War.gov/UFO - Department of War Releases UAP Files - 2026 Release 1

[Todd Feinman]

Fair! I just don't think studying the subject with better sensors and possibly with more accessible data is a total waste of time and money.

That's where dangerous adversarial tech would start to show; in the LIZ. So even skeptics should want to have a careful watch. I think Dave was just suggesting not looking for aliens in particular, as he's a skeptic.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

That's where dangerous adversarial tech would start to show; in the LIZ. So even skeptics should want to have a careful watch. I think Dave was just suggesting not looking for aliens in particular, as he's a skeptic.

I don't look for aliens.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I don't look for aliens.

Hopefully they won't look for you!

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Hopefully they won't look for you!
View attachment 91414

I'm more scared of humans gotta be honest here!

 

[MapperGuy]

But better sensors don't just increase the range (the sphere radius), they drastically increase the resolution and data quality within our airspace. Solving and eliminating 99% of low-information cases closer to us is exactly what the scientific method aims for, even if the absolute frontier moves further out.
I'll stick with NASA's methodology.

No matter how much better sensors get there will always be things just beyond their range.

The solution is more sensor locations.
If your sensor can identify out to three miles, and I build an identical sensor five and a half miles away, then there is complete coverage over a span of eleven and a half miles.
With the bonus that for an object just outside the identify range of your sensor, but within the range of mine, we now know what that particular object looks like to your sensor when it is just outside of the identify range of your sensor.
That doesn't mean that everything just outside the range of your sensor that looks like that is one of those specific objects, but it does make it a possibility.

A single observation site allows the 'orb summoners' to claim success. But if half the group where located twenty miles away in the direction they claimed the orbs were that group would also see those summoned orbs in the same direction in the sky, as would another group twenty miles further away again. Eventually the distance to the orbs becomes implausible.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I'm more scared of humans gotta be honest here!

You should be! Like a cancer on the planet. We know better.

 

[Ann K]

Fair! I just don't think studying the subject with better sensors and possibly with more accessible data is a total waste of time and money.

I get that, but implicit in your criticism is the assumption that governmental employees are not already doing that. We do not know that, but in the many years (and many administrations) of study, they've either
(1) found diddly-squat in the way of mysterious objects, or
(2) discovered things that might affect national security, and which prudence requires they keep secret from the general public.

Solving and eliminating 99% of low-information cases closer to us is exactly what the scientific method aims for, even if the absolute frontier moves further out.

That's what the government aims for too, using the methods of science. Because of the possibility of scenario (2), above, the general public simply does not have a right to know everything.

My point was strictly about the general, faith-based belief system, which, as you noted, remains virtually impossible to change.

Look in the mirror.

 

[Ann K]

@Andreas
You might find this interesting.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/investigating-ufos-a-conversation-with-swedens-clas-svahn/

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I get that, but implicit in your criticism is the assumption that governmental employees are not already doing that. We do not know that, but in the many years (and many administrations) of study, they've either
(1) found diddly-squat in the way of mysterious objects, or
(2) discovered things that might affect national security, and which prudence requires they keep secret from the general public.

That's what the government aims for too, using the methods of science. Because of the possibility of scenario (2), above, the general public simply does not have a right to know everything.

I get it, you're uninterested, I'm not. I'm not going to fight over this.

Look in the mirror.

Since when is curiosity a belief system?

 

[Gary C]

The cherry on top is the irony that the LIZs are now geometrically larger[*], so more things can and will fall into them - the more we can know the more we won't know.

[* I'm reticent to suggest by which scaling factor. One could argue that it's cubic, because it's a volume, but one of the dimensions (altitude) is different from the others because we're a planet with a gravity vector and an atmosphere and we simply won't be seeing any more party balloons above a certain height, so it might be quadratic. If the LIZ remains the same "thickness" - your 0.1 miles above - rather than scaling proportionally - such as making the limit 2.2 miles above - then it could be only linear. But whatever it is, it's still definitely growing.]

If the volume of the [hemi] sphere being observed is defined by the probability of a positive ID out to range R, shouldn't LIZ scale roughly as the surface of the that space making it a square function? Granted it might have a definable thickness although maybe not.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Fair! I just don't think studying the subject with better sensors and possibly with more accessible data is a total waste of time and money.

I guess to some extent, I think it is. One would assume the various agencies and contractors that build and run these sensor systems are constantly trying to improve them. As such, the resolution improves and the UAP just move out beyond the new resolution.

With more data and better sensors, we can identify more things, like balloons. Having identified a balloon or bird or whatever prosaic thing it was, there is little reason to study it. How much studying needs to be done on a balloon? So, there's no real point in studying that which has been identified, but we can't study that which has not been identified. It's by definition "unidentified". To study, it must first be identified, which leaves us with things not worth studying, (assuming what has been identified is something like a balloon. An adversarial fighter plane or drone would obviously be studied). It all seems a bit circular.

People can study unidentified stuff in an effort to increase the resolution of a particular sensor, to in effect, identify the unidentified, but I'm sure they're doing that already. And when that is done successfully, the UAP move out to the next level of unidentified.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I guess to some extent, I think it is. One would assume the various agencies and contractors that build and run these sensor systems are constantly trying to improve them. As such, the resolution improves and the UAP just move out beyond the new resolution.

With more data and better sensors, we can identify more things, like balloons. Having identified a balloon or bird or whatever prosaic thing it was, there is little reason to study it. How much studying needs to be done on a balloon? So, there's no real point in studying that which has been identified, but we can't study that which has not been identified. It's by definition "unidentified". To study, it must first be identified, which leaves us with things not worth studying, (assuming what has been identified is something like a balloon. An adversarial fighter plane or drone would obviously be studied). It all seems a bit circular.

People can study unidentified stuff in an effort to increase the resolution of a particular sensor, to in effect, identify the unidentified, but I'm sure they're doing that already. And when that is done successfully, the UAP move out to the next level of unidentified.

I gotta be honest again, AARO and NASA do not use my money, if they were, I could even agree a bit. I'm still curious if something of interest could come out anyway, if anything, we end up with better instruments.