Support NeoGAF

[West Texas CEO]

Sure, but until I get Rogan’s dick out my mouth

Gobble that shit up, bruv. That's what you're best at.

I wonder where you learned those skills?

 

[Winter John]

Posh English lady?

Are you referring to your whore mother?

Naw. She’s a New Yorker.
I’m referring to you Lady Stephanie Of The Intact Hymen. How come you talk like that?

 

[West Texas CEO]

Naw. She’s a New Yorker.

I see that you only refuted her nationality, not her status as a whore.

You can't make this shit up.

How much more do you want me to manipulate your bitch-ass?

I'm getting bored. (so is everyone else..)

 

[Winter John]

I see that you only refuted her nationality, not her status as a whore.

You can't make this shit up.

How much more do you want me to manipulate your bitch-ass?

I'm getting bored. (so is everyone else..)

Nobody’s bored here Stephanie. I guarantee you that. Everyone’s watching you flailing around trying everything you can to get out of this. Me? I don’t give a fuck. I can do this shit all day long.

 

[West Texas CEO]

Nobody’s bored here Stephanie. I guarantee you that. Everyone’s watching you flailing around trying everything you can to get out of this. Me? I don’t give a fuck. I can do this shit all day long.

Ok, man.

I was starting to feel sorry for you.

Resorting to name-calling makes you look weak.

 

[West Texas CEO]

Actually, I still do feel sorry for you and your mother.

 

[Winter John]

Ok, man.

I was starting to feel sorry for you.

Resorting to name-calling makes you look weak.

Well, thank you for that tip Stephanie. How are those pearls holding up? Did ya snap your necklace yet?

 

[West Texas CEO]

That's all you got, eh?

My goodness...

But yeah, for your own benefit, get off of Rogan's tip. He does not determine who's a kook, because they're all fucking kooks.

Learn to use your brain and parse information appropriately.

And good on you for actively being my bitch throughout this whole "discourse".

 

[bender]

Damn, you two.

 

[West Texas CEO]

 

[PSYGN]

State of this thread

 

[Saiyan-Rox]

 

[Lukaku's First Touch]

You convinced me.

 

[Rentahamster]

Assumption on Speed of Drones: The fastest man-made object was the Parker Solar Probe, which went 330,000 miles per hour, or 0.05% the speed of light. If we use this as the top-speed of a drone, it would take 200,000,000 years (1.1% the age of the universe) for a single drone to reach Earth from the furthest point in the Milky Way. Alternatively, the fastest macroscopic mass observed by humans was the surface of a pulsar relative to its center, which went 5% of light speed. If the drones could go that fast, it would take 2,000,000 years (0.01% of the age of the universe). Of course, if a drone could basically go light-speed somehow, it'd take ~75,000 years, or 0.001% of the age of the universe.

Food for Thought: How likely do you think it is that another civilization could have reached the technological capabilities required to start sending drones going at those speeds to Earth between 75K - 200M years ago? In other words, an age-of-universe variance of 0.001% - 1.1%?

Food for Thought #2: How likely do you think it is that only one planet out of 500M (and the furthest one from us, at that) would be the only one to have a civilization that advanced?

Callout: I was going to build in a buffer about how long it would take humans to get from where we are now to tech at the levels we see in the UAPs (my rough estimate would be 100 -10,000 years). But with regards to the length of time it would take to travel the Milky Way (75K - 200M years), it seemed immaterial.

You're not factoring in the time it would take to replicate and repair in the 200,000,000 year travel time. You are also not factoring in that the Milky Way is a dynamic system and that it's not necessarily a linear straight shot to the next destination since all the stars are orbiting the galactic center and the probe will not always be at a constant velocity since it has to deal with obstacles and gravity wells and who knows what else.

 

[Biff]

If there are 500M planets that can support life, let's assume there are 1000s of advanced civilizations that can create a self-replicating drone system that will cover the universe and eventually detect us.

"If the aliens are so smart to build these drones, why are they so dumb to allow them to crash or get captured or even be observed by us?"

I propose Biff's North Korea Theory.

Intelligence follows a normal distribution. Extraterrestrial intelligence will follow this as well. Say we are being observed by 100 drones right now, as I type this. Yeah - 98 of them are going to be made by gigabrain levitating alien geniuses and the drones are fully stealthed and indetectable by us due to our technological inferiority.

But within those 100 civilizations, there's bound to be a North Korea or Iran in there. You know - the misguided civilizations desperate to display strength that the gigabrain aliens look down on. "Oh how cute, Aeon Xii-8 finally got a self-replicating drone out of Galaxy JRA3! They probably should be spending their resources Dyson Sphering their host star but what do we know. Xexexexexexe (<---- this is how they laugh)"

And sure enough the engineering of these trash-tier drones are garbanzo beans and eventually one of them glitches out, enters our atmosphere, and starts zig-zagging 100ft above the ocean in a restricted Air Force testing zone. This is our Tic Tac. The North Korea of a distant galaxy sent it, and we have video of it purely because of their incompetence.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

You're not factoring in the time it would take to replicate and repair in the 200,000,000 year travel time. You are also not factoring in that the Milky Way is a dynamic system and that it's not necessarily a linear straight shot to the next destination since all the stars are orbiting the galactic center and the probe will not always be at a constant velocity since it has to deal with obstacles and gravity wells and who knows what else.

I thought about adding in repair and replicate timing. Even if it took 100 years per each of the 75 iterations, that'd only be 7500 years, so I didn't factor it in.

That second part about the dynamism is fair, and of course I'd like to run a full simulation if I could. As it is, I think the 1,000 cubic mile observation range is low, so you could fudge it and say that's 1,000 cubic miles of dynamic area.

Regarding velocity, there's already a time range of 75K to 200M years, so say it lands somewhere in there.

Edit: Thanks for engaging in the napkin math! You're the first one I've seen do so.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

I ain't reading all that OP. Regardless, good use of rasta colors mon

 

[Raonak]

Yep. It is very unlikely that they are of non earth origin.

And that won't change until physical craft is available to be studied by many scientists and a consensus is formed that it is indeed not of earth origin.

 

[Rentahamster]

I thought about adding in repair and replicate timing. Even if it took 100 years per each of the 75 iterations, that'd only be 7500 years, so I didn't factor it in.

That second part about the dynamism is fair, and of course I'd like to run a full simulation if I could. As it is, I think the 1,000 cubic mile observation range is low, so you could fudge it and say that's 1,000 cubic miles of dynamic area.

Regarding velocity, there's already a time range of 75K to 200M years, so say it lands somewhere in there.

Edit: Thanks for engaging in the napkin math! You're the first one I've seen do so.

You're also assuming none of them ever get destroyed. If you're relying on future replicants to explore section Epsilon 4578 of the Milky Way, for example, and all the ancestors of those future replicants get destroyed somehow, then that entire section of the galaxy is cut off. How are the other drones going to know that they have to double back? Any delay, especially early, would have an increasingly compounding effect on any of the future plans. You're also assuming instantaneous and 100% accurate scan time, unless they can perfectly scan while moving or whatever.

Also you can't just say it's 75K to 200M years. I mean you can, but that doesn't mean it's true or even plausible.

edit: meant to say "ancestors" instead of "descendants"

 

[Rentahamster]

Edit: Thanks for engaging in the napkin math! You're the first one I've seen do so.

You're welcome.

In hamster culture, it is a moral obligation to engage with all forms of implausible napkin math regarding aliens ayy lmao.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I support the Jamaicans.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

You're also assuming none of them ever get destroyed. If you're relying on future replicants to explore section Epsilon 4578 of the Milky Way, for example, and all the ancestors of those future replicants get destroyed somehow, then that entire section of the galaxy is cut off. How are the other drones going to know that they have to double back? Any delay, especially early, would have an increasingly compounding effect on any of the future plans. You're also assuming instantaneous and 100% accurate scan time, unless they can perfectly scan while moving or whatever.

This is interesting. And where having a full simulation would come in handy. Let's say one entire new generation got wiped out when the count would've gone to 1,048,576, so now they're back at 524,288. If we said one iteration takes 100 years, then let's say they all completely stopped dead in their tracks to regenerate. 100 years added to the total 75K-200M years to recover the losses. But that doesn't explain how they'd know how to stop, so would you be satisfied if the total time taken was doubled to say that the other drones end up "filling the gap" or even double-checking areas already covered?
Then it'd be 150K to 400M years. Without getting a full simulation, I don't know how else to account for this.

Also you can't just say it's 75K to 200M years. I mean you can, but that doesn't mean it's true or even plausible.

If the lowball velocity was based on the fastest man-made object (200M years) and the high-end is based on the speed of light (75K), I do think it's plausible (obviously not definitive) that the average velocity would fall around there, even with starts and stops and detours. Happy to plug in an adjustment if someone has a compelling tweak.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

You convinced me.

 

[Crayon]

You know what monkey wrenches all this is that panspermia could be more common than independent genesis. Then neighbors would be more likely to be clustered than randomly spread out or especially the worst case across the galaxy used in the op.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

The possibility of them being multidimensional beings could negate the argument based solely on distance.

I'm leaning towards the idea that they might be from a different dimension but not because of the distance. Just other things.

And keeping an open mind, I used to think this theory was ridiculous but now I'm wondering if they could be demonic? There's seems to be some indication to that.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I ain't reading all that OP. Regardless, good use of rasta colors mon

 

[phaedrus]

 

[Crayon]

If there are 500M planets that can support life, let's assume there are 1000s of advanced civilizations that can create a self-replicating drone system that will cover the universe and eventually detect us.

"If the aliens are so smart to build these drones, why are they so dumb to allow them to crash or get captured or even be observed by us?"

I propose Biff's North Korea Theory.

Intelligence follows a normal distribution. Extraterrestrial intelligence will follow this as well. Say we are being observed by 100 drones right now, as I type this. Yeah - 98 of them are going to be made by gigabrain levitating alien geniuses and the drones are fully stealthed and indetectable by us due to our technological inferiority.

But within those 100 civilizations, there's bound to be a North Korea or Iran in there. You know - the misguided civilizations desperate to display strength that the gigabrain aliens look down on. "Oh how cute, Aeon Xii-8 finally got a self-replicating drone out of Galaxy JRA3! They probably should be spending their resources Dyson Sphering their host star but what do we know. Xexexexexexe (<---- this is how they laugh)"

And sure enough the engineering of these trash-tier drones are garbanzo beans and eventually one of them glitches out, enters our atmosphere, and starts zig-zagging 100ft above the ocean in a restricted Air Force testing zone. This is our Tic Tac. The North Korea of a distant galaxy sent it, and we have video of it purely because of their incompetence.

I love this idea that we are getting the yugos of drones down here lol. The government is keeping them secret because they are embarrassed of our crappy drones.

 

[Crayon]

I'm leaning towards the idea that they might be from a different dimension but not because of the distance. Just other things.

And keeping an open mind, I used to think this theory was ridiculous but now I'm wondering if they could be demonic? There's seems to be some indication to that.

Probably more a topic for the UFO thread but for a long time I've thought that it ever comes out to be 'aliens' I'll be forever wondering if it's actually way weirder than that.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I wish you would take a moment to educate yourself.

The "U" in USB stands for UNIVERSAL.

Universal for humans, not for aliens.

 

[Crayon]

Universal for humans, not for aliens.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

Cena is of course the only living thing capable of warping spacetime around him so that he is completely invisible.

Daddy Xi gave him the tech.

 

[Rentahamster]

This is interesting. And where having a full simulation would come in handy. Let's say one entire new generation got wiped out when the count would've gone to 1,048,576, so now they're back at 524,288. If we said one iteration takes 100 years, then let's say they all completely stopped dead in their tracks to regenerate. 100 years added to the total 75K-200M years to recover the losses. But that doesn't explain how they'd know how to stop, so would you be satisfied if the total time taken was doubled to say that the other drones end up "filling the gap" or even double-checking areas already covered?
Then it'd be 150K to 400M years. Without getting a full simulation, I don't know how else to account for this.

I don't know what I'd be satisfied with, because I don't know the likelihood of any given drone to break or get destroyed.

If the lowball velocity was based on the fastest man-made object (200M years) and the high-end is based on the speed of light (75K), I do think it's plausible (obviously not definitive) that the average velocity would fall around there, even with starts and stops and detours. Happy to plug in an adjustment if someone has a compelling tweak.

I have no compelling tweak. We're all working on assumptions and we don't even know if any of them are reasonable. I feel like while the replication and colonizing will take a long time, if started it will inevitably complete within a reasonable timeframe relative to the age of the universe. The thing that's probably holding it back (and probably why we don't see any of them now) is that it's exceedingly unlikely that life reaches the point where it can deploy such technology.

 

[Rentahamster]

 

[INC]

UAPs have been in our lore and history, since mankind could draw on Cave walls.

So imo there's something in it.

As for speed/time and distance, I'd go with they're not actually flying here at a linear speed/time/distance, more phasing through time speed/time/distance

Hence why some UAP seen to blink out. Much like many witnesses/videos etc etc seem to show.

 

[FunkMiller]

This dude looks and sounds like every single manager of a coffee shop in Melbourne.

 

[Razvedka]

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative — merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons — to say nothing about invisible ones — you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages — but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" — no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it — is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

-Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

"Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.” - J. Allen Hynek, in response to Carl Sagan's disposition to this subject.

We have evidence. Both in the form of videos, images, sensor & radar data, oodles of reliable eye witness testimony, and trace physical evidence. Of the aforementioned, the only thing the public does not have reliable access to is sensor & radar data (for very obvious reasons). Skeptics presume that if such compelling evidence existed, they would know about it.

Because they (implicitly) trust their channels of information and conflate it with their ability to actually research. But that simply isn't the case, and there's a whole stack of books and declassified papers from a multitude of governments explaining why.

We had members of Congress testify on the record just a few days ago that they've seen incredible footage of these objects. They then described the footage. The problem is that they cannot compel the military to release it to the public, at least not immediately (see Schumer's UAP Disclosure amendment to NDAA 2024). This is all happening, and it's all real. It isn't a (multi-year long bipartisan, cross agency, cross administration) 'distraction' or 'psyop'.

By the way, Sagan was reportedly quite interested in the UFO subject but he was too scared to risk his public reputation and tenure to stick his neck out. So instead he avoided and downplayed it (in public, but allegedly not in private).

 

[Chronicle]

Just a jump and there's nothing wrong with using your imagination but when it comes to uap/ufo's there is zero evidence. None. Zilch. Natta.

 

[FunkMiller]

"Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.” - J. Allen Hynek, in response to Carl Sagan's disposition to this subject.

We have evidence. Both in the form of videos, images, sensor & radar data, oodles of reliable eye witness testimony, and trace physical evidence. Of the aforementioned, the only thing the public does not have reliable access to is sensor & radar data (for very obvious reasons). Skeptics presume that if such compelling evidence existed, they would know about it.

Because they (implicitly) trust their channels of information and conflate it with their ability to actually research. But that simply isn't the case, and there's a whole stack of books and declassified papers from a multitude of governments explaining why.

By the way, Sagan was reportedly quite interested in the UFO subject but he was too scared to risk his public reputation and tenure to stick his neck out. So instead he avoided and downplayed it (in public, but allegedly not in private).

I mean, I'll ask the question, as I think it's right to at this point:

Can you direct us to evidence that conclusively and without doubt proves that aliens have visited earth. You have to provide evidence that has been independently corroborated from multiple, expert sources.

This is how science works - so it's only fair to expect the same level of due diligence about things that can fundamentally affect our understanding of science. You wouldn't expect anyone to believe in things like the laws of thermodynamics, the way gravity functions, or how chemical compositions are created without empirical evidence... so the same must apply here to something that would be so fundamentally altering to our perception of the universe.

And of course Sagan was interested in UFOs. All astrophysicists are - but that doesn't mean they believe they've been here.

 

[FunkMiller]

Assumption on Speed of Drones: The fastest man-made object was the Parker Solar Probe, which went 330,000 miles per hour, or 0.05% the speed of light. If we use this as the top-speed of a drone, it would take 200,000,000 years (1.1% the age of the universe) for a single drone to reach Earth from the furthest point in the Milky Way. Alternatively, the fastest macroscopic mass observed by humans was the surface of a pulsar relative to its center, which went 5% of light speed. If the drones could go that fast, it would take 2,000,000 years (0.01% of the age of the universe). Of course, if a drone could basically go light-speed somehow, it'd take ~75,000 years, or 0.001% of the age of the universe.

You're gonna love this...

Kinetic energy.

Speed of 14 989 622.9 m/s (5% of the speed of light).

Mass of a single grain of dust: 0.0044 kg.

Kinetic force of dust grain striking drone travelling at 5% the speed of light, in one second, with minimal deformation: 49,431.535 Giga Newtons, or 5040 megatons.

Force of Hiroshima atomic detonation in megatons: 0.015.

 

[Razvedka]

I mean, I'll ask the question, as I think it's right to at this point:

Please do direct us to evidence that conclusively and without doubt proves that aliens have visited earth. You have to provide evidence that has been independently corroborated from multiple, expert sources.

This is how scientists work - so it's only fair to expect the same level of due diligence about things that can fundamentally affect our understanding of science.

And of course Sagan was interested in UFOs. All astrophysicists are - but that doesn't mean they believe they've been here.

You tell me about 'how science works' but just sentences above you demand this:

Please do direct us to evidence that conclusively and without doubt proves that aliens have visited earth

Literally is not how science works. The 'bar' for valid inquiry isn't "evidence that is conclusive and leaves no doubt". That's absolute nonsense, and if it were true we would have never even considered things like blackholes or any number of aspects of theoretical physics given how long/difficult they are to test or observe.

1. I didn't say 'aliens' are visiting earth. If you pay attention, neither is Grusch or several other high profile ex-DOD/IC people currently testifying and making the rounds. They talk about 'NHI' or 'non-human intelligence' but they're not certain what they are or where they're from.

2. I said we had evidence and a good chunk of it is quite compelling. I did not say it was "conclusively and without doubt", because that bar is virtually impossible to clear and you know it. Or, at least, you should. Science isn't about 'proving' something is true- that's mathematics and logic. Science is about rendering enough evidence & analysis that a given position is not falsifiable- yet. Science is not about certainty, it is about doubt. There is no 'proof' in science:

"It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything. Upon hearing that, many people then jump to the opposite extreme and claim that since science can’t prove anything, it is unreliable and should not be trusted. That position is also incorrect.

The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not proofs. The reasons for that range from the philosophical to the practical, but if you really want to understand the nature of science, then it is very important that you understand the concept of proof. Therefore, I am going to go over some of the reasons why science doesn’t prove anything, then I am going to explain why that is actually a good thing and should not make you question the reliability of science. As I will elaborate on, the best way to think about science is that it tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence. As such, it is an extremely useful tool, and it is far better than the alternatives, but it’s certainly not perfect."

3. I am happy to point you to evidence, but given the impossible and unscientific bar you've just set for anything valid I question whether you'll even consider it:
- I refer you to Tic-tac, Go-Fast, and Gimbal videos released by the Navy. Here is the hearing from a few days ago where these videos are discussed, in part. It's the most 'up to date' commentary on them.
- Not that I particularly trust AARO, but here is some of their data from their last report to Congress. They have also included an interesting video captured by a Reaper drone.
- French COMETA report (1999) translated in English.
- As an aside, here is the NSA taking an amusing dump on skeptics with regard to the UFO subject.
- Strangely enough despite its (nefarious) role in history, the Condon Report outside of its 'conclusion' written by Dr. Condon contains some very compelling evidence & scientific analysis of UFO cases in that era which cannot be explained. Of course, its ludicrously long and Condon & his backers knew that most people would not read it all the way through vs the takeaway. They were counting on this because the body of the Condon Report itself contradicts its own (popularly cited) conclusions.
- Works of scientists such as Jacque Vallee, James E. McDonald and author Robert Hastings. Not all of which I can link here since they're not publicly available vs paying for a book. These books include research into testimonies, historical analysis, and scientific analysis of evidence collected in the respective eras the books were written.
- There have been many attempts to catalogue cases of UFO reports which leave physical evidence.
- Some analysis by scientists on current evidence to theorize how UAP operate does exist. Because I am by nature a suspicious person, I had that website looked at by a few physicists. None of them said it BS. For whatever that's worth to you.
- There is currently research being performed on UFO/UAP crash materials by Stanford scientist Garry Nolan. So far the results are anomalous.

I could go a good while longer with a bit more digging into my archives and memory, but I'm curious to see if this conversation is even being had in good faith before I render more effort.

 

[FunkMiller]

You tell me about 'how science works' but just sentences above you demand this:



Literally is not how science works. The 'bar' for valid inquiry isn't "evidence that is conclusive and leaves no doubt". That's absolute nonsense, and if it were true we would have never even considered things like blackholes or any number of aspects of theoretical physics given how long/difficult they are to test or observe.

1. I didn't say 'aliens' are visiting earth. If you pay attention, neither is Grusch or several other high profile ex-DOD/IC people currently testifying and making the rounds. They talk about 'NHI' or 'non-human intelligence' but they're not certain what they are or where they're from.

2. I said we had evidence and a good chunk of it is quite compelling. I did not say it was "conclusively and without doubt", because that bar is virtually impossible to clear and you know it. Or, at least, you should. Science isn't about 'proving' something is true- that's mathematics and logic. Science is about rendering enough evidence & analysis that a given position is not falsifiable- yet. Science is not about certainty, it is about doubt. There is no 'proof' in science:

"It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything. Upon hearing that, many people then jump to the opposite extreme and claim that since science can’t prove anything, it is unreliable and should not be trusted. That position is also incorrect.

The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not proofs. The reasons for that range from the philosophical to the practical, but if you really want to understand the nature of science, then it is very important that you understand the concept of proof. Therefore, I am going to go over some of the reasons why science doesn’t prove anything, then I am going to explain why that is actually a good thing and should not make you question the reliability of science. As I will elaborate on, the best way to think about science is that it tells us what is most likely true given the current evidence. As such, it is an extremely useful tool, and it is far better than the alternatives, but it’s certainly not perfect."

3. I am happy to point you to evidence, but given the irrational bar you've just set for anything valid I question whether you'll even consider it:
- I refer you to Tic-tac, Go-Fast, and Gimbal videos released by the Navy. Here is the hearing from a few days ago where these videos are discussed, in part. It's the most 'up to date' commentary on them.
- Not that I particularly trust AARO, but here is some of their data from their last report to Congress. They have also included an interesting video captured by a Reaper drone.
- French COMETA report (1999) translated in English.
- As an aside, here is the NSA taking an amusing dump on skeptics with regard to the UFO subject.
- Strangely enough despite its (nefarious) role in history, the Condon Report outside of its 'conclusion' written by Dr. Condon contains some very compelling evidence & scientific analysis of UFO cases in that era which cannot be explained. Of course, its ludicrously long and Condon & his backers knew that most people would not read it all the way through vs the takeaway. They were counting on this because the body of the Condon Report itself contradicts its own (popularly cited) conclusions.
- Works of scientists such as Jacque Vallee, James E. McDonald and author Robert Hastings. Not all of which I can link here since they're not publicly available vs paying for a book. These books include research into testimonies, historical analysis, and scientific analysis of evidence collected in the respective eras the books were written.
- There have been many attempts to catalogue cases of UFO reports which leave physical evidence.

I could go a good while longer with a bit more digging into my archives and memory, but I'm curious to see if this conversation is even being had in good faith before I render more effort.

Could you at least provide any evidence that's been corroborated by several independent sources? Surely that's a pretty low bar to clear for something?

 

[Razvedka]

Could you at least provide any evidence that's been corroborated by several independent sources? Surely that's a pretty low bar to clear for something?

Actually read what I wrote or walk away. You don't get to move the goalpost at the last second.

 

[FunkMiller]

Actually read what I wrote or walk away.

You've provided nothing that's corroborated by independent sources. You may think it's an irrational bar, but there ain't a discovery in history that's been confirmed without multiple people having seen it, done it, or repeated it.

 

[Razvedka]

You've provided nothing that's corroborated by independent sources. You may think it's an irrational bar, but there ain't a discovery in history that's been confirmed without multiple people having seen it, done it, or repeated it.

Alright you and I are done. I figured this is exactly how this conversation would go. A man who's overconfident in his abilities to dictate what is and is not 'scientific evidence' but has zero grasp on how scientific theory and inquiry actually work.

I'll let the eyes of visitors on this thread be the judge of this dialogue between us.

 

[EviLore]

"Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.” - J. Allen Hynek, in response to Carl Sagan's disposition to this subject.

We have evidence. Both in the form of videos, images, sensor & radar data, oodles of reliable eye witness testimony, and trace physical evidence. Of the aforementioned, the only thing the public does not have reliable access to is sensor & radar data (for very obvious reasons). Skeptics presume that if such compelling evidence existed, they would know about it.

Because they (implicitly) trust their channels of information and conflate it with their ability to actually research. But that simply isn't the case, and there's a whole stack of books and declassified papers from a multitude of governments explaining why.

We had members of Congress testify on the record just a few days ago that they've seen incredible footage of these objects. They then described the footage. The problem is that they cannot compel the military to release it to the public, at least not immediately (see Schumer's UAP Disclosure amendment to NDAA 2024). This is all happening, and it's all real. It isn't a (multi-year long bipartisan, cross agency, cross administration) 'distraction' or 'psyop'.

By the way, Sagan was reportedly quite interested in the UFO subject but he was too scared to risk his public reputation and tenure to stick his neck out. So instead he avoided and downplayed it (in public, but allegedly not in private).

Ridicule may not be part of the scientific method but it definitely should be applied to credulous alien true believers.

 

[Razvedka]

Ridicule may not be part of the scientific method but it definitely should be applied to credulous alien true believers.

Try me. Because so far the skeptics in this thread are decidedly wanting.

 

[FunkMiller]

Alright you and I are done. I figured this is exactly how this conversation would go. A man who's overconfident in his abilities to dictate what is and is not 'scientific evidence' but has zero grasp on how scientific theory and inquiry actually work.

I'll let the eyes of visitors on this thread be the judge of this dialogue between us.

Same old, same old. Once you're actually asked to supply clear evidence, it all falls apart and you run off in a huff.

Honestly, if you want this to be taken seriously, in a conversation that brings scientific reasoning into it (inevitable when talking about UFOs) then you have to apply the same level of evidence that you would apply to any other subject matter with scientific relevance. Otherwise, you might as well be talking about demons, fairies or an honest politician.

 

[Razvedka]

Same old, same old. Once you're actually asked to supply clear evidence, it all falls apart and you run off.

Honestly, if you want this to be taken seriously, in a conversation that brings scientific reasoning into it (inevitable when talking about UFOs) then you have to apply the same level of evidence that you would apply to any other subject matter with scientific relevance.

You don't even understand how science works.

 

[FunkMiller]

You don't even understand how science works.

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

The scientific method is an iterative, cyclical process through which information is continually revised.[79][80] It is generally recognized to develop advances in knowledge through the following elements, in varying combinations or contributions:[48][51]

• Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
• Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
• Predictions (inductive and deductive reasoning from the hypothesis or theory)
• Experiments (tests of all of the above)

Each element of the scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology). The elements above are often taught in the educational system as "the scientific method".[A]