Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Enoch Root]

No reporter would be silent if presented with actual evidence of a story so grand.

She is speaking mostly of people being disinterested - my guess would be because those people weren't buying what she was selling.

That is not at all the same thing as the scientific community being skeptical.

[Fuzz]

Lanny's problem is he treats everyone in this thread like they are an absolute idiot for not de-facto accepting aliens are real and they are here, but can in no way meet that burden of proof.


If that evidence existed, the majority of people would accept aliens are here, but without it, it feels a lot like an antivaxer trying to convince me ivermectin works on covid. I can't be sure it doesn't work, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence it does. The mass literature reference dump sure didn't help his case, when you read some of the titles.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No reporter would be silent if presented with actual evidence of a story so grand.

She is speaking mostly of people being disinterested - my guess would be because those people weren't buying what she was selling.

That is not at all the same thing as the scientific community being skeptical.

Then explain why the sudden interest by the media? Are UAP's any different than UFO incidents from the past?

Kean: I don't think there's any difference in how the reports describe the phenomenon. Government documents such as the famous 1947 Twining Memo describe the behavior of the objects in the same way as later documents did, and in the same way they are reported today. The difference is that today we have better cameras, radar, satellite and sensor technology than we had decades ago, increasing the specificity of data on UAP (which remains classified).

The term "UAP" has gradually become the preferred term used by the government and military, because it encompasses a broader range of phenomena than the term "UFO." But since "UAP" came into use primarily to avoid the stigma and baggage associated with "UFO," there really isn't much difference between the two other than the impression the acronym creates. One seems more cultural, the other more official. "UAP" removes any association with conspiracy theories, or shows like "The X-Files," or the fringe element. Even so, the term "UFO" has been around forever and has a wider appeal. In my reporting I use the terms interchangeably, depending on the context.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Lanny's problem is he treats everyone in this thread like they are an absolute idiot for not de-facto accepting aliens are real and they are here, but can in no way meet that burden of proof.


If that evidence existed, the majority of people would accept aliens are here, but without it, it feels a lot like an antivaxer trying to convince me ivermectin works on covid. I can't be sure it doesn't work, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence it does. The mass literature reference dump sure didn't help his case, when you read some of the titles.

The problem lies in what constitues proof. There is anacdotal evidence going back to the beginning from pilots, policemen, army, navy etc. When you put that all together you get seriosu pause for thought. It may not be the actual physical alien or saucer but therre are incidents left unexplained to this day.

Back in the day it was hard to get anything examined when the govt had nothing set up to report and examine incidents. There was Project Blue Book and what we have now and not much in between. Even now the program is set up for the military and not civilians. Plus there was a stgma associated with UFO's where people laughed at when anything was brought. Today the subject is taken more serious. I'm old enough to remeber people being laughed at.

Lanny has his verison and you have yours. In fact I can understand where lanny is coming from.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This. Because of the body of evidence, data, and witness accounts, it's can't just be boiled down to one "silver bullet" incident that unveils all of the phenomenon at once. In fact, it is my opinion we are likely looking at several different parts of the phenomena, including UAPs, USOs, and multi-dimensional / hard to track entities outside of human-detectable electromagnetic spectrums.

"Disclosure" will be more like a trickle-down of gradual information, with cases coming to light over the next several years due to things like potential public hearings (that Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Marco Rubio are pushing for) and the inclusion of the UAP investigations in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Then you have a growing private interest in researching the topic from groups like the Harvard-based Galileo Project and UAPx.

If anything the U.S. government will likely release more interesting data in the coming 1-5 years based on identifiable patterns, of which there is already significant data (most of which still remains classified). And with investments in further research, it will lend to building a profile of UAPs to primarily discern the relevance to national security and provide appropriate threat assessments that can be communicated to the public.

After 70+ years since Roswell and thousands of so-called reports and sightings you'd think there would be at least one silver bullet but nothing to hang a hat on.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Lanny's problem is he treats everyone in this thread like they are an absolute idiot for not de-facto accepting aliens are real and they are here, but can in no way meet that burden of proof.

Not everyone, you just land in that select group. j/k

If that evidence existed, the majority of people would accept aliens are here, but without it, it feels a lot like an antivaxer trying to convince me ivermectin works on covid. I can't be sure it doesn't work, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence it does. The mass literature reference dump sure didn't help his case, when you read some of the titles.

Yup, title is definitely how you determine what information and data is present in a journal article, whether it is relevant to the issue, and the positivity/negativity toward an issue. Might be why you're landing in that select group.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Dion

The problem lies in what constitues proof. There is anacdotal evidence going back to the beginning from pilots, policemen, army, navy etc. When you put that all together you get seriosu pause for thought. It may not be the actual physical alien or saucer but therre are incidents left unexplained to this day.

Back in the day it was hard to get anything examined when the govt had nothing set up to report and examine incidents. There was Project Blue Book and what we have now and not much in between. Even now the program is set up for the military and not civilians. Plus there was a stgma associated with UFO's where people laughed at when anything was brought. Today the subject is taken more serious. I'm old enough to remeber people being laughed at.

Lanny has his verison and you have yours.

Just because something is unexplained, doesn't make it aliens. People used to think Thor made lighting. We still don't have a great understanding of how lighting forms, but we do know it isn't Thor. So people do the same thing today, they ascribe things we don't understand to aliens.


The stigma came from so many bunk stories. Is there a chance a few are true? I wont' say it's impossible, but it's also verifiable that many were made up. Remember how convincing crop circles were, until they weren't?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Not everyone, you just land in that select group. j/k

Yup, title is definitely how you determine what information and data is present in a journal article, whether it is relevant to the issue, and the positivity/negativity toward an issue. Might be why you're landing in that select group.

A good title should explain what the article is about. For instance:


"The construction of space alien abduction memories."


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ction_Memories


So this literature dump was supposed to prove your point, but it does the opposite if you read it, as I suspect many of those listed do(just from their title!). The title gave me a hint what it was about, and a quick read of the article shows my intuition was correct. But this is exactly what anti-vaxers were doing as well, with similar results, so the comparison was apt.

[jammies]

Scientists want to measure and test before theorizing, nor theorize before having anything to measure or test. Bring a materials scientist a section of UFO hull to analyze, or a biologist an alien rat to dissect, or an astronomer an extraterrestrial radio signal that can be decoded, and there will be plenty of focused interest. Alternatively, bring some grainy videos, eyewitness or "survivor*" reports, and earnest amateurs linking together half-understood facts gleaned from selective reading, and you'll get the appropriate indifference such is worth.

* Look at the word associated with people who have purportedly experienced contact with aliens. It's not very subtle in the emotional response it is trying to evoke, is it?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just because something is unexplained, doesn't make it aliens. People used to think Thor made lighting. We still don't have a great understanding of how lighting forms, but we do know it isn't Thor. So people do the same thing today, they ascribe things we don't understand to aliens.

The stigma came from so many bunk stories. Is there a chance a few are true? I wont' say it's impossible, but it's also verifiable that many were made up. Remember how convincing crop circles were, until they weren't?

The stigma came because these cases were not being investigated by the govt. You had Project Blue Book that was set up in 1966 and ended 3 years later. Other than that, UFO's were not being taken seriously, that is until recently with the UAP's

I'm not saying their aliens but at the same time we can't just dimiss the possibility.

For example....

According to Greenewald and Rojas, more than 700 Project Blue Book entries could not ultimately be explained by investigators. Many such cases cited insufficient data or evidence.

But even some of the closed cases raise more questions than answers for UFO researchers.

In one such example, a police officer in 1964 in Socorro, New Mexico, halted vehicular pursuit of a suspect after he saw a strange aircraft overhead.

The officer followed the craft - which he described as bearing a strange red insignia - and saw it land and two child-sized beings exit.

It later took off, leaving scorch marks and trace evidence on the ground.

"[Project] Blue Book labelled it unexplained; even after all these decades they still can't explain it," Greenewald says.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30943827

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Yeah, that's if you're buying something. If you're buying a chemical and need to know specifics on it, you can ask for that. They'll give you a general datasheet. If you want more than that, you're paying for the lab testing. Those results are then yours because you paid for them. The vendor is not going to share those results with anyone else as that may impart information to your competitors as to what you or your business is doing. That information is your business and only your business. Labs do everything they can to maintain confidentiality.



No, that's the way the peer review system works. I don't know what you think peer review is all about, but it is NOT granting people access to everything that goes on in research. Much of research is highly secretive and all the information pertaining to research is considered highly guarded secrets. Samples, lab work, lab reports, and lab results are not part of the peer review process as they are the intellectual property of the institution and an investment. The generalized findings from the article are the only data points commonly shared. Peer review is the process of examination of methods and findings for consistency and possible errors or omissions in application of the methodology. From a publication perspective it is determining if the research is consistent with the mission of the publication and the peer review of methods and findings has passed rigor. Research and intellectual property, just like in the private sector, remain highly guarded secrets as they generate revenues and prestige for the institution.



That depends on the type of journal. More technical journals will expect some of these details. Others will not. Some journals do not even require peer review for publication. Some institutions are also allowing their researchers and faculty to meet the publication requirements by going directly to print and allowing the commentary aspects of review meet the peer review component. This is completely understandable when certain subjects are using methods never used before, and the available experts to provide peer review do not exist.



Well, to start with, he's dead? But while he was alive, he did allow multiple labs to examine and test the artifacts. Is that not enough? Or are one of these people who will only believe something if it is YOUR guy who does the testing? I'm not waving anything, and would hope for further exploration of these artifacts, but the guy died suddenly and with that access to the materials. Do I hope that those will see the light of day again? Yes, but as with many scientists, their death can mean the end of that work and study.



Yes, and I tried to explain that it is not easy to start posting links from certain databases. But I'll give you some cites from "peer reviewed" articles. First 20 hits of 97 in one database search.

Appelle, S. (1971). On a behavioral explanation of UFO sightings. Perceptual and motor skills, 32(3), 994.

Bisson C, and Persinger M.A. (1993). Geophysical variables and behavior: LXXV. Possible increased incidence of brain tumors following an episode of luminous phenomena. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77(3_suppl), 1088-1090.

Cook, C. M., and Persinger, M. A. (2001). Geophysical variables and behavior: XCII. Experimental elicitation of the experience of a sentient being by right hemispheric, weak magnetic fields: interaction with temporal lobe sensitivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(2), 447-448.

Clamar, A. (1988). Is it time for psychology to take UFOs seriously? Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6(3), 143-149.

Clamar, A. (1988). Symposium: The UFO experience: What psychotherapy tells us. Introduction, in: Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6:3, 141-142

Ashworth, C. E. (1980). Flying saucers, spoon-bending and Atlantis: A structural analysis of new mythologies. The Sociological Review, 28(2), 353-376

Bader, C. D. (1995). The UFO contact movement from the 1950s to the present. Studies in Popular Culture, 17(2), 73-90.

Bader, C. D. (2003). Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4), 669–678.

Banaji, M. R., and Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). The ordinary nature of alien abduction memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 132-135.

Bowers, K. S., and Eastwood, J. D. (1996). On the edge of science: Coping with UFOlogy scientifically. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 136-140.

Bartholomew, R. E. (1991). The quest for transcendence: An ethnography of UFOs in America. Anthropology of Consciousness, 2(1‐2), 1-12

Bullard, T. E. (1989). UFO abduction reports: the supernatural kidnap narrative returns in technological guise. Journal of American Folklore, 147-170.

Chequers, J., Joseph, S., and Diduca, D. (1997). Belief in extraterrestrial life, UFO-related beliefs, and schizotypal personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(3), 519-521.

Clancy, S. A., et. al. (2002). Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 455

Clark, S. E., and Loftus, E. F. (1996). The construction of space alien abduction memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 140-143.

Condon, E. U. (1969). UFOs I have loved and lost. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25(10), 6-8.

Cross, A. (2004). The flexibility of scientific rhetoric: A case study of UFO researchers. Qualitative Sociology, 27(1), 3-34.

Crowe, R. A., and Miura, C. K. (1995). Challenging pseudoscientific beliefs: Surveying evidence for exotic claims. Psychological reports, 77(3_suppl), 1263-1282.

Crumbaugh, J. C. (1959). ESP and flying saucers: A challenge to parapsychologists. American Psychologist, 14(9), 604–606.

Curtis, E. (2016). Science and technology in Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam astrophysical disaster, genetic engineering, UFOs, white apocalypse, and black resurrection. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 20(1), 5–31.

A second database search returned 128 articles (max for that database). As I said, there are lots of articles that are peer reviewed and speak to the evidence discovered in support of this field of study. Is there a lot of conjecture and hogwash in some of the reports and studies? Yes there is. Just like any other field of inquiry and study. It's hogwash until it isn't.

So where is the peer review of Leir’s methodology and sample preparation and analysis. Nothing but claims exists. Does he present somewhere the complete composition of the materials analyzed? Does he present any expert testimony on Carbon nanotubes? Does he present any evidence?

Let’s say I want to know the composition of fossils

So I google a random paper

https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/9...9-119-2012.pdf

Now why doesn’t this quality of paper exist for Leir’s sample?

Are there any of the above linked papers that deal with physical evidence? Which of the above papers have you read and would recommend reading?

You are complexly wrong with industrial purchasing the chemical company will gladly share the data that they obtained from the lab because they are trying to sell me a product. In this case the researcher who could become the most famous scientist in the world should be trying to prove his claims.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

After 70+ years since Roswell and thousands of so-called reports and sightings you'd think there would be at least one silver bullet but nothing to hang a hat on.

A lot of what you might consider a "silver bullet" might simply be Classified, for a variety of complex political reasons. You might also have to make a judgment call on your own terms of what "silver bullet" means.

I take it you want them to walk out an ET into a press conference or roll-out some in-tact saucer from a hangar.

I would submit to you that "disclosure" is the removal of the stigma to talk about and report on it inside military complex circles. And having more public transparency on the issue is an absolute win. 'Disclosure' is the act of making something known.

'Disclosure' would mean to most reasonable people that there is an ability to report on and identify things we can't explain that fly through the skies (or oceans). I think most would be relieved to know whether it was a bird, balloon, airplane, or something else.

Knowing for sure or with reasonable confidence is what the aim of disclosure is, alien narratives aside. That perception is a heavy-handed Hollywood narrative that ignores and patronizes people's experience with things they can't explain (and those experiences go back far more than just the last 70 years). While nothing can be publicly labeled as a 'silver bullet' event (as far as the public knows), it might be more nuanced than that. But where there is smoke (and there is a lot of smoke), there may very well be a fire.

[Dion]

ozy flame covered it

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Dion

The stigma came because these cases were not being investigated by the govt. You had Project Blue Book that was set up in 1966 and ended 3 years later. Other than that, UFO's were not being taken seriously, that is until recently with the UAP's

I'm not saying their aliens but at the same time we can't just dimiss the possibility.

For example....

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30943827

So in one breath you say they weren't investigated, then provide evidence of them not being investigated by referencing Project Blue Book, which did exactly that? Well I'm convinced, it's a coverup! Maybe the project was closed because it was a waste of time when they themselves realized it was mostly BS.

[Dion]

Speaking about the stigma of UFO's

That is also the US government’s official position. According to the 25 June Preliminary Assessment on the topic, the unidentified objects that military pilots and other personnel are seeing on a near-daily basis “probably represent real objects” because they are tracked by multiple different systems. But, the report also said we still don’t know what they are. There was no mention of extraterrestrial life or UFOs specifically in the report. Instead, the authors chose to lump the taboo topic into a mysterious “other” category.

Leslie wrote in her excellent book “UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record” that the UFO stigma is a very powerful force. No journalist, politician, or scientist would touch the topic for fear of ridicule and isolation. The simple fact, so they believed, was UFOs do not exist, therefore they cannot exist. End of story. Why waste time and effort, and be ridiculed along the way, searching for something that doesn’t exist? Any deviation from this line of thinking resulted in damaged egos and ruined careers.

Determining what the phenomena is, how it works, and why it is here is one of the rare bi-partisan topics in Washington. Now that congress is engaged on the matter the topic is legitimate to investigate. Although there is still a stigma from decades of official denial and derision, with the recent admissions from congress and the DOD, many witnesses now feel comfortable talking about their experiences.

Although I didn’t see any UAPs while flying F-16s, I can’t say for certain I would have spoken up if I had seen one. Even if I believed my own eyes, how would I report it? What would my commanders think of me? Would they take me off flying status and order me to take a psychological evaluation?

Now, the US military will be required by congress to have a reporting process for these rare events. The jet tapes and radar records will be preserved for later analysis. The witnesses will be taken seriously and protected.

“There still will be a stigma,” Leslie said, “there are still fears of ridicule if you're active duty. But it has got to be better than it was. It’s got to be. I think people like David Fravor and Alex Dietrich have really been role models to try and encourage others to do what they’ve done.”

https://www.theportugalnews.com/news...o-stigma/64824

[Enoch Root]

It is intriguing how the vast majority of sightings take place in America, where:

a) they can immediately be 'classified'
b) 'are a threat to national security'
c) a great deal of high tech testing takes place

Either aliens have a particular fascination with America, or - crazy, I know - America has a particular fascination with UFOs/UAPs

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So in one breath you say they weren't investigated, then provide evidence of them not being investigated by referencing Project Blue Book, which did exactly that? Well I'm convinced, it's a coverup! Maybe the project was closed because it was a waste of time when they themselves realized it was mostly BS.

The purpose of Project Blue Book to eliminate the fear and hysteria the public had over UFO's. It investigated reports from the 50's and the 60's.

I stand corrected on the number of cases being investigated.

Now consider what was being reported about Project Ble Book.

Blue Book may have done some investigating, but it was overwhelmed by the volume of reports that were coming in.

Col. Robert Friend, the project's director from 1958 to 1963, told ABC News: "We wanted to explain as many sightings as possible, but we recognized that the amount of resources that would have been necessary in order to do this would have been far beyond those that we were ready to commit at the time."

He also recognized Project Blue Book's real purpose: "What they wanted to try to do was, I think, to re-educate the public regarding UFOs, to take away the aura of mystery."

And the best way to keep UFOs out of the newspapers -- and therefore, out of the public mind -- was to say repeatedly that they were nothing more than weather balloons or rare atmospheric conditions, like a star on the horizon.

Then you had civilian scientist, Ohio State University astronomer J. Allen Hynek who was the lead investigator

In interviews from that time, he insisted "there is no proof that I would consider valid scientific proof that we have been visited by spaceships."

Michael Swords, a professor of natural science at Western Michigan University and UFO researcher says Hynek's job "was to stretch his imagination to try to find explanations for every possible case he could, even if he knew it didn't make any sense."

But there was one loud, dissenting voice: Blue Book's once-skeptical chief scientist, Allen Hynek. After more than 20 years and more than 12,000 investigations, Hynek had become a believer.

In an interview at the time, he recalled how embarrassing it had been to take UFO accounts from military pilots during Blue Book because the Air Force had trained those men.

"They could say civilian pilots might've been untrustworthy, but they could hardly say that of their own military pilots. And we got case after case after case from military pilots, which never hit the press," he said.

Hynek spent the rest of his life investigating sightings and calling for a serious scientific inquiry into the UFO phenomenon. Most of his fellow scientists rejected his opinions.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Pr...=528712&page=1

[Fuzz]

Sorry, was that supposed to convince me of anything?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sorry, was that supposed to convince me of anything?

Let me start all over.

I found it interesting the Allen J Hynek went from being a skeptic when he was involved in the investigations to a believer.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Dion

The stigma came because these cases were not being investigated by the govt. You had Project Blue Book that was set up in 1966 and ended 3 years later. Other than that, UFO's were not being taken seriously, that is until recently with the UAP's

I'm not saying their aliens but at the same time we can't just dimiss the possibility.

For example....



https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30943827

Originally Posted by Fuzz

A good title should explain what the article is about. For instance:


"The construction of space alien abduction memories."


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ction_Memories


So this literature dump was supposed to prove your point, but it does the opposite if you read it, as I suspect many of those listed do(just from their title!). The title gave me a hint what it was about, and a quick read of the article shows my intuition was correct. But this is exactly what anti-vaxers were doing as well, with similar results, so the comparison was apt.

I expected this type of response. I did a straight search and reported the return, because that is the academic approach. No cherry-picking data, just dumping what was there. And yes, some of the titles don't read well, and ultimately may present the subject matter in a negative light. But that data is still valuable. And many times, the data does not reflect the title.

Even this article is interesting. It still speaks to the condition and the process. This is still valuable because it speaks to memory formation and how false memories may be created and maintained. Even though it is a very short and focused literature review, the fact that it does present some interesting questions, that are then used to inform future literature review. As a researcher and scientist you take in all data, positive and negative, and allow it to inform your understanding of the topic. So while you continue to ask for a single article with the flying saucer and the little grey men, I continue to read article after article and find the common threads between them, answering the fundamental question. For example, my 444 page dissertation had over 90 pages of references, because literature review was crucial to my study and understanding the topic. I take that same approach to understanding any subject. I read everything I can, positive and negative, and try to come to a larger understanding of the issue. It's the whole body that matters, and you're missing a large part of the body, even from the academic papers. That's not to be dismissive Fuzz, because you're a smart guy and I respect the skepticism. I have just read a lot in my field of interest (psychologies of persuasion, perception, memory, emotion, and learned helplessness) that was applicable to this, and some of the research really struck a chord.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Either aliens have a particular fascination with America, or - crazy, I know - America has a particular fascination with UFOs/UAPs

Or it could be as simple as responding to this.

NSFW!

Makes sense when NASA is going to use Webb to look for sources of artificial light from another galaxy? Emission of light may attract interest from other life forms?

Another reason is likely that the United States has the infrastructure to collect and report such events, and also is culturally programmed to report anything out of the ordinary? This is the most paranoid country on the planet for a reason.

There are also other nations who have a history of reporting UFOs/UAPs or whatever name you want to use. If you look on that image again, I'm sure the light bulb will go on, and I bet you can easily figure out where they are.