this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
438 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
10 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

No evidence that UFOs are aliens — NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific::NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why are we not letting scientists handle this matter?

Probably hard pressed to find any reputable scientist who wants to waste their time debunking trivial bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There are legitimate scientific organizations studying UAP, such as UAPx and the Galileo Project at Harvard.

Referring to UAP and not aliens, our government has admitted to having secret government programs monitoring/studying UAP, and other nations around the world have as well, including the UK and France who've both opened their information to the public. The US is uniquely secretive, withholding, and obfuscating the subject.

If you want a rational representation of valid information, I would encourage you to read my post. Everything is cited and it contains declassified US government documents and admission of the existence of UAP and secret government programs monitoring them. Again, I'm speaking in regard to UAP (Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon) and not aliens.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you dropped the "admission" phrasing.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What would be better phrasing? Acknowledged? It was previously classified and denied, and they have now admitted to the existence of the programs and phenomenon.

The information is valid regardless if people want to believe it. My post is thoroughly cited.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's cool man if you want to keep sounding like a dime store Don Quixote. The adversarial subtext of your phrasing will make the majority of people ignore you and will taint the perception of whatever you cite.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah, I don't have a problem with my wording. You're just jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I'm not responsible for other people's ignorance and unwillingness to challenge their beliefs.

My argument is logically sound and I don't feel it comes off like the mad scrolls of some Q-anon nut job whatsoever. I think your hang-up and useless criticism here is just a reflection of your emotional maturity level and propensity for emotional reasoning. I presented factual information with logical reasoning. You're emotionally reasoning here.

If someone is unwilling to even open a lemmy post link and instead writes it off without any consideration, that's just a reflection of their own ignorance and unwillingness to challenge their beliefs.

I don't feel the need to tiptoe around the facts, and there's always going to be people unwilling to consider the information. I've already done a hell of a lot, compiling all of that information and that write-up. But I'll be sure to remember that you don't like the way the information makes you feel next time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah I was trying to help ya but it sounds like you might be closer to the mind set that I was trying to help you not sound like.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, what help you were by repeatedly condensing me and calling me a q-anon crazy! You should become a motivational speaker!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't call you that but your responses do lend some credibility to the notion. If you don't want to be taken seriously fine, I don't really care

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are legitimate scientific organizations studying UAP

Tell me when they have something tangible that isn't "here's this thing on video that we can't identify". We've been collecting data for >80 years so I'm sure there must be something by now? Or is "fuzzy photography" the extent of it?

The term UAP, or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon, is what has been used by the US government in referring to these objects, as the term UFO has a very apparent stigma attached to it.

UAP has the same stigma as well. You can't say "Oh, it's Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon while winking and nodding about aliens and hinting at conspiracies. We know what you mean.

Decades of "it might be aliens" when looking at blurry and out-of-context videos and photos deserves the stigma. It's not aliens. It's never aliens. All we have is "we don't know what that thing was." Until we do and then it's an insect close to the camera, an internal reflection on an SLR lens, another aircraft, etc.

To jump to the conclusion that aliens is even an option is ridiculous given the number of crap we have in the skies today.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're clearly uneducated in the topic if you think a bug on lense is responsible for these crafts when there have been many instances in which radar has verified recordings and/or eyewitness reports. That rules out bugs.

And the UAP have been measured at temperatures that rule out birds or other warm-blooded animals.

There's enough evidence that exists to make the belief that these physical objects exist rational and reasonable. Just because you haven't honestly evaluated the evidence for something doesn't mean that evidence doesn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You’re clearly uneducated in the topic

Ugh. Just... Don't.

There’s enough evidence that exists to make the belief that these physical objects exist rational and reasonable. Just because you haven’t honestly evaluated the evidence for something doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.

Evidence for.. WHAT?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Crafts that our government has stated are not our technology, that are capable of outperforming our current aircraft/war machines, such as the F/A-18F Superhornets in the Nimitz Event.

That should be concerning to people if that air superiority exists in the hands of a possible adversary. There is also the aerospace safety hazard posed by UAP that affects both commercial and military aircraft, where there have been many reported cases of near-misses.

The Pentagon's Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was mandated to produce a report on UAP, and stated in their report that:

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. … UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology. [11]

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." [11]

Not only has the US government confirmed that UAP exist, they have acknowledged that they pose a serious safety risk to our pilots; both commercial and domestic.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Crafts that our government has stated are not our technology

We have those crafts? That would indeed be news to me.

Not only has the US government confirmed that UAP exist, they have acknowledged that they pose a serious safety risk to our pilots; both commercial and domestic.

What is a UAP? I'm not being academic I'm trying to get at the heart of the discussion. Let me rephrase this to show my point:

Not only has the US government confirmed that things reported by pilots and sensors that we don't recognize exist, they have acknowledged that they pose a serious safety risk to our pilots; both commercial and domestic.

I'm on board with that. If a pilot reports seeing something you want to find out what it was. Could be a bird, drone, meteor, internal camera refraction, part that fell from an aircraft, space debris de-orbiting, etc.

Okay. So what? It's not aliens. It's unknown by your definition.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

So much time and money being wasted on pseudoscientific bunkum.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If the bullshit was really some new type of atmospheric disturbance or anamoly, I'm sure they'd be interested in figuring out about that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but like 99% of the time it's mundane.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's only mundane once explained. So, like, 99% of science in general. Just keep in mind stuff like geology exists. Those are people who find rocks interesting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

"Mundane" meaning "not aliens".

[–] Sl00k -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right now the US military and NASA is in agreement that UAPs exist, there's thousands of citizens interested in UAPs/NHI, yet not a single scientist in the past 75 years wanted to find the answer to what these UAPs are?

Science in itself is debunking trivial bullshit until you find a rock solid solution and right now we don't have a solution.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think NASA’s and the wider scientific community’s stance on this is less “Not a chance.” and more “If you really want us to look into this, you have to fund it.” No one is volunteering to be the official “It’s not aliens.” guy and get death threats from conspiracy theorists and shit.

And the question for us should be “How much tax money should we spend on this?” rather than “Do we want an answer?”

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But do we really want an answer?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I want an answer but not from scientists. I want to know about the people who believe the aliens crash landed and the government has the spaceship. So, they have the technology to bend space and time at will or at least avoid micro-meteors the whole way. But then they get to Earth and fly directly into a tree?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Eh, shit happens even to top guns flying our latest tech. Consider the implications of the existence of life outside Earth tho. How would the public react?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

The answer? You think there is only one? UAPs are a hodgepodge of anomalies. They're not a single phenomenon. There are people in various fields who would and do study them. Odd things on a radar will certainly be of interest to radar manufacturers for exqmple.

But we all know what people mean by UFOs, er., UAPs. "I'm not saying it's aliens. But it's aliens..."

Spoiler: it's not aliens.