Jump to content

UFO'S


pyramidpanes
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, auxien said:

true true, tictac and others were somewhat disproven, from what i've seen. even if not (the 'disproof' isn't 100%, doesnt take into account the full extent of eyewitness accounts) you're not left with much 'evidence' beyond govs (remember, everyone in the gov is at the end of the day just a citizen) admitting 'hey we've seen some shit' and yeah man, that sure aint proof no doubt. a collection of data about a subject doesnt go for much on its own. there's lot of data consisting of very similar types of 'evidence' re: every major religion but obv those aint true either lol

the space station tether video? this? 

 

edit: incorrectly worded a small point

 

you raise good points. though i believe every major religion is true.

heh yeah that video is not as compelling as i remembered it. though it does still seem they are passing behind the tether, albeit with a kind of lens-related glow effect.

i would be interested in the fravor debunking. that was one where there were multiple eye witnesses, ground-based tracking, as well as plane-based tracking.

i seem to recall that such combinations of corroborating observation are not uncommon, and that there have been a number of instances in which governments released the data. i'm not good about having that data ready to rattle off, off-hand. would love to spend 3 or 4 hours preparing the info but need to work. 

i think people know what i'm talking about, though, and i would like to think i'm not too far off-base in my characterization of this set of evidence. i would be willing to concede, if we actually built a list of the best examples, and then reviewed the best objections to them. 

i would accept that ufos are not real. i've even brought up one major criticism that i find compelling: in the last 20 years, everyone suddenly has a decent-to-good camera in their pockets, yet recordings have not spiked much, as far as i know. this is a pretty concerning data point, imo. though a kind of occult view as suggested by vallee may still be consistent, in which the observation is actually deliberate and purposed. further, it could be that it's both true that there is a phenomenon of false sightings/reportings, while, simultaneously, there is a much rarer phenomenon that is occassionally apprehended by aerospace professionals. i get the impression that it's not uncommon for pilots and astronauts to have fervent opinions on the subject.

Edited by very honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, very honest said:

i would accept that ufos are not real. i've even brought up one major criticism that i find compelling: in the last 20 years, everyone suddenly has a decent-to-good camera in their pockets, yet recordings have not spiked much, as far as i know. this is a pretty concerning data point, imo. though a kind of occult view as suggested by vallee may still be consistent, in which the observation is actually deliberate and purposed. further, it could be that it's both true that there is a phenomenon of false sightings/reportings, while, simultaneously, there is a much rarer phenomenon that is occassionally apprehended by aerospace professionals. i get the impression that it's not uncommon for pilots and astronauts to have fervent opinions on the subject.

we have cameras but they have screens that lock your eyes down away from the sky onto them

  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, man you are always on it with those pics. 

 

Thinking about this again, and how alternative explanations just make way more sense. Again, what's more likely? An 87 year old man wants to get attention by making shit up because he's senile and lonely, or that there's a Goddamn Galactic Fucking Federation? So stupid. 

I'm done listening to these stupid pieces of "evidence" or claims to authority until we use this purported contact to build a giant Whirly-Dirly contraption or something comparable. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shhh...

Oh, and I wanted to clarify really quick: I realize I sound really grumpy, but it isn't directed at any of you. I always enjoy chatting with fellow WATMMers, even about non-music stuff. It's just that I guess I do have a little part of me that wants there to be some mega, Earth-shattering revelation of something really cool, but all we get are these tantalizing things that sound cool at first and get our hopes up a bit but that fall apart under two seconds of scrutiny. It's just that I want these people to shut up with it all unless they've got something really credible to show us. So far, we've got "the DoD has released videos of fast moving tic tacs from a guy who has admitted on Joe Rogan's show that he loved fucking with people when he was a pilot". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, very honest said:

though i believe every major religion is true.

wait what

3 hours ago, very honest said:

would be interested in the fravor debunking. that was one where there were multiple eye witnesses, ground-based tracking, as well as plane-based tracking.

like i said, not 100% debunking but presents a bit more reality into the discussion and takes a calm look at the facts. 

i'm pretty sure i read a few short articles coming to similar conclusions (he may have referenced some in this video? been a while since i watched it) as well.

 

3 hours ago, very honest said:

i seem to recall that such combinations of corroborating observation are not uncommon, and that there have been a number of instances in which governments released the data. i'm not good about having that data ready to rattle off, off-hand. would love to spend 3 or 4 hours preparing the info but need to work. 

i mean, i've been casually interested in UFO research since i was a literal child (probably the same for some others here i'm sure!). i've read lots and lots over the years. i'm undoubtedly interested in eyewitness accounts. i'm even more interested in eyewitness accounts from multiple sources. particularly interested in any with corroborating evidence (film, audio, photos, physical evidence or effects long term or short term, etc). i say all that to say you don't need to build some wall of 'evidence' to convince me or anyone here or (yourself even!) because i/we've likely all seen it before. but if you have some particularly compelling things you'd like to share here i'm surely all about it like plenty of others of us would be obv 🙂

3 hours ago, very honest said:

think people know what i'm talking about, though, and i would like to think i'm not too far off-base in my characterization of this set of evidence. i would be willing to concede, if we actually built a list of the best examples, and then reviewed the best objections to them. 

i would accept that ufos are not real. i've even brought up one major criticism that i find compelling: in the last 20 years, everyone suddenly has a decent-to-good camera in their pockets, yet recordings have not spiked much, as far as i know. this is a pretty concerning data point, imo. though a kind of occult view as suggested by vallee may still be consistent, in which the observation is actually deliberate and purposed. further, it could be that it's both true that there is a phenomenon of false sightings/reportings, while, simultaneously, there is a much rarer phenomenon that is occassionally apprehended by aerospace professionals. i get the impression that it's not uncommon for pilots and astronauts to have fervent opinions on the subject.

the phone camera point is very, very key imo. that really sums it up and basically proves the point as far as i'm worried about trying to make it, for now :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, auxien said:
7 hours ago, very honest said:

though i believe every major religion is true.

wait what

joking. though i could digress, but i won't.

i watched the 15 minutes in that video you posted dealing with the tic tac. it omits much of the account descibed by fravor, and describes it as shorter and less engaged than he does. the narrator claims the video is explainable, but also notes that considering the combination of observations to be erroneous would be absurd. it doesn't debunk it, and actually includes additional interesting info, like the radar tracking the things descending from space, rapidly.

i think we can agree it was an unidentified aerial phenomenon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Quote

An extraterrestrial object skimmed through space close to Earth in 2017, wrote a Harvard University astronomer, Avi Loeb, in a book to be published this month. It was the first sign of intelligent life outside Earth, according to Loeb.

Scientists at a Hawaiian observatory saw "an object soaring through our inner solar system, moving so quickly that it could only have been from another star," according to the marketing summary for the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt book, "Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth."

https://nypost.com/2021/01/02/a-harvard-professor-says-an-alien-visited-in-2017/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^from all i've read he's among the vast minority. seems like he's wanting to get some attention/money more than focusing on the actual science.

his '1 in a quadrillion chance' calculation (that it's a natural object) would likely be exponentially more rare than that if one assumes it's an unnatural object created by aliens.....of course part of that assumption would probably also claim that these aliens are sending out millions upon millions of these objects to circle and scan a large percentage of stars in the galaxy and doing so very regularly or some shit.

also this is silly

Quote

“Some people do not want to discuss the possibility that there are other civilizations out there,” he told The Post. “They believe we are special and unique. I think it’s a prejudice that should be abandoned.” 

...i don't think any scientists are saying that.

any way i'll be curious to hear what sort of evidence if any he has to push this claim, just given his status as the chair or whatever of Astronomy at Harvard i'm guessing he's not a total loon or just suddenly off his rocker.

  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, auxien said:

any way i'll be curious to hear what sort of evidence if any he has to push this claim, just given his status as the chair or whatever of Astronomy at Harvard i'm guessing he's not a total loon or just suddenly off his rocker.

yeah this is my position as well. i almost feel like i want to believe him given his status as the frank baird jr. professor of science at harvard university,  chairman of the harvard's department of astronomy (2011-2020) and director of the Institute for theory and computation (since 2007) within the harvard-smithsonian center for astrophysics.

although, this also gives me slight déjà vu of the time when shinichi mochizuki (another erudite professor type) couldn't answer a simple yes or no as to whether he is satoshi nakamoto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hard to tell from that article if this dude is one to listen to or not, but, regardless, Oumuamua is pretty interesting.

here's a good article with a cool animation of the course it took https://www.quantamagazine.org/interstellar-comet-oumuamua-might-not-actually-be-a-comet-20181010/

OumuamuaTrajectory_860.gif

here's scientific paper from the journal nature that goes into the "non-gravitational acceleration." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0254-4.epdf?referrer_access_token=EMacppE4xANwDa70xGtEqdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OcdWxPMYBmpz8z5hvNNN-rHq80eNsALlH9XdvuCIJvRLPsgXoHw2rJCWba44VfgmwCjN0DghEwT2QflVK4GNUKqPz1BCja6vRpxPzfGWFgA7TmvYkPYYkJO8FLD20AIWbGAfAvVmMC7d24P8L-bPEg8_bqmWd-F8G8uLvzTMO49IJwVfmyiQEwcytp1oRROJjoIO8qGbn1JLEIwYg7PN28&tracking_referrer=www.universetoday.com

Quote

Exploring various possible explanations for the non-gravitational acceleration that was detected, we find outgassing to be the most phys-ically plausible explanation, although with some caveats. A thermal outgassing model15, which treats ‘Oumuamua like a common cometary nucleus, suggests a non-gravitational force proportional to r−2 in the range of distances covered by our observations.

The model predictions for the magnitude and temporal evolution of the non-gravitational acceleration are within a factor of about 2–3 of the observations (see Methods) for a water production rate of QH2O = 4.9 × 1025 molecules s−1 (or 1.5 kg s−1) near 1.4    and an addi-tional contribution from QCO = 4.5 × 1025 molecules s−1 (or 2.1 kg s−1). Outgassing at this level does not conflict with the absence of spectro-scopic detections for outgassing of OH, because the values quoted are well below the spectroscopic limits on production rates16. However, the inferred upper limits for water production at 1.4   , which are based on the non-detection of CN7 and assumed Solar System abundances for QCN/QOH17, show that ‘Oumuamua would need to be substantially depleted in CN (by a factor of more than about 15) relative to water. The model also predicts 0.4 kg s−1 of dust production, which should have been detectable in the images. However, if the grains are predominantly larger than a few hundred micrometres to millimetres, they would not have been detected at optical wavelengths (see Methods). In the Solar System, comet 2P/Encke is noteworthy for its lack of small dust near perihelion18. Cometary behaviour implies that ‘Oumuamua must have some internal strength, at least comparable to Solar System comets19, because asteroid-like densities are ruled out (see Methods).

Alternative explanations for the observed acceleration include (1) solar-radiation pressure, (2) the Yarkovsky effect, (3) friction-like effects aligned with the velocity vector, (4) an impulsive change in velocity, (5) a binary or fragmented object, (6) a photocentre offset or (7) a magnetized object. However, as outlined in the following, these explanation are all either physically unrealistic or insufficient to explain the observed behaviour.
 

 

220px-Oumuamua-skypath.png

Comet_20171025-16_gif.gif

basically, it's really shiny, has a weird shape, and it accelerated away from the sun. but it's the first interstellar object identified so there is no normal. the outgassing theory for acceleration may actually not be as believable as the solar pressure theory, imo. it could be a lighweight flat shard that got propelled like a solar sail.

Edited by very honest
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, auxien said:

seems like he's wanting to get some attention/money more than focusing on the actual science.

His arguments are scientific, and should be considered independently of the amount of attention or money he may receive. 

22 hours ago, auxien said:

any way i'll be curious to hear what sort of evidence if any he has to push this claim, just given his status as the chair or whatever of Astronomy at Harvard i'm guessing he's not a total loon or just suddenly off his rocker.

Some of the actual science was summarized in this article by Loeb:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-about-the-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua/

18 hours ago, very honest said:

it's the first interstellar object identified so there is no normal

Interstellar objects are still expected to conform to the known laws of physics.

Edited by joseph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joseph said:

His arguments are scientific, and should be considered independently of the amount of attention or money he may receive. 

i'm sure his arguments are generally based in science, but if his conclusion is 'it's aliens!' which at this point is really all we know of his argument (unless you've read his book?) then his conclusion is a hell of a leap. alien civilization origins is a legitimate scientific possibility for something like this. but no one else that i've seen is claiming this or presenting any evidence of it...in fact, most scientists are saying 'yeah, we considered that, but we don't think that's what this is' which means this guy is the outlier. the outlier in science is sometimes very much the correct point, but he's gotta back up a huge claim with some huge evidence.

1 hour ago, joseph said:

that article is trash/outdated. the only thing i saw that he definitely got right was "The dynamical origin of ‘Oumuamua is extremely rare no matter how you look at it." extreme rarity =/= aliens (which i'm assuming is the entirety of the argument from the Harvard professor with the book coming out)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, auxien said:

i'm sure his arguments are generally based in science, but if his conclusion is 'it's aliens!' which at this point is really all we know of his argument (unless you've read his book?) then his conclusion is a hell of a leap. alien civilization origins is a legitimate scientific possibility for something like this. but no one else that i've seen is claiming this or presenting any evidence of it...in fact, most scientists are saying 'yeah, we considered that, but we don't think that's what this is' which means this guy is the outlier. the outlier in science is sometimes very much the correct point, but he's gotta back up a huge claim with some huge evidence.

that article is trash/outdated. the only thing i saw that he definitely got right was "The dynamical origin of ‘Oumuamua is extremely rare no matter how you look at it." extreme rarity =/= aliens (which i'm assuming is the entirety of the argument from the Harvard professor with the book coming out)

Abraham Loeb = Harvard prof = author of the scientific american article = author of the forthcoming book.

Arguments only become outdated, or "trash", when refuted. Otherwise they can last indefinitely. 

I'd guess that there is much overlap between the book arguments and the article arguments. Convincing criticisms of either, which I want to hear, must work at a comparable level of "resolution".

For example, items 2-3 in the article argue that ‘Oumuamua is not an asteroid because theory predicts that if it were, its incoming velocity (relative to the sun) should be comparable to the velocity of nearby stars (relative to the sun). Convincing criticisms of this claim should invoke some of the same concepts, like velocity and stars. 

It is probably common knowledge here that these arguments cannot imply "aliens did it" on their own. They can perhaps rule out certain "non-alien" explanations. I am sure that Loeb also knows this.

Edited by joseph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, very honest said:

hard to tell from that article if this dude is one to listen to or not, but, regardless, Oumuamua is pretty interesting.

here's a good article with a cool animation of the course it took https://www.quantamagazine.org/interstellar-comet-oumuamua-might-not-actually-be-a-comet-20181010/

OumuamuaTrajectory_860.gif

here's scientific paper from the journal nature that goes into the "non-gravitational acceleration." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0254-4.epdf?referrer_access_token=EMacppE4xANwDa70xGtEqdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OcdWxPMYBmpz8z5hvNNN-rHq80eNsALlH9XdvuCIJvRLPsgXoHw2rJCWba44VfgmwCjN0DghEwT2QflVK4GNUKqPz1BCja6vRpxPzfGWFgA7TmvYkPYYkJO8FLD20AIWbGAfAvVmMC7d24P8L-bPEg8_bqmWd-F8G8uLvzTMO49IJwVfmyiQEwcytp1oRROJjoIO8qGbn1JLEIwYg7PN28&tracking_referrer=www.universetoday.com

 

220px-Oumuamua-skypath.png

Comet_20171025-16_gif.gif

basically, it's really shiny, has a weird shape, and it accelerated away from the sun. but it's the first interstellar object identified so there is no normal. the outgassing theory for acceleration may actually not be as believable as the solar pressure theory, imo. it could be a lighweight flat shard that got propelled like a solar sail.

 

how might one pronounce "oumuamua"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, joseph said:

Arguments only become outdated, or "trash", when refuted. Otherwise they can last indefinitely. 

I'd guess that there is much overlap between the book arguments and the article arguments. Convincing criticisms of either, which I want to hear, must work at a comparable level of "resolution".

 

13 hours ago, joseph said:

For example, items 2-3 in the article argue that ‘Oumuamua is not an asteroid because theory predicts that if it were, its incoming velocity (relative to the sun) should be comparable to the velocity of nearby stars (relative to the sun). Convincing criticisms of this claim should invoke some of the same concepts, like velocity and stars. 

he lays out some pretty simple criticisms of the idea that this object is an alien light sail. most obvious is, why is it so slow and tumbling end over end (i mean, maybe that's a very useful way of interstellar travel lol)? if it's an alien probe, why the hell would it be a million years between visiting different stars (the assumption being if this was an alien probe it would y'know, purposefully visiting stars relatively quickly and efficiently) he also makes particular note of Loeb's pumping of stories for media attention....which is ultimately what this is. Loeb/others are using real science to make their arguments, but they're also leaving out other possibilities (noted in the video) that don't fit the media-targeted narrative....to try and get clicks and sell books.

and the thing is, Loeb's just in pure speculation mode. unless he can prove his frankly pretty wild claim, it's just his claim....which is fine, except that essentially zero other scientists are with him.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/interstellar-comet-oumuamua-might-not-actually-be-a-comet-20181010/

that article goes into a bit of the actual scientific work trying to sort exactly what this is, where it came from, and why it seems odd...which everyone is keenly aware of. yet none of them are jumping to conclusions like Loeb.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait what?

Quote

(CNN)When President Donald Trump signed the $2.3 trillion coronavirus relief and government funding bill into law in December, so began the 180-day countdown for US intelligence agencies to tell Congress what they know about UFOs.

No, really.
The director of National Intelligence and the secretary of defense have a little less than six months now to provide the congressional intelligence and armed services committees with an unclassified report about "unidentified aerial phenomena."


https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/us/ufo-report-emergency-relief-bill-trnd/index.html

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...