NASA to start UFO investigations...

[birdguy 3,943]

4 hours ago, charliearon said:

I actually think the "aliens" are here, and I mean here-here posting in the forums and pretending to be hummin' beanins! 👽

Any more of this Charlie and I'm going to have to shut down the thread.

Noel

[birdguy 3,943]

Matin, you refer to this Von Neuman guy a lot.  Especially self replicating probes.  Does he have information we don't have? Or is he just speculating like we are?

Is there just a self replicating probe for mining?  What about for other things?  Like invading a planet.  Self replicating android probes would be ideal for that.  Especially if we couldn't tell them apart from normal; humans.  If each android could self-replicate just twice it wouldn't take long before they are all that's left if they had hostile intentions. 

Terraforming wouldn't be necessary.  Just take over a planet that is already terraformed.

Noel 

Edited June 22, 2022 by birdguy

[n4gix 4,947]

7 hours ago, birdguy said:

Matin, you refer to this Von Neuman guy a lot.  Especially self replicating probes.  Does he have information we don't have? Or is he just speculating like we are?

John von Neumann (/vɒn ˈnɔɪmən/; Hungarian: Neumann János Lajos, pronounced [ˈnɒjmɒn ˈjaːnoʃ ˈlɒjoʃ]; December 28, 1903 – February 8, 1957) was a Hungarian-American mathematician, physicist, computer scientist, engineer and polymath. Von Neumann was regarded as perhaps the mathematician with the widest coverage of the subject in his time^[2] and was said to have been "the last representative of the great mathematicians who were equally at home in pure and applied mathematics".^[3][4] He integrated pure and applied sciences.

John von Neumann - Wikipedia

[Swe_Richard 1,172]

9 hours ago, birdguy said:

Matin, you refer to this Von Neuman guy a lot.  Especially self replicating probes.  Does he have information we don't have? Or is he just speculating like we are?

Terraforming wouldn't be necessary.  Just take over a planet that is already terraformed.

Noel 

Well, he was a supremely intelligent individual with a PhD. That still does not in any way take away the undeniable conclusion that he, despite all of this, was speculating. 

[martin-w 3,238]

16 hours ago, birdguy said:

A lot of surmising and assuming in this thread Martin.  You and I are both doing it but from different points of view.  I think they would be like us in mindsets and behavior and that if one of them were walking down the street we wouldn't recognize him or her as an alien.  

Noel

 

Certainly, jam packed with personnel opinion and speculation.

As for being like us in mindsets and behaviour, I would think yes and no. According to many, their biology/appearance would vary, mindsets and behaviour would too perhaps. Because evolution relies on random genetic mutations, Its believed that aliens could be wildly different to us and thus it would be unlikely to find a species that is humanoid in behaviour and physical appearance.

However... I do like the concept of "convergent evolution". Convergent evolution is apparent on our planet. We see evolution finding the same solutions repeatedly.  Eyes for example have evolved independently as many as 40 times as have many other structures. So who knows. A bit of both perhaps. Maybe the notion of humanoids with a few ridges on their noses isn't far off the truth. And if, beyond the observable universe, we are really dealing with infinity, then humanoids like us are certain, because atoms have a limited number of ways in which they can arrange themselves. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

 

14 hours ago, sightseer said:

I'm talking about thing like the Higgs Boson which was hypothesized to exist by math and then people looked for it for decades.  No one had ever seen one or claimed to have.  The almighty math where one guy found a way to prove that 1 does not equal 1 - I dont remember who that was.

 

Maths is evidence it should exist. And the fact that The Standard Model Of Particle Physics suggested it should exist too is also evidence. The Higgs Field theory was proposed by Peter Higgs and others back in 1964. It was theoretical, a theory, but it wasn't just an "empty claim" it wasn't just "something they said", it was based on proper evidence. And then science conducts experiments to determine if the theory is born out in the real world. That's not the same as Fred down the street claiming he saw an alien waving to him out of a flying saucer, or, F18 pilots saying they have seen a tic tac doing weird stuff.

 

15 hours ago, sightseer said:

Yes, it really is evidence.  Major chunks of the medical field started with people making statements about things they felt.  It didnt stop doctor types from exploring these statements.  Psychology relies entirely on 'what people say".

 

Psychology is regarded as a "social" science. Most "true" scientists don't consider it a science though. 

 

Quote

 

That’s right. Psychology isn’t science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html

 

You could argue that "what people say" is a form of evidence, but science requires more than that to provide answers it can present as facts.

As for medical science, people making statements about what they "physically" felt can be verified by gold standard research such as Double-Blind Placebo Controlled research and other methods. Proving that Fred wasn't lying when he said he saw a flying saucer is virtually impossible without physical evidence. 

That doesn't mean we should ignore the countless number of UFO rereports that have been submitted over the years, in fact I would say its quite evident that a mysterious phenomenon/phenomena is at play that should be investigated. The reason it hasn't up to now is the stigma surrounding such research. Hopefully that is now changing, but witness reports alone are not enough to make any kind of definitive claims. 

[martin-w 3,238]

13 hours ago, DaviiB said:

To summarize, UFOs (UAP's) are real, physical objects, some of which appear to defy the laws of physics as we know them. The US Military is encountering them, and the Pentagon has stated that they don't know what they are, after having studied them for some time.

If we are to believe just what the Pentagon has admitted in the last 12 months......where do we go from here except wild speculation? The thought exercises are quite fun.

Especially when you bring the mountains of older data (from before the Pentagon admitted their existence), back into the mix. They seem to be trying to control the narrative by ignoring all the data from the previous 50-70 years, and pretending only the last 20 or-so years are relevant.

 

Here's the problem...

Often UFO's are real physical objects. People see objects in the sky they cant identify all the time. Most of the time those objects can be explained. Its only a small percentage that cant, but that doesn't mean they are alien spacecraft or anything unusual at all. 

 

Quote

The US Military is encountering them, and the Pentagon has stated that they don't know what they are, after having studied them for some time.

 

You mean like the green triangle UFO, shot by an IR cameras from the deck of a ship? This is a prime example of how we can refrain from assuming anything alien or mysterious when they say "we don't know what they are". I'm a former professional photographer and I recognised what it was immediately.  Any highlight that is slightly out of focus can take on the shape of the lens aperture. And IR cameras often have a triangular aperture. In addition, it was flashing aircraft anti-collision lights. In addition, it was flying a known airway. In addition, it was flashing the pattern of a 737, in addition, known star patterns were taking on the shape of the aperture too... and yet, they say its a big mystery and they don't know what it is.

Then we have the so called "gimbal" video, from an F18's ATFLIR pod. With claims that the rotation displayed is defying the laws of physics and evidence of a possible alien craft. And yet, research that has been done by Mick West and others has definitively demonstrated that the object wasn't rotating at all, it was just the glare rotating in synchrony with the de-rotation mechanism in the pod. When enlarged you can see the pixels rotating too, not just the object, and even the cloud line jerks in synchrony. 

And then we have the "tic tac" ATFLIR video, where it appears to shoot rapidly off the screen and again the claim is made that this is an impossible, physics defying manoeuvre that pulls countless G. And yet, research has demonstrated that precisely when it shoots of the screen there's a zoon change and pod angle change which explains the apparent movement off the screen. The object itself didn't zoom off the screen at all. 

Is there something worth investigating? Yes! Are the current claims (what people say) enough, not at all. 

 

13 hours ago, DaviiB said:

They seem to be trying to control the narrative by ignoring all the data from the previous 50-70 years, and pretending only the last 20 or-so years are relevant.

 

You might be right. In the recent hearing they claimed they hadn't looked into UFO's hovering over missile silos and shutting them down at all. How strange. 🤔 I would have thought that was of extreme interest.

[martin-w 3,238]

17 hours ago, birdguy said:

Matin, you refer to this Von Neuman guy a lot.  Especially self replicating probes.  Does he have information we don't have? Or is he just speculating like we are?

Is there just a self replicating probe for mining?

Noel 

 

Speculating maybe, but perhaps hypothesising would be more accurate, as his ideas were based on what we know as well as assumptions. He conducted a rigorous analysis, so yes, I would say hypothesising. 

Don't forget, Von Neuman didn't say that self replicating probes was definitively the way aliens would do things, but he did mathematically prove that it would be the most effective way.

 

Quote

Von Neumann proved that the most effective way of performing large-scale mining operations such as mining an entire moon or asteroid belt would be by self-replicating spacecraft, taking advantage of their exponential growth

 

Self-replicating spacecraft have been considered for a number of functions. Read the article I linked to.

Edited June 23, 2022 by martin-w

[birdguy 3,943]

In an old movie theater in downtown Roswell is the UFO Museum.  Every time someone comes to town to visit they want to go there so I've been there a dozen or more times.  They even have a life-size diorama of the alien autopsy.

The stories abound.  From Major Marcel, the intelligence office at Walker AFB at the time who was the second person on the scene after being notified by the cowhand who discovered the wreckage to Major Marcel posing beside actual weather balloon parts as ordered by General Ramey.

The exhibits and photos in the museum from unidentified objects to weather balloons are interesting and worth a visit.

Popular folklore among Roswellites is that the cowhand who found the wreckage of the alien spacecraft/weatherballoon and who never had two nickles to rub together in his pocket was given thousands of dollars by the government to keep his mouth shut and he went to Alamogordo and bought a meat locker.

Upstairs in the museum is a research library with thousands of books and articles and pictures available to anyone who wants to study the phenomena further.  You have to make an appointment.  I've never been up there myself.

One of the popular stories is that the Army Air Corps at the time asked a local undertaker for a half dozen children's coffins; but he didn't have any.  Another is the daughter of the sheriff who went to the crash site and a subsequent day said her father brought back a piece of aluminum like foil that automatically smoothed itself out after being crumpled up.

From Biblical stories of chariots of fire to Saint Elmo's lights in the masts of sailing ships to foo fighters sighted by pilots during WW2 to the first sighting of modern flying saucers by a private pilot in Washington shortly after WW2 to the Roswell...and all the subsequent incidents from mere sightings to abductions I remain an open minded skeptic.

Von Neuman not withstanding until the president shakes hands with an emissary from another planet I'll have to pretend I'm from Missouri and you'll have to show me the proof.  Not the speculation, but the proof.

Noel

[martin-w 3,238]

46 minutes ago, birdguy said:

In an old movie theater in downtown Roswell is the UFO Museum. 

 

I dont buy it to be honest. Project Moghul makes sense to me. 

[sightseer 895]

6 hours ago, martin-w said:

Here's the problem...

Often UFO's are real physical objects. People see objects in the sky they cant identify all the time.

Is it your assertion that because they can be seen that they must also be "real, physical objects"?

[DaviiB 104]

Just now, sightseer said:

Is it your assertion that because they can be seen that they must also be "real, physical objects"?

I think the radar reflectivity takes care of the "real, physical" part.

DB

[sightseer 895]

15 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

I think the radar reflectivity takes care of the "real, physical" part.

Did you know that some dogs (maybe all) can sense that a person is going to have a seizure?  Our best medical technology can't even pick up what some dogs can.  What do they see or smell?  What sense do they use to sense a seizure before it happens?

My question to martin was actually about my ghost story and how or why would my two friends chase something they couldn't see.

You yourself in an earlier post talked about us not having the technology to be aware of what may be right in front of us.  Both RADAR and our eyes may pick up on whatever it is that we aare sensing but that doesnt mean it falls within our definition of "real, physical".

Like quantum particles - real, physical?

Why must something be "real, physical (tangible)" just because it can be seen or otherwise detected?  Like a dog detecting a seizure before it happens - tangible?

Edited June 23, 2022 by sightseer

[martin-w 3,238]

1 hour ago, sightseer said:

Is it your assertion that because they can be seen that they must also be "real, physical objects"?

 

No. Read the quote above my reply. 

The quote was... "To summarize, UFOs (UAP's) are real, physical objects," (In reference to the recent congressional hearing)

I was saying that yes, often they are real physical objects, but that doesn't mean they are alien spaceships or anything mysterious. 95% + of UFO reports are explainable. Its the 5% that are of interest. Its quite normal to see things we cant identify and to be expected.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by martin-w

[DaviiB 104]

1 minute ago, sightseer said:

Did you know that some dogs (maybe all) can sense that a person is going to have a seizure?  Our best medical technology can't even pick up what some dogs can.  What do they see or smell?  What sense do they use to sense a seizure before it happens?

My question to martin was actually about my ghost story and how or why would my two friends chase something they couldn't see.

You yourself in an earlier post talked about us not having the technology to be aware of what may be right in front of us.  Both RADAR and our eyes may pick up on whatever it is that we aare sensing but that doesnt mean it falls within our definition of "real, physical".

Like quantum particles - real, physical?

Perhaps we should expand a bit.

Radar reflectivity would meet the current, scientific definition of "physical". i.e. a Physical object, large enough to reflect radar back to the receiver.

If an object were to be seen, but fail to appear on radar....that absolutely does not imply that it is not real. 

As I alluded to before, science has always been boxed-in by its own definitions. It draws a line in the sand at the edge of current understandings and dismisses anything that falls outside / past the line as impossible.....so we/they end up scrambling to find mundane explanations for things, or falling back on psychology - fantasy, delusion etc.

If we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the universe....and most science falls back on that faulty foundation, we might be in trouble. Real progress in understanding tends to come from the fringes.

Science may be ill-equipped to investigate/understand this (and other) phenomena because it may be operating from a completely different (faulty?) paradigm. 

So we might have to re-assess the definition of "real", but for the time being, I used the term "real" within the bounds of current scientific understanding....not to imply that anything outside of those bounds does not exist.

 

DB

[birdguy 3,943]

15 minutes ago, sightseer said:

What sense do they use to sense a seizure before it happens?

The same sense I have and know right off when I walk into a room if my wife is angry about something.  If I'm lucky I can withdraw before she sees me.

Noel