6 ms·

This is a poor title. What part of advanced technology and flying at considerable speed without discernable means of propulsion rules out aliens? Aliens weren't

This is a poor title. What part of advanced technology and flying at considerable speed without discernable means of propulsion rules out aliens? Aliens weren't confirmed, or even mentioned, but my reading of the report is that aliens are more likely an explanation than I thought them to be yesterday, not less.

eindiran 5y ago
Once you have decided that the UAPs are technological objects, sure, it starts to seem more plausible that aliens are involved. But nothing in the report [0] indicates to me that there is any degree of confidence that the weird, unexplainable UAPs are technological objects. [0] https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/03cb4676-83e3-4db1-8724-207722ec79d0/note/15721400-c1bf-4645-8771-69ffb867396f https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....
hn8788 5y ago
That's how I felt after reading it as well. Plus the part where it says that it's possible that we aren't getting any readings from them because they have advanced technology that we don't know how to create sensors for.
- viraptor 5y ago
  There are at least two possible ideas when you are something that doesn't show on the radar: 1. A technology so advanced it doesn't show up on sensors. 2. Light / condensation / ... effect which makes you think you're looking at a solid object where the isn't any.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> What part of... rules out aliens? Because 1) Ruling _in_ aliens requires proof. Insisting that this specific scenario be ruled out is classic "shifting the burden of proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) The train of thought that "we don't know what we saw, so ... aliens!" is somewhere between wishful and nutty. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. 2) claiming that it's _definitely_ "technology and flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion" is itself a stretch. Given the supposed behaviour, a _very_ big stretch. More likely it's equipment failure, lens flare, sundog, bug-on-the-lens, etc. 3) the strong argument against this being real is how it is "perpetually liminal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354021
- anonAndOn 5y ago
  re #2: what's odd is that it is equipment failure that's been occurring for decades. One would hope that JIRA ticket wouldn't keep getting pushed back to the next sprint for 40+ years.
  - gruez 5y ago
    That assumes it can be easily fixed, or is the same cause every time.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    If it's not sensor artefacts, why have the readings not become clear over the last few decades, when the quality and quantity of sensors in use have improved by orders of magnitude? Why is it still liminal? Has the visibility of these things gotten worse in lockstep with the improvement in sensors? Or (Occam's razor time) it was never real readings to begin with. And, I never assumed a single cause and neither should you, don't oversimplify. Every sensor has limits. There will be noise and artefact at those limits. You can't change that fact, with or without a f'n Jira.
    - 252452d 5y ago
      LOL. You don't know shit, these craft are real and have been under development for nearly a century. They're going to fly one low over a US city eventually when it's time for a big funding boost.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  1. I am not saying that these UAP are definitely aliens. I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. The report found that physical objects exhibited behavior that suggests advanced technology - including flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion. It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what I wrote was more like "The report does not contradict aliens. The findings of the report are consistent with what we might expect from alien technology. I am updating my beliefs to increase the likelihood that these UAP are explained by aliens." Your line about extra-ordinary claims is a bit misguided. For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion. 2. The DNI report says "a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" and "Some UAP appeared to ... move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion" and "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." That doesn't sound like "bug-on-the-lens" type observations to me. Obviously I can't know how good the DNI evidence is. They haven't shared much of it. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude from the report that people are getting confused with lens flares or equipment failures though. 3. That doesn't seem like an argument at all. Any thing which we have observed for a while but haven't explained would fit this description of being "perpetually liminal". UFOs fit the description worse than most things because they aren't very "perpetual". UFO sightings go back ~70 years. That's hardly perpetual. It's also not the case that we always know roughly the same amount. This report for example uses evidence to advance our understanding, arguing that they are physical objects, that they may emit RF energy, and that they have capabilities we do not.
blacksmith_tb 5y ago
I can't help but think of Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - it seems like the Navy's reports could almost equally plausibly be attributed to dragons or spirits? I personally think the universe is probably packed with aliens, but it's a big place, so it'd be almost as improbable that they're flitting around Earth's atmosphere as dragons...
sjg007 5y ago
Why would aliens only fly drones? Why not land them or do other stuff.

eindiran 5y ago

Once you have decided that the UAPs are technological objects, sure, it starts to seem more plausible that aliens are involved. But nothing in the report [0] indicates to me that there is any degree of confidence that the weird, unexplainable UAPs are technological objects. [0] https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/03cb4676-83e3-4db1-8724-207722ec79d0/note/15721400-c1bf-4645-8771-69ffb867396f https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....

hn8788 5y ago

That's how I felt after reading it as well. Plus the part where it says that it's possible that we aren't getting any readings from them because they have advanced technology that we don't know how to create sensors for.

viraptor 5y ago
There are at least two possible ideas when you are something that doesn't show on the radar: 1. A technology so advanced it doesn't show up on sensors. 2. Light / condensation / ... effect which makes you think you're looking at a solid object where the isn't any.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> What part of... rules out aliens? Because 1) Ruling _in_ aliens requires proof. Insisting that this specific scenario be ruled out is classic "shifting the burden of proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) The train of thought that "we don't know what we saw, so ... aliens!" is somewhere between wishful and nutty. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. 2) claiming that it's _definitely_ "technology and flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion" is itself a stretch. Given the supposed behaviour, a _very_ big stretch. More likely it's equipment failure, lens flare, sundog, bug-on-the-lens, etc. 3) the strong argument against this being real is how it is "perpetually liminal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354021

anonAndOn 5y ago
re #2: what's odd is that it is equipment failure that's been occurring for decades. One would hope that JIRA ticket wouldn't keep getting pushed back to the next sprint for 40+ years.
- gruez 5y ago
  That assumes it can be easily fixed, or is the same cause every time.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  If it's not sensor artefacts, why have the readings not become clear over the last few decades, when the quality and quantity of sensors in use have improved by orders of magnitude? Why is it still liminal? Has the visibility of these things gotten worse in lockstep with the improvement in sensors? Or (Occam's razor time) it was never real readings to begin with. And, I never assumed a single cause and neither should you, don't oversimplify. Every sensor has limits. There will be noise and artefact at those limits. You can't change that fact, with or without a f'n Jira.
  - 252452d 5y ago
    LOL. You don't know shit, these craft are real and have been under development for nearly a century. They're going to fly one low over a US city eventually when it's time for a big funding boost.
ALittleLight 5y ago
1. I am not saying that these UAP are definitely aliens. I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. The report found that physical objects exhibited behavior that suggests advanced technology - including flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion. It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what I wrote was more like "The report does not contradict aliens. The findings of the report are consistent with what we might expect from alien technology. I am updating my beliefs to increase the likelihood that these UAP are explained by aliens." Your line about extra-ordinary claims is a bit misguided. For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion. 2. The DNI report says "a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" and "Some UAP appeared to ... move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion" and "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." That doesn't sound like "bug-on-the-lens" type observations to me. Obviously I can't know how good the DNI evidence is. They haven't shared much of it. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude from the report that people are getting confused with lens flares or equipment failures though. 3. That doesn't seem like an argument at all. Any thing which we have observed for a while but haven't explained would fit this description of being "perpetually liminal". UFOs fit the description worse than most things because they aren't very "perpetual". UFO sightings go back ~70 years. That's hardly perpetual. It's also not the case that we always know roughly the same amount. This report for example uses evidence to advance our understanding, arguing that they are physical objects, that they may emit RF energy, and that they have capabilities we do not.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago

I can't help but think of Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - it seems like the Navy's reports could almost equally plausibly be attributed to dragons or spirits? I personally think the universe is probably packed with aliens, but it's a big place, so it'd be almost as improbable that they're flitting around Earth's atmosphere as dragons...

sjg007 5y ago

Why would aliens only fly drones? Why not land them or do other stuff.