this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3223 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"I would not consider my article legitimate research"
Then why did you link it as an example? Nobody cares about what style of essay you like to write, this was clearly you trying to flex.
I write actual research papers and I wouldn't be so arrogant as to cite my own work (which actually does meet standards of research) as an example; you must just be really proud of that BS in psychology.
"Know more than our greatest pilots and military personnel"
Because they built the sensors and study atmospheric physics? You realise pilots, are pilots, not aeronautical or electrical engineers? Why on earth is their opinion magically more credible? Especially when the claim is completely contradictory to very well established physics. I fact I even gave a reason why their information is overwhelmingly likely to be faulty, due to atmospheric heating.
Before anyone tries to engage in explaining complex physical phenomenon, they should try to have some knowledge about it. I would personally recommend reading a textbook on radar engineering and another in atmospheric physics which pretty much explains nearly every single illusion and sensory error possible.
Since you clearly don't have the intelligence to follow my recommendation, a simpler circumstance is investigating the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, where "the greatest pilots and military personnel" reported seeing attacking boats (including on sonar, a clearly infallible sensor) and bombed and torpedoed empty ocean. We know it was empty now, because the NVA records show that no ships were their.
This isn't to denigrate the people involved, it's simply an notable example that sensors can fail, data can be misinterpreted and people can perceive objects that aren't there especially if they have been told something's there beforehand.
FYI, fooling sensors into providing false data is a core part of military strategy, it's the motivation behind ECM, low-altitude interdiction, etc.
If you even remotely understood the topic you would realise that even the definition of UAP means absolutely nothing. If you have 10s of thousands of hours of sensor data over decades of course you're going to have inputs you can't map to physical objects, the fact that you can't conclusively identify the source of the input doesn't mean that it's a magical object, or even a real one.
There's a reason why physicists and the military aren't dedicating extraordinary amounts of time on these, because we all know it's nothing.
Are you purposefully dodging the obvious difference between actual research and "doing your own research"?
What I was citing is an example of how "doing your own research" (colloquialism) can yield something productive and valid when I was sharing my article. I was using that as a example, and comparing it to my brother who "does his own research" (again, we're talking about the colloquial meaning..) and believes QAnon insanity and conspiracy theories about everything.
That is what the original post topic is referring to. Not literal scholarly research as you appear to be stuck on.
What I wrote on UAP is not the equivalent of QAnon crazies. I cited declassified documents from the National Archives and quoted various pilots/military/government personnel.
Your retort here just tells me you read snippets of my UAP article and are not acknowledging most of the information. Kevin Day was the Cheif Radar Operator, and this is a direct quote:
The pilots witnessed the object/its movements with their own eyes, which corroborated the data from their sensors and radar data on the Princeton. I'm going to trust the concerns of the Cheif Radar Operator, multiple Top Gun pilots from a world famous squadron, and their weapons systems specialist over you and your arrogant condescension.
I guess I should have specified that what I am referring to is the category D UAP (see the COMETA report). I believe that some percentage of category D UAP could be possibly explainable by more conventional explanation.
I'm also not arguing that there is evidence of extraterrestrials; I'm only arguing that a percentage of category D UAP represent intelligently controlled physical objects, which represent disruptive/breakthrough technology.
That does not mean the technology could not be of human origin. But this technology represented in the Nimitz Event outperformed our F/A-18F Superhornets, and that same type of craft was identified on a mass scale beginning in 1947.
The sightings were so prevalent in the 50s that the US Air Force issued a public address on UFOs to the nation.
The reason I don't rule out the possibility of non-human technology myself is because this kind of technology being invented and concealed since 1947 somehow seems even less reasonable to me.
You can disagree with me, the expert individuals' accounts, and refuse to acknowledge the documents from the National Archives, but it doesn't make my argument crazy.
I am simply arguing there is breakthrough/disruptive technology represented in a percentage of the category D UAP. That is supported by ODNI's report as well, in which it states a potential national security concern is that they could represent breakthrough/disruptive technology by an adversary.
Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained "uncharacterized and unattributed," and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis."
I am up for debating the subject. If I am wrong about anything and you have expertise and can share it/information, I'm all ears. Unlike most people, I want to challenge my beliefs and will gladly shift my beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.
There's more supporting evidence of disruptive/breakthrough tech represented in category D UAP than there is evidence of any religion.
And if this is a bogus area not worhy of study, why is Harvard's Galileo Project so invested in studying UAP? Or UAPx? And why was there such unprecedented unanimous bipartisan support passing UAP related bills in the least productive House in history?
Easy, get a physics degree. I already pointed out how the data was clearly incorrect. If UAP are really as credible as you claim (convincing military pilots and Congress critters) how come it doesn't convince the actual subject matter experts? Physicists.
If this was even remotely plausible, you wouldn't be having a handful of people looking into it, it would be a core focus of the field.
Ha, all you did is assert it's invalid without any supporting information. Explain how it's wrong and I will consider your argument.
I already discussed Harvard's Galileo Project lead by experts. Or UAPx, which is a scientific organization studying the subject. NASA is also gearing up to study study UAP, and have argued against stigmatizing the subject as you are guilty of here. Source
Let's not ignore Project Blue Book, AATIP, and now currently AARO, which are/were US government agencies/projects devoted to studying/monitoring UAP.
There's also the UK's historical government UAP investigations, as well as France's studies by GEIPAN (essentially their NASA). And if you want to criticize their legitimacy, consider how NASA regarded the COMETA Report.
Just because all experts aren't taking it seriously doesn't mean none are. So if your criterion for validity is experts investigating the subject, it is met.
This is exactly why I use Semmelweis's discovery of handwashing as analogous to this situation. He couldn't explain why there was such a significant reduced mortality rate from handwashing prior to surgery, and he was ridiculed for his findings by the medical community, and he was eventually institutionalized in an asylum where he died.
His findings were rejected on the basis of preexisting beliefs; not lack of validity or ability to study the subject. This is where we currently are with UAP, where there is a growing number of scientists and experts beginning to lend the subject credence, but there is an overwhelming toxic stigma perpetuated by closed-minded individuals which discourages experts from jeopardizing their career/credibility.
This is also seen in both commercial and military pilots, but more and more are coming forward to share their testimonies. Ryan Graves, one of the whistle-blower pilots, founded the Americans for Safe Aerospace organization to provide a confidential means for pilots to report their encounters.
I'm not ignorant of my ignorance in regard to technical understanding of aircraft and physics. That is why my request for you to actually expand on your argument is sincere.
I want to test my beliefs and modify them in the face of new and valid information to maintain congruence. I am a skeptic after all, whether or not you believe it.
As it stands, I am basing my beliefs off of an overwhelming body of government documents and government/military whistle-blowers, as well as expert testimony.
On the other hand, you are a random internet stranger who has been overly hostile and not countering so much as blanket dismissing what I have stated and cited.
If you want me to take you seriously, you'll have to do a better job explaining how all of the historical international UAP monitoring programs, experts, government/military officials, and pilots around the world are all wrong.
"An overwhelming body of government documents"
Which you don't understand.
"You're a random internet stranger"
You're a random internet stranger as well (actually neither of us are, both of us have public works that is easily findable, and let's say mine are far more topically relevant). Why on earth are you supposed to treated credibly? Especially when you cite your expertise in QM to explain data, like every single crackpot.
"I am a skeptic after all"
How? If you were a skeptic you would have already been aware of my criticism that the data observed does not match any physical theories, AND that we have no reason to believe that these physical theories are wrong. You are confused by the fact that "diagnostics" merely shows that the software/equipment is working as designed not that it is interpreting the data correctly. (We also don't know what "diagnostics" were performed, in actual physics we don't say "we checked for errors" we give explicit descriptions of what errors we conjecture and how we accounted for to them, so saying "diagnostics were performed" is scientifically worthless).
I've already given several reasons to doubt the results: unreliability of eye witnesses, faulty interpretation of information, and failure to correspond with existing extremely well established theories. All of these are well-established facts and I gave an example of each one, some of which are so common they are open problems in remote sensing, and regularly exploited. The fact that you are so unfamiliar that you just deny them as being irrelevant, is entirely on you.
"Project Blue Book ..."
Sure, there is something of interest in recording UAP, just like any other data. This does not produce any credible theories about them corresponding to the data. In fact essentially every report I've read can be summarised as "we can't determine why we have this data", that's it.
"All of the experts"
You mean the people that agree with you and have decided are "all of the" experts?
So can you explain to me why "Q" is NOT the expert on internal politics, but the handful of organisations and witnesses are the experts even though you admit that their views aren't mainstream in science and can't refute any argument.
It's quite hilarious that you complain about this brother, when you are engaging in the same faulty reasoning to defend a conspiracy theory that you want to believe.
On a similar note, you don't seem to grant parapsychology the same level of credibility even though all the same arguments would lead to conclusions like telepathy actually being real.
You continue to jump to false conclusions about me, obfuscate things I've said, and ignore other things entirely. Disingenuous argumentative tactics.
The experts I'm referring to are not armchair individuals. I'm referring to the scientists from France, the UK and US who participated in the studies on UAP. Also the scientists in the Galileo Project, UAPx, as well as independent scientists who have been studying the topic.
I'm also referring to the individuals within our government who have participated in the programs or other roles within the intelligence community and have become whistle-blowers (like Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon--not referring to David Grusch).
I was completely skeptical and always dismissed UFOs as crazy Dale Gribble nonsense. But when I started to actually look into it, I found enough reason to believe that a percentage of Category D UAP may represent crafts possessing breakthrough/disruptive technology. That's not such a wild belief.
This is a view held by many members of our government, from elected officials to those within our intelligence community privy to information neither of us have access to.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that all of these individuals and government agencies are all completely wrong, you're dismissing the declassified records, and dismissing the clear patterns represented in credible eyewitness accounts (some of which have corresponding data from radar and across multiple sensors).
ODNI stated that there exists concern that a percentage of UAP represent disruptive/breakthrough technology. They also stated that some most likely do represent physical objects (not simply instrument malfunctions as you continue to assert).
I'm not basing my beliefs off crackpots. No matter how much you try to misframe my argument and gaslight, it's not going to work.
My beliefs are based off of declassified government records and the statements made by credible experts and government officials, not bogus abduction stories. It's categorically different from my brother who is unable to discern credible sources.
Even if you disagree with my views, the sources I cited were not some wild QAnon level nonsense. The documentaries I cited were for direct quotes from primary sources. Also, I stayed the hell away from History Channel big-haired nonsense. You're trying to frame it along those lines.
I actually thought that I could approach my QAnon crazy brother with this, thinking it was something he'd like to talk about. But lo and behold it wasn't crazy enough for him.. He began to drone on about all these ridiculous conspiracies about different alien races working within world governments, and also god somehow...
You're wrong to misframe my argument in line with the QAnon conspiratorial mindset. You also just keep repeating the false claim that there are no experts taking it seriously.
Our governments believe there may be validity, seeing as how they have continued to monitor/study UAP. Same for some scientists and even Harvard University. And again, NASA has advocated against people stigmatizing the subject as you are doing here.
No matter how many times you falsely claim that there are merely crackpots and no experts, it doesn't make it true. That is blatantly false.
"no experts"
I never said that, I said that you are cherry-picking the handful of related people who agree with you, most of whom are not experts in anything relevant.
Clearly there are going to be a handful of subject matter experts that believe claims with extraordinarily weak evidence (see Nobel disease), the game of science is not played by fishing for individuals with degrees that support your beliefs. It's by looking at the evidence, engaging in a fair amount of epistemic and abductive reasoning and arriving at the most useful conclusion. In the case of people like you who don't have the skillset to do so, you can defer to the consensus of relevant experts. (Eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts, and I certainly wouldn't cite my vision as an instrument in a paper).
"Some scientists and even Harvard"
You realise you are talking to a physicist right? All your appeal to crackpots and generic "find more information" statements aren't going to convince me unless you rigorously explain why you think the data is better explained by theories that you can't formulate (nobody seems to be able to, because the theory is just "it's beyond our understanding", the most epistemically worthless statement ever) versus very well known sensory and psychological phenomenon.