempt to understand reports of anomalous phenomena while taking into account the massive dearth of physical evidence. It is about tentatively drafting a hypothesis that might best explain all the known information.

If large black flying triangles exist, why would they use ion drives? There is absolutely zero evidence for this, and it's (edited to add: probably) not sensible.
Just like chemical rockets, ion drives exploit a reaction mass.
We have ion drives. They're efficient, and allow gradual but protracted acceleration of spacecraft with very little reaction mass, if they're in microgravity settings.
To hold up an aircraft/ spacecraft near the Earth's surface using ion drives would require a massive increase in working mass (mass ejected from the craft) and/or a huge increase in the velocity of ions in the exhaust.
In Earth's atmosphere, this would likely be noticed, and might not be great for any Belgians etc. stood underneath.

*With the "exotic" features described. We're not talking about B2 Spirits or Avro Vulcans.

Edited to add a gratuitous picture of Avro Vulcans (with 4 Avro 707 experimental jets), Farnborough Airshow, 1953 (!)

 

[Mendel]

But there are plasma based propulsion concepts that, in theory, could be useful in our atmosphere for high performance vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive#Aircraft_propulsion

The article outlines why this is useful for high-altitude, high-speed craft. To shape the flow around the aircraft, the technology would need to encompass large parts of the skin, starting at the front.

The "craft" you are trying to explain with that are low altitude, low-speed/hovering, with relatively small light sources, not located at the extremities, i.e. the observations do not match the (as yet hypothetical) technology.

anything beyond our understanding is magic and therefore can't exist,

I've been using the "it's magic" line to point out that to refer to a technology we don't understand is as much of an explanation as is to say "it's magic".

anything beyond our understanding is magic and therefore not an explanation!

add to that the use of "beyond our understanding" in place of "we understand very well that it's impossible". See our arguments about "air 1.0", i.e. the physics of air reacting to objects moving through it are fairly well understood; so much so that any phenomenon requiring "breakthrough air physics" or "air 2.0" can be ruled out.

Your choice isn't actually between "unknown technology" or "witness misinterpreted what they saw", it is between "no explanation" and "well-known, established phenomenon".

 

[Mendel]

@Fin visuals have proven to shape how future observers interpret observation. You're precipitating future UFO reports when you visualize past UFO reports as anomalous phenomena.

I'd be more comfortable if there was also a visualisation of the closest mundane explanation.

 

[Fin]

@Fin visuals have proven to shape how future observers interpret observation. You're precipitating future UFO reports when you visualize past UFO reports as anomalous phenomena.

I'd be more comfortable if there was also a visualisation of the closest mundane explanation.

I respect your concerns but you're asking too much of me, sir. My YouTube animations are a hobby I choose to devote a set amount of time to. You're essentially asking me to, as a one-man-band, add another week onto a 3-week project, or a few days onto a week-long project. I do these animations for free. Some take a couple of weeks. A few have taken over a month. The few donations I've received have come nowhere near covering my time & expenses. Your request is reasonable but currently its just not feasible.

I will make mistakes & I welcome corrections, but the quality analysis & explorations of mundane explanations is just going to have to happen elsewhere, like here, properly, crowdsourced. Have at it. I won't sulk, I promise.

I do the animations out of my own interest and for the benefit of the witnesses I find compelling, so they can more easily share their story. Recreating my own black triangle story in 3D has been extremely valuable to me so I'm offering that to others who don't have the ability to do it for themselves. That's my goal and my chosen focus.

(My DMs are always open if you'd like to discuss further. I don't want to derail this thread talking too much about myself/my work but suffice it to say, your concerns have been noted & I can certainly appreciate your perspective)

 

[Mendel]

The everyone can be mistaken or lying, and anything beyond our understanding is magic and therefore can't exist, epistemological framework has failed us repeatedly throughout history.

You contend that when we're weighing magical thinking against evidence-based science, magical thinking comes out on top?

You think the medieval witch trials or the populist conspiracy theories employed by totalitarian dictators are not historical failures?

Do you have any examples for your "historical failures", besides the 8 years it took to gather convincing evidence for meteorites?

 

[FatPhil]

The everyone can be mistaken or lying, and anything beyond our understanding is magic and therefore can't exist, epistemological framework has failed us repeatedly throughout history.

Likening now to the past is itself a logical fallacy. We have a much better understanding of how the world works nowadays. You also seem to think that scientists shun anomalies, which is nonsense - there are papers in anomolies. However, they have to be anomolies that stand up to critical scrutiny and replication, and it's that which is lacking in the fairy-tale world of ufologists.

 

[beku-mant]

You think the medieval witch trials or the populist conspiracy theories employed by totalitarian dictators are not historical failures?

They had an established belief that witches were real. And then they forced things they didn't understand into that belief system. Likewise, illness was explained as demonic forces (the established belief) rather than magical tiny microbes (the actual truth that was beyond understanding at the time).

UFO witnesses and researchers are the "witches" in this story, not the witch accusers.

 

[beku-mant]

Likening now to the past is itself a logical fallacy. We have a much better understanding of how the world works nowadays. You also seem to think that scientists shun anomalies, which is nonsense - there are papers in anomolies. However, they have to be anomolies that stand up to critical scrutiny and replication, and it's that which is lacking in the fairy-tale world of ufologists.

I never said scientists shun anomalies, but there is an irrational shunning of the UFO topic, and an irrational dogma around the possible existence or visitation of ETI as well.

 

[JMartJr]

I suggest you pick the best one you can think of, and start a thread for it. Other cases of "high quality multiple observer accounts" that have been mentioned by others in this thread (29 Palms, Phoenix Lights) have been shown to have been based on misunderstandings and misperceptions of mundane things like flares. But if you have a good one, put it out there and let's discuss it -- I can't really do much to evaluate lots of claimed cases that are not named.

This may have gotten lost in the flood of discussion, but I'm still interested in hearing about such a case.

 

[FatPhil]

This is precisely the kind of epistemological shortcomings I am talking about. Are we really going to argue that it is a rational position to assign an equal probability that leprechauns are real and anomalously performing UFOs (or even ET craft visiting Earth) are real, after examining what information we have to base our position on?

Yes. The credibility of both is next to zero, and the error bars cover each other. Distinguishing between the two would be pointless.

 

[beku-mant]

Yes. The credibility of both is next to zero, and the error bars cover each other. Distinguishing between the two would be pointless.

I saw an interview where a SETI researcher was talking about how exciting it is that we might be able to detect techno-signatures within something like 10 light years for the first time soon. And then she went on to discuss how they will have to assure everyone if they find them, don't worry, they aren't coming here. No UFO reports are credible.

Coming from a scientist, this has to be one of the biggest face palm moments of my life. Maybe next to Seth Shostak's argument that we probably cannot be visited because of the high costs of interstellar travel and little payoff.

How can we still, in 2025, have people who should know better with such a screamingly deficient intellect, so perturbed by this UFO stigma and dogma?

What should be obvious to anyone capable of having a non-trivial rational thought, is that it ought to be shocking, if a technological civilization is within 10 light years of us, and has not sent anything here to check us out.

I don't know how informed most of you are, but we are still in the dark ages when it comes to thinking about ETI.

 

[Mendel]

They had an established belief that witches were real. And then they forced things they didn't understand into that belief system. [..]

UFO witnesses and researchers are the "witches" in this story, not the witch accusers.

"They have an established belief that UFOs are real. And then they force things they don't understand into that belief system." I don't think you're quite correct about that.

The only "force" evidence-based science applies is to demand evidence for your claims.

The witchfinders believed witches were real, even though they had never seen a witch do witchcraft.
UFOlogists believe UFOs are real, even though they don't actually have any idea what they are, nor evidence they exist.

But I know why you don't see that analogy. It's all good.

No UFO reports are credible.

Yes. That's a true statement.

What should be obvious to anything capable of having a non-trivial rational thought, is that it should be shocking beyond belief, if a technological civilization is within 10 light years of us, and has not sent anything here to check us out.

How fast would that "something" travel, and when would it arrive?

 

[beku-mant]

How fast would that "something" travel, and when would it arrive?

They would be statistically expected to be hundreds of millions of years more technologically advanced than us, and they could have sent probes to every star in the galaxy, a hundred times over, even if they were forced to only use technology barely more advanced than 21st century human technology.

 

[FatPhil]

They would be statistically expected to be hundreds of millions of years more technologically advanced than us, and they could have sent probes to every star in the galaxy, a hundred times over, even if they were forced to only use technology barely more advanced than 21st century human technology.

While scientists may demand evidence for claims, I'm happy to play the mathematician role and demand equations to support that claim. Make sure you show your error bars.

 

[Mauro]

I never said scientists shun anomalies, but there is an irrational shunning of the UFO topic, and an irrational dogma around the possible existence or visitation of ETI as well.

You're again freely mixing true and false propositions in your arguments. Do you know of anyone who thinks aliens cannot possibily exist? I don't.

The possible visitation of Earth by aliens is another matter, though. The prior of even a single alien probe reaching Earth is certainly not zero, but it's surely very low (you know: distances, energy, all those pesky physical limitations which magic is supposed to address), while the prior of an UFO flap such as a Belgian one to be real UFOs approaches leprechaun levels. You may think that adding 'unkown technology' to the mix rises the prior, but it does the exact opposite: it further reduces it, because now you need to factor in also the probability that the 'unknown technology' actually exist. which will never be one (this is basic logic). And it's expecially hard when the 'unknown technology' is effectively 'magic', at which point you're down to the same prior as for leprechauns (leprechauns are magic too).

And what does the evidence say? We have a lot of confirmed cases where people routinely mistakes anything and everything as an UFO and then starts building tall stories on it (plus hoaxers and liars and...), but zero confirmed cases of alien spaceships. This (basic logic again) makes the reality of ETI visitations even more improbable than the prior. And having 'unexplained' cases does not help: it's much more probable that they will fall in the category of confirmed cases (mistakes and confabulations and..) rather than in the category of zero cases (alien spaceships, leprechauns).

Find evidence, then come back. I consider this discussion complete.

 

[beku-mant]

The prior of even a single alien probe reaching Earth is certainly not zero, but it's surely very low

The prior of a civilization even 1,000 years more advanced than us attempting and failing to successfully send at least one probe to a relatively nearby star is effectively 0.

 

[Eburacum]

While scientists may demand evidence for claims, I'm happy to play the mathematician role and demand equations to support that claim. Make sure you show your error bars.

I must admit that @beku-mant has a good point here. Any alien civilisation we encounter at random should be expected to be hundreds of thousands of years behind us or in front of us in development, by sheer chance. In a galaxy that is 13 billion years old, 100,000 years is an eyeblink.

However that does not support the idea of alien civilisations visiting us in the slightest. If a random civilisation nearby in space is 100,000 years behind us in development, we would not see any evidence of them; if they were 100,000 years ahead of us, they would probably be here already.

The real paradox behind Fermi's observation/paradox is that we should have been colonised thousands of years ago by any ancient, advanced civilisation; they would already be here - and we'd be learning all about their history in schools. We would be them; they would be us.

The sensible conclusion is that they don't exist, and SETI know this.

 

[Mendel]

The prior of a civilization even 1,000 years more advanced than us attempting and failing to successfully send at least one probe to a relatively nearby star is effectively 0.

That's your second pivot now.

You started by being insultingly dismissive of "don't worry, they aren't coming here", without having presented and examined the argument supporting that statement.

You then pivoted to "they would have sent an unmanned probe to every star within 10 light years distance", which already means that "they" are not actually coming here.

And now you pivot from "every star" to "one probe to one star".

If we could do it, would we do it? Who would pay for it, and why?
If we don't expect to find life, would it be worth it?
If we found intelligent life, wouldn't it be more effective to establish long-distance communications?

Your conviction is driven by belief, not by evidence and argument.

 

[Mauro]

if they were 100,000 years ahead of us, they would probably be here already

Or, alternatively, meaningful interstellar travel is impossible whatever advanced technology one can possibly get (which is a quite solid proposition, imho). But the result is always the same: with overwhelming probability there are no advanced alien civilization who have visited/are visiting Earth.

 

[John J.]

They had an established belief that witches were real. And then they forced things they didn't understand into that belief system. ...UFO witnesses and researchers are the "witches" in this story, not the witch accusers.

To turn that on its head:
A widespread belief in witches was real. But witches were not real.
And people did indeed force things they didn't understand into that belief system- mythology and folk belief, Biblical quotes without context, self-serving interpretations of law. Unlikely or inexplicable events were seen as the work of witches.
Witches were blamed for abductions, shadowy meetings at night sometimes witnessed by chance. They had a hidden hand in events.
Those who argued against the existence of witches were on the side of evil, at best foolish apologists who hadn't seen the light.

The belief that alien craft are visiting Earth is real. But there is no testable, objective evidence that Earth is, or ever has been, visited by alien craft: Alien visitation probably isn't real.
Believers in alien craft force things into that belief system- often references to lasers, quantum physics, plasmas, metamaterials- things which are of active interest to scientists and engineers, things which many other people might have heard of but perhaps with a vaguer understanding. These (to many*) almost magical technologies are associated with aliens.
(I've added some examples below.)
Aliens are blamed for abductions, and shadowy encounters at night witnessed by chance. They, or the few in MJ12 or whatever who really know about them, have a hidden hand in events.
Those who point out the lack of evidence of aliens visiting Earth are shills, disinformation agents, at best closed-minded dogmatists who can't, or are too afraid to, see the truth.




*Including myself
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Some examples of UFO enthusiasts making claims associating what we might consider advanced technologies with UFOs, which don't stand up to examination:

You will see the appendages exiting the orb, you will see the field it is creating.
I've seen orb pics. I've never seen one doing this...
You're going to see the laser systems I discussed. You're going to see the field it creates and you'll see the orb.

Twitter user UAPMax.com @UFOS-UAPS, 21 September 2023, documented in this thread.
And the big reveal:

A butterfly. And if it's not a butterfly (though local candidate species have been identified)- where's the laser systems? Where's "the field it is creating"? (I'm guessing UAPMax wasn't talking about the butterfly pollinating flowers). (Thread discussing photo).

Two others, both from Garry P. Nolan, Jacques F. Vallee, Sizun Jiang and Larry G. Lemke,
"Improved instrumental techniques, including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics." Published in Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 128, 1 January 2022.
PDF attached below. One claim by those authors:

Spintronics has been previously investigated in US government analysis of unconventional craft in the Defense Intelligence Reference Documents produced under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) program

The cited document for this claim is a list of papers available from https://irp.fas.org/dia/aatip-list.pdf.

The cited document does not state

Spintronics has been previously investigated in US government analysis of unconventional craft...

as Nolan, Vallee et al. seem to claim, if we take that claim to mean spintronics technology or knowledge has been applied or found in the examination of actual hardware.
The cited document includes a list of 38 papers mostly concerning "blue sky" research and speculation about future and / or theoretical technologies. It is not a list of papers about, or resulting from, the examination of foreign aircraft or UAP. (All but one, about lasers, are in the public realm).
Of the 38 papers, the only one devoted to spin physics is Maxim Tsoi's "Metallic Spintronics", 2010 (PDF attached below).
As well as an overview of spin physics, Tsoi's paper proposes utilising electron spin to carry information instead of charge, in order to allow better heat dissipation from the expected increase in transistor density on semiconductor chips- a promising, hopefully practical idea yet to be realised by industry.
There is nothing in Tsoi's paper that could have been used in any practical sense to investigate "unconventional"/ foreign craft at that time (or in 2022).

Metallic Spintronics was written by a scientist with much experience of the field. It contains 97 checkable references. Just as that paper's proposals could not be used in an applied sense to investigate aerospace craft in 2022, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect that any part of Metallic Spintronics was dependent on, or informed by, prior examination of aerospace artefacts. No part of that paper describes technology for use in the investigation of aerospace artefacts.
The one citation Nolan, Vallee et al. use to support their claim emphatically does not support their claim.

But there's worse: Nolan, Vallee et al. claim

...liquid metal designs have been proposed... ...for superconducting airborne platforms [46].

(Their italics).
That reference [46] gives us,
46. Southall, H.L. and C.E. Oberly, "System Considerations for Airborne, High-power Superconducting Generators". Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 1979. 15(1): p. 711. PDF below.

(1) The Southall and Oberly paper is not in any way about "superconducting airborne platforms". It is not about aircraft design or propulsion.
It is about superconducting airborne generators, i.e. generators for electricity production on board airborne platforms. A generator is not an "airborne platform", an aircraft is. Throughout the Southall/ Oberly paper it is assumed that the power source for the generator is a conventional (aero engine) turbine. Nolan, Vallee et al.'s use of the phrase "superconducting airborne platforms" is misleading, and their use of italics to imply significance unwarranted.

(2) There is nothing in Southall and Oberly's 1979 paper about liquid metal. Absolutely nothing at all. Throughout the paper it is assumed that windings of superconducting wire are to be used.

The application of multifilament Nb3Sn has permitted a large thermal margin to be designed into the rotating field winding. ...Preliminary selection of a multifilament Nb3Sn cable has resulted from these considerations. The cable will carry 864 amperes at 8.5K and 6.8 Tesla.

(Abstract, pg. 1, Southall and Oberly 1979).
The paper is about relatively conventional late 1970's designs for superconducting generators, as this figure (pg. 1 of PDF, 711 of journal) shows:

Part of the description for the above figure reads,

The electromagnetic shield screens the superconducting field windings from any asynchronous magnetic fields produced by the stator (armature) winding currents

There is nothing in this paper that supports, in any way, its use as a reference in the context that Nolan, Vallee, Jiang and Lemke (2022) use it.

Nolan, Vallee, Jiang and Lemke's representation of the 1979 Southall/ Oberly paper is wholly wrong.
It is almost inconceivable that Nolan, Vallee, Jiang and Lemke all misunderstood the Southall/ Oberly paper.
And it isn't an administrative error, e.g. citing the wrong paper: Like much of the text in "4.1 Liquid metal, MHD and advanced flying vehicles", Nolan, Vallee et al.'s text about the Southall/ Oberly paper is identical to that used by Vallee in "Physical Analyses in Ten Cases of Unexplained Aerial Objects with Material Samples", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1998.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nolan and Vallee are big names in UFOlogy.

...there is an irrational shunning of the UFO topic

Can you imagine a research paper describing the development of a new medicine misusing cited material like in the 2 examples above?

(And these were by no means the only errors in their 2022 paper; e.g. stating Al-27 was not found in their specimen when it was the most common isotope in 5 out of 6 sub-samples tested; a map where the 4 locations they indicate are all incorrect...)

 

[Eburacum]

Vallee may have been a competent scientist once, but his association with Nolan, and recent work on the Trinity and hairdryer burns cases seem to indicate he is not in that category any more.

 

[John J.]

What should be obvious to anyone capable of having a non-trivial rational thought, is that it ought to be shocking, if a technological civilization is within 10 light years of us, and has not sent anything here to check us out.

There might not be a technological civilisation within 10 light years, or 100. As each year passes, it seems less and less likely.

We have absolutely no idea how many technological civilisations there are in the Milky Way other than it's >=1.

The Drake equation is a wonderful thing for making us think about the prerequisites for, and possible numbers of technological civilisations, but it has absolutely zero predictive value. The final (IIRC) variable- how long technological civilisations last- can only be realistically estimated once we have had the chance to study other technological civilisations, or their remains. If we ever do.
By which time the Drake equation will be moot, because by definition we will have direct indications of the frequency of technological civilisations.
In dark times I think there's a good chance of our civilisation ending before we ever discover ETI, even if it exists.
Possibly before we discover any extraterrestrial life (though the search for biosignatures, just now becoming a practical proposition, gives me hope).

If ETI exists, their motivations might be very different to ours.
Maybe the dark forest hypothesis deserves some serious thought.

 

[JMartJr]

if they were 100,000 years ahead of us, they would probably be here already.

I'm not sure about that. Too many unknowns. Is our drive to explore the norm, or unusual? If the latter, it becomes unlikely they'd be here at all!

We have one data point... us. Hard to figure probabilities from that.

 

[FatPhil]

I must admit that @beku-mant has a good point here. Any alien civilisation we encounter at random should be expected to be hundreds of thousands of years behind us or in front of us in development, by sheer chance.

But that wasn't his point.

 

[Eburacum]

I'm not sure about that. Too many unknowns. Is our drive to explore the norm, or unusual? If the latter, it becomes unlikely they'd be here at all!

This probably should be in one of the threads that discuss the Fermi Paradox and astrobiology, but yes, it does mean that some, many, or most civilisations could be uninterested in exploration and/or expansion. As a sub-set of the whole, the civilisations which are expansionist are likely to be the most widespread, so they are probably the ones we would meet first.

If they exist at all.

 

[beku-mant]

One camp thinks if we're not alone in the galaxy, why have we not been consumed by a tidal wave of expanding colonizing ETI and turned into a Dyson swarm already. Another camp thinks ETI probably just won't want to come here or won't be able to afford it.

I don't think either extreme captures the bulk of the probability. The most reasonable assumption we can make, is that if there have been technological civilizations within some radius of Earth, they would probably have, at a minimum, sent some probes here to check us out.

We are in the dark ages on this topic, as the very scientists who are supposed to be qualified to theorize about it, are unable to do so rationally without risk of ostracization.

 

[Eburacum]

One camp thinks if we're not alone in the galaxy, why have we not been consumed by a tidal wave of expanding colonizing ETI and turned into a Dyson swarm already. Another camp thinks ETI probably just won't want to come here or won't be able to afford it.

Oh, there are lots more camps than that. I recommend David Brin's overview of the various solutions to the Fermi Paradox, and Milan Circovic's expansion of that list. I've collected quite a few myself.

We are in the dark ages on this topic, as the very scientists who are supposed to be qualified to theorize about it, are unable to do so rationally without risk of ostracization.

I really don't think that is why SETI scientists and astronomers in general are unwilling to theorise about this question; the majority of astronomers are very well acquainted with these questions, and know that there are no convincing solutions at this moment in time.

 

[beku-mant]

Oh, there are lots more camps than that. I recommend David Brin's overview of the various solutions to the Fermi Paradox, and Milan Circovic's expansion of that list. I've collected quite a few myself.


I really don't think that is why SETI scientists and astronomers in general are unwilling to theorise about this question; the majority of astronomers are very well acquainted with these questions, and know that there are no convincing solutions at this moment in time.

SETI has acted like the equivalent of the dorky kid in school who has to go flip the other dorky kids lunch plate over to gain status among the cool kids. They felt they had to join in the stigmatization in order to be taken seriously themselves.

The one constant is that if your theory predicts any UFOs could possibly be extraterrestrial vehicles, you get kicked out of the club. This is why rational theory on this topic is scarce.

 

[Eburacum]

Brin and Circovic both include the 'some UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles' as one of the possible options. This option remains on the table; it is just one among many, and there are many rational arguments against it, and few in favour of it. Even Jacques Vallee has listed several of the arguments against this hypothesis.

But you will find that most astronomers will at least mention it as a possible solution.

 

[beku-mant]

I must admit that @beku-mant has a good point here. Any alien civilisation we encounter at random should be expected to be hundreds of thousands of years behind us or in front of us in development, by sheer chance. In a galaxy that is 13 billion years old, 100,000 years is an eyeblink.

You probably chose 100,000 years because, although it's an irrationally small number to estimate as the expected value, it still gets the essential point across that they should be a much older technological civilization, and a smaller number is closer to fitting in the overton window. You see this happen all of the time when people estimate how much further along a randomly encountered ETI might be, people are deliberately compensating to avoid stigma and/or align with the dogma. It's painfully obvious, and at this point, we should just stop it and try to be as truthful as possible.

 

[NorCal Dave]

We are in the dark ages on this topic, as the very scientists who are supposed to be qualified to theorize about this topic, are unable to do so rationally without risk of ostracization.

Sorry, I have to disagree here. Nobody is going to be ostracized for theorizing about stuff.

The guys from UAPx, Kunth and Szydagis (may have misspelled these) are still teaching, even after appearing in the lame movie A Tear in the Sky.

Garry Nolan will test any bit of junk claimed to be from a crashed UFO. He even tested the DNA of a looted indigenous child's body because Steven Greer said it was an alien. He's still teaching at Stanford. His Stanford colleague, Peter Struck, spent years tracking down UFOs and finished his career just fine.

The guys that put out the paper claiming aliens are already among us are still at Harvard (link below).

In fact if one reads through some of the UFO papers, such the one by the Harvard guys or Nolan and Vallee's paper @John J. referenced above or watch the UAPx presentation, one sees there is very little to work with and theorizing is about all they can do. As such, most scientists who are supposed to be qualified to work on UFOs, just don't bother. There's no there, there. There is little to actually study and nothing to experiment with.

Please read the treads linked below.

The Nolan/Vallee paper is a rehash of a UFO claim with some witness statements, combined with a bit of industrial slag with a checkered provenance. As John J. noted above, their references are misleading, the maps are wrong and the title of the paper completely hides that it's about a UFO case.

The stealth aliens among us paper by the Harvard guys is just a rambling catalog of strange things with a coy argument that we can't prove they're not aliens, so maybe they are. Or many not. But yeah, maybe.

The New Science of UAP paper is by the main guy at UAPx, so a real Dr. of Physics. Maybe it speaks more to you, but I found it largely just a rehash of UFO stories, Grusch and Elzondo's claims and more ramblings. There is some calculations, IIRC, about the TicTak video and "physics-defying" anomalous performance, but that's about it. Largely because that's all there is.

Even scientist that really want to work on UFOs have very little to work with, hence most don't bother. They work on projects and ideas that they can actually work on. One can't work on black triangle UFOs if all there is are witness reports.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...on-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-or-alaska.13504/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...vallee-jiang-lemke-2022-a-useful-paper.13286/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-science-of-uap-paper.14041/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-tear-in-the-sky-nimitz-tic-tac-catalina-ufo-documentary.12367/

 

[beku-mant]

Sorry, I have to disagree here. Nobody is going to be ostracized for theorizing about stuff.

The guys from UAPx, Kunth and Szydagis (may have misspelled these) are still teaching, even after appearing in the lame movie A Tear in the Sky.

Garry Nolan will test any bit of junk claimed to be from a crashed UFO. He even tested the DNA of a looted indigenous child's body because Steven Greer said it was an alien. He's still teaching at Stanford. His Stanford colleague, Peter Struck, spent years tracking down UFOs and finished his career just fine.

The guys that put out the paper claiming aliens are already among us are still at Harvard (link below).

In fact if one reads through some of the UFO papers, such the one by the Harvard guys or Nolan and Vallee's paper @John J. referenced above or watch the UAPx presentation, one sees there is very little to work with and theorizing is about all they can do. As such, most scientists who are supposed to be qualified to work on UFOs, just don't bother. There's no there, there. There is little to actually study and nothing to experiment with.

Please read the treads linked below.

The Nolan/Vallee paper is a rehash of a UFO claim with some witness statements, combined with a bit of industrial slag with a checkered provenance. As John J. noted above, their references are misleading, the maps are wrong and the title of the paper completely hides that it's about a UFO case.

The stealth aliens among us paper by the Harvard guys is just a rambling catalog of strange things with a coy argument that we can't prove they're not aliens, so maybe they are. Or many not. But yeah, maybe.

The New Science of UAP paper is by the main guy at UAPx, so a real Dr. of Physics. Maybe it speaks more to you, but I found it largely just a rehash of UFO stories, Grusch and Elzondo's claims and more ramblings. There is some calculations, IIRC, about the TicTak video and "physics-defying" anomalous performance, but that's about it. Largely because that's all there is.

Even scientist that really want to work on UFOs have very little to work with, hence most don't bother. They work on projects and ideas that they can actually work on. One can't work on black triangle UFOs if all there is are witness reports.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...on-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-or-alaska.13504/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...vallee-jiang-lemke-2022-a-useful-paper.13286/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-science-of-uap-paper.14041/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-tear-in-the-sky-nimitz-tic-tac-catalina-ufo-documentary.12367/

There are some few in academia who are mostly privately funded, who are finally being intellectually honest about it and bearing the repercussions. But nearly the entire field has been organized around avoiding some of the most rational ideas to appease punishing sociocultural and ideological forces.

Nearly every serious scientist, whenever they are close to crossing the line, have to insert some statement or element of their idea that will distinguish them from the stigmatized crowd.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Nearly every serious scientist, whenever they are close to crossing the line, have to insert some statement or element of their idea that will distinguish them from the stigmatized crowd.

Such as? And who? Any one you can name?

There are some few in academia who are mostly privately funded, who are finally being intellectually honest about it and bearing the repercussions. But nearly the entire field has been organized around avoiding some of the most rational ideas to appease punishing sociocultural and ideological forces.

Sorry, I disagree. I think this is a myth in the UFO world created to explain why more scientists don't do UFO research. They're afraid, there's a stigma, they'll lose their funding. They don't do UFO research because there is very little to research. What does one do with some claims of black triangles and "plasma lights" when it's just a series of claims? What do they research? What do they experiment on?

They're not afraid of stigma, they don't care. Those that do, study what they can, which is very little.

I think in many UFO circles the assumption is these craft are real, therefore a bunch of scientists should be figuring out how they are breaking the laws of physics. If a scientist wants to push the boundaries of physics, they'll do it in the lab, not trying to figure out what someone thought they saw in the sky.

 

[JMartJr]

I suggest you pick the best one you can think of, and start a thread for it. Other cases of "high quality multiple observer accounts" that have been mentioned by others in this thread (29 Palms, Phoenix Lights) have been shown to have been based on misunderstandings and misperceptions of mundane things like flares. But if you have a good one, put it out there and let's discuss it -- I can't really do much to evaluate lots of claimed cases that are not named.

Not trying to be a pest, but I am unsure if @beku-mant not seeing my post, or if it is just not something they want to respond to. In case it is the former, could somebody copy it and post it... Im sincerely interested in such a case, if they can share it. beku-mant, if it is just not something you can respond to, or do not want to, that's fine, if you let me know that I'll stop asking!

 

[Mendel]

I don't think either extreme captures the bulk of the probability. The most reasonable assumption we can make, is that if there have been technological civilizations within some radius of Earth, they would probably have, at a minimum, sent some probes here to check us out.

I don't think it's warranted to use the words "most reasonable" to refer to this assumption, when it is based on neither evidence nor logical argument.
Again, I understand why you do it, but I wish you'd desist calling those who demand evidence and logical argument unreasonable.

 

[Edward Current]

I think this is a myth in the UFO world created to explain why more scientists don't do UFO research. They're afraid, there's a stigma, they'll lose their funding.

This is one of the talking points that all evidence-challenged beliefs have in common. For example, structural engineers are afraid they'll lose their jobs, or their firms will lose all of their business, if they come forward about the "Truth" of 9/11. Because stigma.

I always ask people who say that, what about the one-third of structural engineers who have retired since 2001? Why don't they come forward? Nobody has ever answered that question.

It's just a naïve talking point, repeated by people who don't know how scientists work.

 

[Eburacum]

The most reasonable assumption we can make, is that if there have been technological civilizations within some radius of Earth, they would probably have, at a minimum, sent some probes here to check us out.

My current most reasonable estimate of the closest technological civilisation to Earth, (based on a number of my own estimates associated with the Drake Equation), is about 1500 light years.

They will probably detect the missions from our industrial society about 1200 years from now, and their probes will get here some time around 4725 c.e.. We can ask them about UFOs when they arrive.

Of course I could be out by many thousands, or millions, of light years. This is one reason why astronomers don't tend to have much time for the probe theory.

 

[Ann K]

The one constant is that if your theory predicts any UFOs could possibly be extraterrestrial vehicles, you get kicked out of the club. This is why rational theory on this topic is scarce.

You also comment

There are some few in academia who are mostly privately funded, who are finally being intellectually honest about it and bearing the repercussions. But nearly the entire field has been organized around avoiding some of the most rational ideas to appease punishing sociocultural and ideological forces.

Please don't play "I'm a victim here". There is no plot to belittle someone for studying anomalous sightings. There are a good many corners of science to be studied. Some are useful. Some might be useful in the future. Some are simply blue-sky notions that fascinate researchers. But if UFOs are not among the things chosen by many scientists for study, it has a lot to do with the lack of material or solid evidence to be studied. Again and again, hoaxes and misperceptions continue to explain sightings, and what remains tends to be firmly in the LIZ.

You have an unorthodox view of what is "intellectually honest" and what is "rational". Scientists do not deserve to be insulted for choosing not to base their work on one black pixel on two frames of film, or on unattributed photos taken who knows when, by who knows who, facing in who knows which direction.

 

[beku-mant]

Not trying to be a pest, but I am unsure if @beku-mant not seeing my post, or if it is just not something they want to respond to. In case it is the former, could somebody copy it and post it... Im sincerely interested in such a case, if they can share it. beku-mant, if it is just not something you can respond to, or do not want to, that's fine, if you let me know that I'll stop asking!

This sounds like a troll given there are hundreds of such cases, and bringing any of them up will only cause us to get side tracked arguing about the "quality" or credibility of the witnesses, with me saying we should consider they might have seen what they claimed to, and others saying it is impossible so it didn't happen.