3 ms·

Growing up I was really into UFOs and watching UFO documentaries is still a guilty pleasure of mine. One of the things that struck me is that people who investi

Growing up I was really into UFOs and watching UFO documentaries is still a guilty pleasure of mine. One of the things that struck me is that people who investigate UFOs are their own worst enemies. Often, while watching documentaries, people will say "I've never believed in UFOs until I saw one". For the longest time statements like that really confused me. How could you not believe that people sometimes see things that they can't identify? Then I realized that to most people UFO means alien spacecraft. UFO people have pushed the "I'm not saying it's aliens, but it's totally aliens" narrative to the point that the entire field is tainted. As the article mentions, it seems like the idea of aliens visiting the Earth has become almost some sort of religion. The other thing is that actual science isn't very sexy. I'm reminded of the Hessdalen lights, unidentified aerial lights that have been appearing over a valley in northern Norway for several decades. There's a monitoring station there with all sorts of instruments, but there still isn't a definitive explanation for the lights. "These are alien spaceships" is definitely a much more thrilling explanation than "we have several possible explanations, mostly involving some sort of plasma in the atmosphere". One of the documentaries I was watching was by the History channel and it was really bad. They didn't even attempt to present prosaic explanations and took everything at face value. One episode even talked about native Americans being descended from aliens and being able to summon UFOs. I know the History channel is complete trash, but this series was apparently done in collaboration with MUFON. The entire thing has been tainted so completely that it can actually interfere with real science. The study of upper atmospheric light was likely held back for years because pilots who saw it were afraid to mention that they saw lights in the sky. These things are almost certainly worthy of study, but the entire field of interest needs to be completely cleansed of the woo and pseudoscience that plagues it.

lowdose 6y ago
I agree but that is not in everybody's interest.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Retric 6y ago
I have only seen a few bits and pieces of various UFO documentaries, but one segment really stuck with me. It was space shuttle footage showing a side view of the earth with several little white dots, a thruster fires the a second or so later they all move. They the do a calculation assuming one of those dots was in earths atmosphere to get some insane acceleration. But, looking at the footage I just saw paint flecks disturbed by an expanding gas cloud from the thruster. It’s all about trying to prove a world view and or entertainment rather than any kind of real investigation of odd lights etc. We may dislike it, but the History channel is extremely profitable and one of the most watched channels on TV. Cheap content plus wide audiences equals profit.
082349872349872 6y ago
On the contrary, I believe "Ancient Aliens" ought to be required viewing for all citizens in democracies. What is the difference between "our UFO expert says it was aliens. What if it were true?" and "our defector says there are Weapons of Mass Destruction. What if it were true?" Compare the higher orders often necessary in propaganda analysis: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm > "The formula works best in the treatment of monitored materials of which the source is known. First point to note is the character of the source. There are several choices on this: the true source (who really got it out?) and the ostensible source (whose name is signed to it?); also, the first-use source (who used it the first time?) and the second-use source (who claims merely to be using it as a quotation?). Take the statement: "Harry said to me, he said, 'I never told anybody that Al's wife was a retired strip-teaser.' Mind you, I don't pretend to believe Harry, but that's what he said, all right." What are the possible true sources for the statement of fact or libel concerning Al's unnamed wife? What are the alternatives on ostensible sources? First use? Second use? The common sense needed to analyze this statement is of the same order as the process involved in analyzing the statement: "Reliable sources in Paris state that the visit of the American labor delegation has produced sensational repercussions in Moscow, and that Moscow, upon the basis of the American attitude, is determined to press for unification of the entire German labor movement." Then again, my impression of government UFO studies owes more to known behaviour of extant intrastellar species than unknown behaviour of putative interstellar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24405503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24405503
risk000 6y ago
>I know the History channel is complete trash, but this series was apparently done in collaboration with MUFON. The history channel is not complete trash. They have good experts on there and their productions are beautiful - what are you comparing them against? >These things are almost certainly worthy of study, but the entire field of interest needs to be completely cleansed of the woo and pseudoscience that plagues it. Yeah, the guy who invented Newtonian physics believed in an all-powerful Creator-God who created the world in a week or so. It would be fun to see you sit down with him and explain to him that the basis of his worldview was, in your opinion, 'woo'. >The other thing is that actual science isn't very sexy. Actual science also doesn't explain very much. It punts on the question of consciousness and on the question of ultimate things - the two most significant questions that a person seeking 'scienza' could probably ask.
- cowboysauce 6y ago
  >The history channel is not complete trash. They have good experts on there and their productions are beautiful The History channel uncritically presents any wild ideas that get them viewers. Here are some of the things they presented during an episode on Native Americans and aliens: * Native Americans are descended from aliens To start, I'm going to gloss over the unsavory implications of saying something that could be re-worded as "certain ethnic groups aren't fully human". They gave absolutely no evidence for this, no explanation as to why native Americans in particular and not Europeans or Asians. The entire thing reeked of the "noble savage" trope. Plus the ignorance in assuming that there weren't dozen of different native tribes. * Alien spacecraft use native reservations as refuges from the government because of existing treaties The evidence they gave for this was an eye-witness who claimed to see a craft that was being followed by a government helicopter, only for the helicopter to break off its pursuit after the craft crossed onto native land. So, these crafts can travel between stars, but can't outmaneuver a helicopter? Also, call me cynical, but I can't imagine that the government would deign to respect native treaties in such a situation. What could the tribal government even do to protest a violation of such treaties? Who would take them seriously? * Native Americans can telepathically summon/control UFOs, allegedly due to their alien heritage I'm an American and yet I can't summon predator drones. I can't even summon an Uber without a credit card. Seriously, what kind of authentication system is that? * The aliens gave the natives medical knowledge Except when it really matters, like during those smallpox epidemics. They couldn't even share knowledge about variolation? >Yeah, the guy who invented Newtonian physics believed in an all-powerful Creator-God who created the world in a week or so. It would be fun to see you sit down with him and explain to him that the basis of his worldview was, in your opinion, 'woo'. And yet you never see chemistry textbooks based on Newton's alchemical theories. You do see textbooks on Newtonian physics because the work that Newton started was empirically tested over centuries and when its predictions failed, new theories were created and empirically tested to supersede them. >Actual science also doesn't explain very much. Science explains the ebb and flow of the tides. It explains the dance of eclipses and the never-ending cycle of the seasons. What explanation comes from a psychic who claims to channel the spirit of a 10,000 year old alien who lived in Atlantis?

lowdose 6y ago

I agree but that is not in everybody's interest.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Retric 6y ago

I have only seen a few bits and pieces of various UFO documentaries, but one segment really stuck with me. It was space shuttle footage showing a side view of the earth with several little white dots, a thruster fires the a second or so later they all move. They the do a calculation assuming one of those dots was in earths atmosphere to get some insane acceleration. But, looking at the footage I just saw paint flecks disturbed by an expanding gas cloud from the thruster. It’s all about trying to prove a world view and or entertainment rather than any kind of real investigation of odd lights etc. We may dislike it, but the History channel is extremely profitable and one of the most watched channels on TV. Cheap content plus wide audiences equals profit.

082349872349872 6y ago

On the contrary, I believe "Ancient Aliens" ought to be required viewing for all citizens in democracies. What is the difference between "our UFO expert says it was aliens. What if it were true?" and "our defector says there are Weapons of Mass Destruction. What if it were true?" Compare the higher orders often necessary in propaganda analysis: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm > "The formula works best in the treatment of monitored materials of which the source is known. First point to note is the character of the source. There are several choices on this: the true source (who really got it out?) and the ostensible source (whose name is signed to it?); also, the first-use source (who used it the first time?) and the second-use source (who claims merely to be using it as a quotation?). Take the statement: "Harry said to me, he said, 'I never told anybody that Al's wife was a retired strip-teaser.' Mind you, I don't pretend to believe Harry, but that's what he said, all right." What are the possible true sources for the statement of fact or libel concerning Al's unnamed wife? What are the alternatives on ostensible sources? First use? Second use? The common sense needed to analyze this statement is of the same order as the process involved in analyzing the statement: "Reliable sources in Paris state that the visit of the American labor delegation has produced sensational repercussions in Moscow, and that Moscow, upon the basis of the American attitude, is determined to press for unification of the entire German labor movement." Then again, my impression of government UFO studies owes more to known behaviour of extant intrastellar species than unknown behaviour of putative interstellar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24405503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24405503

risk000 6y ago

>I know the History channel is complete trash, but this series was apparently done in collaboration with MUFON. The history channel is not complete trash. They have good experts on there and their productions are beautiful - what are you comparing them against? >These things are almost certainly worthy of study, but the entire field of interest needs to be completely cleansed of the woo and pseudoscience that plagues it. Yeah, the guy who invented Newtonian physics believed in an all-powerful Creator-God who created the world in a week or so. It would be fun to see you sit down with him and explain to him that the basis of his worldview was, in your opinion, 'woo'. >The other thing is that actual science isn't very sexy. Actual science also doesn't explain very much. It punts on the question of consciousness and on the question of ultimate things - the two most significant questions that a person seeking 'scienza' could probably ask.

cowboysauce 6y ago
>The history channel is not complete trash. They have good experts on there and their productions are beautiful The History channel uncritically presents any wild ideas that get them viewers. Here are some of the things they presented during an episode on Native Americans and aliens: * Native Americans are descended from aliens To start, I'm going to gloss over the unsavory implications of saying something that could be re-worded as "certain ethnic groups aren't fully human". They gave absolutely no evidence for this, no explanation as to why native Americans in particular and not Europeans or Asians. The entire thing reeked of the "noble savage" trope. Plus the ignorance in assuming that there weren't dozen of different native tribes. * Alien spacecraft use native reservations as refuges from the government because of existing treaties The evidence they gave for this was an eye-witness who claimed to see a craft that was being followed by a government helicopter, only for the helicopter to break off its pursuit after the craft crossed onto native land. So, these crafts can travel between stars, but can't outmaneuver a helicopter? Also, call me cynical, but I can't imagine that the government would deign to respect native treaties in such a situation. What could the tribal government even do to protest a violation of such treaties? Who would take them seriously? * Native Americans can telepathically summon/control UFOs, allegedly due to their alien heritage I'm an American and yet I can't summon predator drones. I can't even summon an Uber without a credit card. Seriously, what kind of authentication system is that? * The aliens gave the natives medical knowledge Except when it really matters, like during those smallpox epidemics. They couldn't even share knowledge about variolation? >Yeah, the guy who invented Newtonian physics believed in an all-powerful Creator-God who created the world in a week or so. It would be fun to see you sit down with him and explain to him that the basis of his worldview was, in your opinion, 'woo'. And yet you never see chemistry textbooks based on Newton's alchemical theories. You do see textbooks on Newtonian physics because the work that Newton started was empirically tested over centuries and when its predictions failed, new theories were created and empirically tested to supersede them. >Actual science also doesn't explain very much. Science explains the ebb and flow of the tides. It explains the dance of eclipses and the never-ending cycle of the seasons. What explanation comes from a psychic who claims to channel the spirit of a 10,000 year old alien who lived in Atlantis?