4 ms·

Where are the scientists looking at all the credible UFO sightings? Nowhere, because scientists are just like everyone else, they don't actually want to discove

Where are the scientists looking at all the credible UFO sightings? Nowhere, because scientists are just like everyone else, they don't actually want to discover any thing new or change anything, they want to reconfirm what they think they already know, which for the most part means maintaining the status quo. The number of scientists or astronomers who laugh off thousands of credible first hand reports of people seeing unexplainable things in the sky...they're not interested unless it fits into an already accepted framework. The idea that there "isn't any evidence" for non earth based UFOs visiting earth is plain wrong. What you conclude from the evidence is, of course, up for debate, but I've never seen a main stream astronomer say they've even looked at this evidence. Like this article suggests, I think this represents a real crisis in science. How timid and scared we must be to not even talk about this in real terms, we imagine star trek and laugh. "why don't they arrive on the white House lawn"? "why do they always appear to some redneck blah blah". I think all the astronauts and pilots who are listed amoungst ufo reporters would disagree with the second statement and as for the white House lawn... we humans send space ships to other planets, they study then and send back data. If aliens are here then they will be studying us and attempting not to disturb. They would want to introduce us to the idea of extra terrestrial life slowly as they would have gone through this innocence as well and would know what damage radical change can do. If that sounds ridiculous to you I suggest you're not thinking realistically about aliens, you are living in the star trek universe. I ask which is more realistic?

avaldeso 6y ago
> If that sounds ridiculous to you I suggest you're not thinking realistically about aliens, you are living in the star trek universe. How can anyone think realistically about aliens in any way whatsoever? There's absolutely zero evidence of extraterrestrial life, let alone intelligence. Anyone can think whatever they please about aliens and that would be as real as what you think. We have zero clue about alien physiology, psychology, science, culture, technology, etc. > I ask which is more realistic? All of them. None. We can't know. It's a question about an unobserved phenomenon.
- pontifier 6y ago
  There is actually a lot that can be gleaned from the lack of observable evidence to the contrary. We have a hard data point in ourselves. We know life is possible. The only question is how common is it. Right now the evidence says "Rare". Now the task is to figure out why it's rare instead of common, and exactly how rare it really is. This means gathering data, forming theories, making predictions, and comparing expectations to new data. This seems like perfectly reasonable science to me.
- jonnypotty 6y ago
  The same reaction as always. Yes, fine, all the radar logs and pilot testimony and cameras on planes and astronuaght accounts and UK government files are zero evidence. I don't understand how anyone who isn't wilfully ignorant can dismiss all of this out of hand.

avaldeso 6y ago

> If that sounds ridiculous to you I suggest you're not thinking realistically about aliens, you are living in the star trek universe. How can anyone think realistically about aliens in any way whatsoever? There's absolutely zero evidence of extraterrestrial life, let alone intelligence. Anyone can think whatever they please about aliens and that would be as real as what you think. We have zero clue about alien physiology, psychology, science, culture, technology, etc. > I ask which is more realistic? All of them. None. We can't know. It's a question about an unobserved phenomenon.

pontifier 6y ago
There is actually a lot that can be gleaned from the lack of observable evidence to the contrary. We have a hard data point in ourselves. We know life is possible. The only question is how common is it. Right now the evidence says "Rare". Now the task is to figure out why it's rare instead of common, and exactly how rare it really is. This means gathering data, forming theories, making predictions, and comparing expectations to new data. This seems like perfectly reasonable science to me.
jonnypotty 6y ago
The same reaction as always. Yes, fine, all the radar logs and pilot testimony and cameras on planes and astronuaght accounts and UK government files are zero evidence. I don't understand how anyone who isn't wilfully ignorant can dismiss all of this out of hand.