So, as skeptics, do you all have predictions about the UAP situation for the next two years?
I'd guess it would be:
1. Grusch and other whistleblowers will fade away, with nothing coming of it.
2. No real evidence will come out for anomalous objects.
3. Future releases of material from government agencies will be more birds, balloons, and bokeh.
4. The Calvine photo(s) will prove to be a reflection in water or a model.
Close. I think most of us would avoid making predictions, at least hard and fast ones. I think I would look back on the history of UFOlogy and suggest it will continue on in much the same vain. So, maybe modifying your's from above:
1. Whistleblowers will come and go and possibly resurface repeatedly, such as Lazar, but ultimately all they will present is stories. This has been history so far, so it will likely persist.
2. Things that appear in videos and photos that are labeled "anomalous" will continue to be presented because every sensor system has a limit in its ability to record something in a determinable manner. There will always be a LIZ and UFOs will always live in the LIZ.
3. Government material, like much of the non-government material, will continue to be underwhelming. There will be more videos of things like birds and balloons that some will claim are "anomalous" or defy physics, but will usually end up being rather mundane things recorded in a way to appear "anomalous", such as parallax. There will also likely be some government material that falls into the LIZ.
4. Various bits of evidence, such as the Calvine photo will continue to be debated, often without resolution. Even if something like the Calvine photo is proven to be a hoax, with the creator coming forward and explaining how it was done and behind the scene photos of the set-up, many will dismiss the confession as the hoax and maintain that the photo is a real UFO or secret aircraft.
If one wants to make predictions about UFOs, I think AI is a possible turning point. Given the ability of nearly anyone to create a compelling UFO video it will be interesting to see where that leads. A friend of mine sent a photo of him and 3 buddies at a golfer course to his girlfriend. With a few prompts she turned a simple still into a video of the 4 guys getting bombed on the course and running off. Just a silly little video and was obviously some sort of AI, BUT that's all it was intended to be, and the GF was not an experienced AI user. What can this technology do in the hands of more experienced people?
I see 2 possibilities. One is a proliferation of AI content, which we already see in all Social Media, specifically targeting the UFO crowd. In effect watering down and diluting the non-AI videos/photos that are shared. I think
@jarlrmai mentioned in another post about the lack of new UFO content on Reddit and in general. I wonder if the proliferation of AI makes a shaky out of focus phone video of an orb less compelling?
I recently watched a video about Boomers embracing obvious AI entertainers performing obvious AI music because it spoke to them. A grizzled, yet still fit, grey haired quasi biker/outlaw/cowboy mash-up singing about being a Boomer. Many of my Boomer friends listen to the same music they did in the '70s and nothing else. They go see what's left of these old bands playing their long ago hits. These old band don't make new music, or if they do nobody is interested, so these new AI "acts" fill the void. It's kinda new, but sounds like the old stuff, is performed by an idealized version of themselves and speaks to the hardships and under appreciated struggles they feel they went through. In short, AI is giving them what they want. Might we see the same thing in UFOlogy? A proliferation of AI content, that even if one knows or suspects it's AI, it still speaks to them.
The counter may be an increased scrutiny and skepticism of UFO content of all kinds if one suspects AI involvement. Will the shaky out of focus video of an orb become more compelling? If so, will the AI content folks move in that direction? An obvious UFO landing at the White House is certainly possible now with AI, but absent the context of anything corroborating the event, it will be just an AI curiosity. The better AI slop might be just a proliferation of shaky out of focus videos that are hard to explain. This may also create a further retreat to the old stories and encounters of days gone by. One of the regular speakers at places like CITD has a whole talk about how known hoaxter and fake photo creator Billy Meier, wasn't hoaxing. I guess he at least was a creating "real" hoaxes with his models and camera, not letting some AI in data center do it for him.
