NASA to start UFO investigations...

[n4gix 4,947]

On 7/1/2022 at 6:30 AM, martin-w said:

This pertains to what we are talking about.

Well darn! Now I understand why my experiments have failed. My alien instruction manual is upside down!  😆

[birdguy 3,943]

On 7/2/2022 at 11:17 AM, martin-w said:

That's all you need to know Noel. 

That's what my geometry teacher told me in high school when I asked her why I need to know all this.  She said, "The Pythagorean Theory, that's all you need to know Noel." 

Darned if she wasn't right.

When I was in boot camp the DI picked 3 of we boots to clean up his room.  Then he asked what the Pythagorean Theory was.  I raised my hand and said, "The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to square of the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides."

Then he said, "Or?"

And I said, "Or the length if the hypotenuse is equal to the square root of the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides."

He smiled and said, "You're excused."

My geometry teacher was right.  That's all I needed to know.

Noel

[martin-w 3,238]

43 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Well darn! Now I understand why my experiments have failed. My alien instruction manual is upside down!  😆

 

Happens all the time. Best bet is to try to read it while doing a handstand. 

[DaviiB 104]

On 7/5/2022 at 10:51 AM, martin-w said:

 

Existing research into UFO's has been inconclusive, obviously you realise that. Hence why we still don't know what the phenomenon represents. If you think there have been any quality research that has given us definitive answers then give me a link to it. Again... you are displaying your bias.

Where have I ever said, or implied that the previous research was conclusive or definitive?

 

What I said was: Do not discount the work that has already been done as invalid. 

i.e. - Valid scientific research has been conducted, and has come up with a whole bunch of "unknowns".

 

I apologize if that was not clear, but please do not mischaracterize what I've said. Please take my words at face value. Re-read them if you must.

 

On 7/5/2022 at 10:51 AM, martin-w said:

What "valid work" has been done that tells us what the UFO phenomenon is, an alien visitation or some other causal factor with reasonable certainty? I've not come across any in many decades, nobody else has either. 

 Obviously there isn't any in the public domain.

Yes, more research will add certainty to existing findings, provided the results are the same. For example, 10 results of "unknown" will add certainty that you're dealing with a phenomenon that is as-yet "unknown" to science. It would add further certainty that there is not a prosaic (easily understood) explanation for it. That's how it works.

 

On 7/5/2022 at 10:51 AM, martin-w said:

 

Actually,  there have been scientific studies in the past, but studies require funding.

Science has been fully aware that the UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object phenomenon exists. And no, there isn't much in the way of resources committed to its study currently. We have Avi Loeb and a few other scientists and engineers that have decided to try and raise money off their own bat, not with official funding. And we have NASA who have decided to study it with a pitiful amount of funding. Not enough funding to determine anything really. Even the so called UAP task force is only manned by two people. 🙄 

Scientists aren't millionaires who dig into their own pockets and fund research themselves. They have to be funded, and significant funds haven't, in the past, been allocated for the task. In addition, there has always been a stigma associated with its study. 

So what you're saying is there's an external bias (that takes many forms) that has prevented serious, large scale studies of the phenomenon to-date?

 

On 7/5/2022 at 10:51 AM, martin-w said:

I addition, the bar required for scientific evidence is high, and so it should be, and the "evidence" you refer to doesn't meet that high bar. Eye witness reports are incredibly unreliable and not sufficient for science to come to any definitive conclusions. If we do see a decent amount of funding arriving for its study, then maybe evidence that meets the high bar that's science demands will be forthcoming.

Eye witness reports are not the only evidence in existence.

Also, if you look up the work of those who have studied this phenomenon over the past 50 years, you will find a fairly common theme. Evidence seems to be hard to come by, despite their best efforts. It seems as if the phenomenon actively avoids being studied, or leaving evidence that can be studied. This sounds strange, but if you haven't heard of it, look it up.

The lack of hard evidence is not due to a lack of effort. Again....it may not be that simple.

 

DB

[martin-w 3,238]

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

Where have I ever said, or implied that the previous research was conclusive or definitive?

 

What I said was: Do not discount the work that has already been done as invalid. 

i.e. - Valid scientific research has been conducted, and has come up with a whole bunch of "unknowns".

 

I'm not discounting previous work as invalid... or accepting it as valid. If it isn't conclusive, just generates "unknowns"  and doesn't provide solid evidence for its veracity, then it's not about "discounting" or "accepting", its not about either.  Its just unknown. There isn't any conclusion regarding the causal factor responsible if there's nothing to accept or dismiss. If you'd like to cite a specific aspect that has been researched and let me know what it is, I might be able to tell you if its valid, invalid or neither. Until you do that, that's all I can say. 

 

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

Yes, more research will add certainty to existing findings, provided the results are the same. For example, 10 results of "unknown" will add certainty that you're dealing with a phenomenon that is as-yet "unknown" to science. It would add further certainty that there is not a prosaic (easily understood) explanation for it. That's how it works.

 

I think if we already regard something as unknown, then simply confirming its unknown with further research isn't that valuable. However, if additional, well funded, research reveals new data that points to a causal factor responsible, and that research is replicated and conclusions drawn, and a consensus emerges as to the true nature of the phenomenon,  that is useful. And "may" one day happen with further research. 

 

2 hours ago, DaviiB said:

Eye witness reports are not the only evidence in existence.

Also, if you look up the work of those who have studied this phenomenon over the past 50 years, you will find a fairly common theme. Evidence seems to be hard to come by, despite their best efforts. It seems as if the phenomenon actively avoids being studied, or leaving evidence that can be studied. This sounds strange, but if you haven't heard of it, look it up.

 

I've seen claims of unusual material in possession, but I've not seen any definitive evidence, just claims its of extra-terrestrial origin. If you have then give me a link... There is some radar data too, but again, what's on the screens doesn't tell us if its top secret tech time travellers, sensor glitches, aliens or anything with certainty. 

When individuals like astronauts (see below) report unusual sightings, it emphasises that something mysterious has been happening for sure, for a very long time. What it is, we don't know. 

Deke Slayton, below, noticed what he believed to be a weather balloon, so he decided on a close pass. As he got closer he realised that it was a metallic saucer pointing up at 45 degrees, He got closer still and it out accelerated his aircraft and vanished. Guys on the ground tracked it traveling at 4000 MPH

 

 

 

 

 

[birdguy 3,943]

3 minutes ago, martin-w said:

I think if we already regard something as unknown, then simply confirming its unknown with further research isn't that valuable.

Oh contraire!

Isn't the point of research investigating the unknown?  That's how we discover things that were not known before the research was started.

There were many unknowns when the Manhattan Project was started.  There were theories and suppositions, but no one knew if nuclear fission would create a bomb.  Scientists thought it would, but it was an unknown.

Nobody really knew what would happen when Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier.  It was an unknown and some people thought it was a wall that could not be penetrated.  Yeager took the chance, risked his life, and changed an unknown into a known.

On the other hand some research into an unknown does not provide what the researcher is looking for.  It may reach a dead end or some information into something unrelated is discovered and that is researched and bears fruit.

Research is the art of bringing the unknown into the known.

Noel

[martin-w 3,238]

26 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Oh contraire!

Isn't the point of research investigating the unknown?  That's how we discover things that were not known before the research was started.

 

Read the rest of the paragraph Noel, you misunderstood. I've not said don't investigate the unknown, only that if the results are still the same its not valuable.

Investigating the unknown and confirming its unknown isn't valuable. But then I said... If you investigate it again and reveal new data that points to  its true nature, that is valuable.  Read David's reply for context. 

 

Quote

I think if we already regard something as unknown, then simply confirming its unknown with further research isn't that valuable. However, if additional, well funded, research reveals new data that points to a causal factor responsible, and that research is replicated and conclusions drawn, and a consensus emerges as to the true nature of the phenomenon,  that is useful. And "may" one day happen with further research. 

 

Edited July 9, 2022 by martin-w

[birdguy 3,943]

Sorry Martin.  I should have read the rest of the paragraph.

Everytime 'new' evidence pops up I tend to look at it.  But everything I've seen is probably fake.  I saw a picture of soldiers kneeling next to a stretcher with an alien being from Roswell on it.  But the soldiers are wearing camouflage BDUs They didn't some out until after Vietnam and canvas combat boots that didn't appear until late in Vietnam.  That was obviously fake.

But there are conflicting stories by responsible individuals that say it was real and the balloon story is fake.  One is a general who was at the crash site.  The other is Major Marcel, the intelligence officer who was the first military person on the scene.  And Mack Brazel who discovered the debris.  His original story changed after he was held incognito for several days and was released with enough money to buy a locker plant in Alamogordo.  After that he changed his story to 'balsa wood and cloth'.  Friends say Mack always wanted to quit ranching and run a meat locker.  Now he had the money to do it.

And Marcel always claimed till his dying day it was not from this earth.

I have to judge the incident as inconclusive.  I know how the military works and how easy it is to lose your clearance.  While it is common knowledge now and unclassified when I was in the Air Force and working as a seismologist at a remote site in Douglas Wyoming we had to tell towns people and our families we were doing on weather research.  We were actually looking for underground nuclear tests anywhere in the world.  They have a specific seismic signature.

I had no idea the project had been declassified until my wife and I were on a trip through Wyoming.  We had a sister seismic station in Encampment.  We went through Encampment on our drive stopped at the little museum they have.  And there in the corner were the instruments we used and pictures and text of what the station did.  I told my wife that's what we did in Douglas.

Noel