Latest activity

You said: I understand it as "it's worth believing one might be red". A lot of things "have been said", including unicorns, fairies and leprechauns. Nothing is worth believing just because "it has been said".

If you think classified science is the best way to solve difficult scientific cases for the public, I have nothing more to say. NASA is still (as far as I know) moving towards better analyzing the subject, and i’m personally not against it.

I guess I disagree a bit here. Yes, more data is always better and maybe there is something interesting, but the history of UFOs is largely a history of mostly explainable things. Misperception, faulty memory, bad photos, outright hoaxes and as...

I don't think that's happened in the past. Consumer video camera are vastly better and more common than before, but the nature of UFO video (blurry dots) seems to remain exactly the same.

If what you're saying is that better sensors are a good thing I obviously agree wholeheartedly with you! Just don't expect better sensors to reduce the LIZ, they'll rather expand it.

I saw a spider on my front walk today, moving faster than I would have thought possible for a spider to run. Then the cottonwood fluffy finally came down and met its shadow...

Yes, but those instruments are paid for by normal working folk. More money for one thing means less for another, or higher taxes. If those instruments go to the military, fine, and I'm all in favor of the US military maintaining an edge over...

Not "uninterested", just satisfied with the answers we already have. I quit believing in Santa Claus when I was four, and in Nessie when I was about ten. I see no reason to revisit either of those conclusions. Curiosity is not. The belief that...

I don't think that's happened in the past. Consumer video camera are vastly better and more common than before, but the nature of UFO video (blurry dots) seems to remain exactly the same.

It hasn’t happened in the past, for sure. That’s why I don’t think there ever was much “good science” on UAPs in the last 80 years.

Yeah and then you have AI, CGI, blurry stuff from phones. The very nature of the supposed anomalies is possibly not easily captured on a smart phone camera. In fact, we are largely speaking on military cameras here. If NASA or others will get...

Yep. Depends what your goal is. If your goal is to eliminate unidentifieds in the LIZ, Unless you posit "real UFOs," whatever they are, knowingly avoid getting in range of sensors, existing sensors are numerous and powerful, we should have...

I don't think that's happened in the past. Consumer video camera are vastly better and more common than before, but the nature of UFO video (blurry dots) seems to remain exactly the same.

Absolutely. If my sensor can clearly resolve a balloon at 1 mile, and balloons at 1.1 miles can be detected but not resolved (and so become UAP), I can build a better sensor and resolve balloons at 2 miles -- at which point balloons at 2.1 miles...

Yes we could end up with a different UAP definition altogether, I get that! Well maybe not different, just a bit expanded?