Where are the UFOs?

[rkbabang]

I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos.

 

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos.  :)

 

I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over.  Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises.  Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign.

 

I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.

 

If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise.  This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy.  The end result looks "planned", but it isn't.

 

 

BTW:  I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer.

 

[Castanza]

I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos.

 

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos.  :)

 

I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over.  Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises.  Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign.

 

I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.

 

If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise.  This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy.  The end result looks "planned", but it isn't.

 

 

BTW:  I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer.

 

Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place.

[rkbabang]

I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos.

 

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos.  :)

 

I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over.  Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises.  Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign.

 

I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.

 

If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise.  This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy.  The end result looks "planned", but it isn't.

 

 

BTW:  I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer.

 

Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place.

 

I disagree.  Matter doesn't need to "know" that the law of gravity exists.  Matter has no conscientiousness.  The laws of physics are what they are, whether or not anyone "knows" what they are.  The universe has followed the laws of physics since long before Newton or Einstein.  Your example of that experiment where they had to change the rules, just proves that life might be able to come about even if the rules where different.  We know life is possible in this universe, simply because we are here.

 

[Castanza]

I believe life is too complex and there is too much order in the universe to have come from chaos.

 

You are telling an anarchist that order can't come from chaos.  :)

 

I think this is the same mental block that people who support central management over free markets can't get over.  Unplanned order does come from chaos, in fact it is the only place it arises.  Central Planning tries to create order, but in reality disturbs it and invites chaos back in to reign.

 

I'm a Libertarian so I understand what you're saying (to an extent). But comparing physics and biology to economic or political systems is absurd....just saying.

 

If you take a random complex system with a few simple rules order will often arise.  This is just as true in the physical world with the rules of physics as it is in a computer simulation, or a functioning economy.  The end result looks "planned", but it isn't.

 

 

BTW:  I'm using the term "rules" loosely as in "how something works", not as laws enforced by an enforcer.

 

Right, but you have to know those rule exist. Life being created from nothing is not a rule. It's a guess. I've referenced the computer simulation used to "create life" earlier in the thread and the creators of it admitted that they introduced the parameter which allowed for life to be created in the first place.

 

I disagree.  Matter doesn't need to "know" that the law of gravity exists.  Matter has no conscientiousness.  The laws of physics are what they are, whether or not anyone "knows" what they are.  The universe has followed the laws of physics since long before Newton or Einstein.  Your example of that experiment where they had to change the rules, just proves that life might be able to come about even if the rules where different.  We know life is possible in this universe, simply because we are here.

 

Yes, but matter cannot act outside of the laws of gravity....that's my point. Life being derived from nothing is not a law. It is not seen anywhere in physics or biology. So we cannot expect that it has happened in the past. Us existing isn't enough to draw a conclusion that life exists elsewhere. I think math more supports that we are completely alone.  The entire human existence is a mere microsecond on the entire time scale. If you take you're idea that life probably exists elsewhere would it not also make sense that there should be evidence for life everywhere? The Universe is supposedly 14 Billion years old. There are 40 Billion "earth like" planets in our galaxy alone that could potentially support life. It would take roughly 100 million years using the Von Neumann Probes method to explore our entire galaxy. So in that case wouldn't it be reasonable for evidence of life elsewhere be abundant? That time-frame has been exceeded 100 fold and yet nothing....It's not much different than Stephen Hawking disproving time travel by having that room setup in his house. Or the roadkill theory disproving Bigfoot.

[rkbabang]

Yes, but matter cannot act outside of the laws of gravity....that's my point. Life being derived from nothing is not a law. It is not seen anywhere in physics or biology. So we cannot expect that it has happened in the past. Us existing isn't enough to draw a conclusion that life exists elsewhere. I think math more supports that we are completely alone.  The entire human existence is a mere microsecond on the entire time scale. If you take you're idea that life probably exists elsewhere would it not also make sense that there should be evidence for life everywhere? The Universe is supposedly 14 Billion years old. There are 40 Billion "earth like" planets in our galaxy alone that could potentially support life. It would take roughly 100 million years using the Von Neumann Probes method to explore our entire galaxy. So in that case wouldn't it be reasonable for evidence of life elsewhere be abundant? That time-frame has been exceeded 100 fold and yet nothing....It's not much different than Stephen Hawking disproving time travel by having that room setup in his house. Or the roadkill theory disproving Bigfoot.

 

I've never said life probably exists elsewhere, only that it is possible and can't be ruled out.  It may be that life doesn't arise very often, or it might be that life when it arises doesn't become intelligent life very often, ... the whole Drake equation.  If any variable is extremely low then we could be the only intelligent life in the universe at this time.

 

[Spekulatius]

Occam‘s razor applies here - you don’t need a god or aliens to explain how life came to earth , you shouldn’t use them as your hypothesis. No, we can’t exclude it, nor do we have to. Anyone can believe what he wants- some things can be proven, some just plausibly explained, in the absence of hard evidence, the simplest solution should be the preferred one.

[rb]

I think that when it comes to the subject of space it is best to keep an open mind. Those with closed minds have constantly been proven wrong. 500 years ago we were burning people that didn't think that the earth is the centre of the universe. Turns out it isn't. 60 years ago we didn't know there were more galaxies than our own. Turns out there are billions. 20 years ago we didn't know that there were other planets other than the ones in our solar system. We made some tech and turns out there are tons. Then 10 years ago we didn't know whether there are other rocky planets other than our own. So we made some more tech and figured out that there are tons of those also.

 

We are really an incipient species when it comes to these things. But the doubters of what's "out there" because we don't have definite proof have been proven wrong every single time. With that kind of background, I wouldn't really want to be in the doubter camp.

 

Also it's a mystery how life evolved on Earth. We have a very good idea. It was a result of a confluence of cosmic events and geography. Water, a good planetary address, and a right mix of elements from space. This worked in our case. And life on Earth wasn't a freak accident. Earth is really stubborn in creating life (see past extinctions). There really isn't anything special that resulted in life on our planet. All these incidents are happening all over the universe every single day.

 

There are however some issues of whether we will ever encounter life. One is distance, and if Einstein turns out to be right, the universe may be rigged so that we cannot meet. The other is time. One hypothesis i can accept is that we may actually be one of the first intelligent species of the universe. Because the universe took a long time to create the building blocks of life. So that could work. But that's a weak argument, because over such vast periods of time small variances can have a huge impact. Maybe if the Spanish Inquisition did not exist Queen Victoria may have watched the Great Exhibition on her smartphone from her residence in the sea of tranquility.

[John Hjorth]

Good to see you back, rb.

[Spekulatius]

I think that when it comes to the subject of space it is best to keep an open mind. Those with closed minds have constantly been proven wrong. 500 years ago we were burning people that didn't think that the earth is the centre of the universe. Turns out it isn't. 60 years ago we didn't know there were more galaxies than our own. Turns out there are billions. 20 years ago we didn't know that there were other planets other than the ones in our solar system. We made some tech and turns out there are tons. Then 10 years ago we didn't know whether there are other rocky planets other than our own. So we made some more tech and figured out that there are tons of those also.

 

We are really an incipient species when it comes to these things. But the doubters of what's "out there" because we don't have definite proof have been proven wrong every single time. With that kind of background, I wouldn't really want to be in the doubter camp.

 

Also it's a mystery how life evolved on Earth. We have a very good idea. It was a result of a confluence of cosmic events and geography. Water, a good planetary address, and a right mix of elements from space. This worked in our case. And life on Earth wasn't a freak accident. Earth is really stubborn in creating life (see past extinctions). There really isn't anything special that resulted in life on our planet. All these incidents are happening all over the universe every single day.

 

There are however some issues of whether we will ever encounter life. One is distance, and if Einstein turns out to be right, the universe may be rigged so that we cannot meet. The other is time. One hypothesis i can accept is that we may actually be one of the first intelligent species of the universe. Because the universe took a long time to create the building blocks of life. So that could work. But that's a weak argument, because over such vast periods of time small variances can have a huge impact. Maybe if the Spanish Inquisition did not exist Queen Victoria may have watched the Great Exhibition on her smartphone from her residence in the sea of tranquility.

 

Distance and time a huge deterrents. It is quite likely that most advanced civilizations wipe themselves out, or that life disappears due to naturally occurring cosmic events. I believe at some point the earth was at risk to permanents disappear under a huge I ice cap, which could have destroyed life on earth or at least stalled the development for a huge cosmic timespan.

 

If an alien civilization for example come around earth in a 100M years (a comparatively short timespan in the cosmic picture) are we still around here on earth? We might have destroyed ourself, moved on somewhere else,  or our civilization became so advanced that we have moved on or are in a state that is unrecognizable to an outside civilization.

[Dynamic]

Occam‘s razor applies here - you don’t need a god or aliens to explain how life came to earth , you shouldn’t use them as your hypothesis. No, we can’t exclude it, nor do we have to. Anyone can believe what he wants- some things can be proven, some just plausibly explained, in the absence of hard evidence, the simplest solution should be the preferred one.

 

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation"

[rkbabang]

Occam‘s razor applies here - you don’t need a god or aliens to explain how life came to earth , you shouldn’t use them as your hypothesis. No, we can’t exclude it, nor do we have to. Anyone can believe what he wants- some things can be proven, some just plausibly explained, in the absence of hard evidence, the simplest solution should be the preferred one.

 

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation"

 

The problem with the "god did it" or "it's a simulation" is that they explain nothing.  If god did it, then where is god, what is god, and where did he come from?  If it is a simulation, then who are the simulators?  Where are they, what are they, what is their universe like, and where do they come from?    All those do is create even more questions than they answer, so they solve nothing at all.  But that doesn't mean you can rule them out as remote possibilities.

 

My own opinion is that we are alone in our area of the Milkyway Galaxy or maybe even alone in our entire Galaxy.  I think that life is probably fairly common, but intelligent life is probably much less common than most people think.  Think about all the things that evolve over and over again independently (eyes, ears, wings, echolocation, etc) but intelligence on the human level has only evolved once in the history of the Earth and had that asteroid not taken out the dinosaurs it might never have evolved here at all.  The universe is big, so there are probably other planets with intelligent life, but if they are located in other galaxies then we will never know about them nor them about us.    I doubt very much that there is any creator like being.  I like to think about the simulation hypothesis, but If I had to wager, I'd probably bet against it being true.  I don't know how to explain the UFOs, but there is a lot we don't know about our planet/universe.  There could be an explanation that has nothing to do with intelligent life at all.  Or they could be intelligent beings keeping an eye on us.  We may never know.

 

[Castanza]

Occam‘s razor applies here - you don’t need a god or aliens to explain how life came to earth , you shouldn’t use them as your hypothesis. No, we can’t exclude it, nor do we have to. Anyone can believe what he wants- some things can be proven, some just plausibly explained, in the absence of hard evidence, the simplest solution should be the preferred one.

 

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation"

 

Do scientists not also do this by saying "time did it"? We just assume given large amounts of time that something has/will happen based on mathematical probability. They all seem equally arbitrary to me. It also doesn't benefit science to simply ignore the possibility of a God or a Simulation. It doesn't necessarily help it either. I think it's ignorant when people like Dawkins say there absolutely is no God. I much prefer people like Sam Harris who are open to the idea, but don't let it deflect them from scientific empirical study.

 

Science does not find truth, it approaches it.

[wachtwoord]

If there are indeed UFO's flying around, you would think somebody would have captured proof of them by now.  OR if the government(s) had conclusive proof, somebody would have spilled the secret by now.

 

Yes you are exactly correct in the paragraph above. The conclusion I draw is that we have not been visited, or at least we are no longer being visited.  My personal opinion based on nothing concrete is that intelligent life is rarer than most scientists think and we may be the only intelligent species in the Milkyway right now.  There are surely others in other galaxies (there are just too many of them to think otherwise), but we may have this one to ourselves.

 

The problem is both space and time. First off space is vaste and for two worlds to communicate or even visit they need to develop a reasonable distance from each other. Remember, for now we believe the maximum space of matter or information is one light year per year. This is extremely limitting and makes it quite unlikely already for intelligent life that developed independantly from each other to meet.

 

Now add time to the equation. The period of time that there has been life on Earth is miniscule a few 100 million years versus the 14 billion years the universe is old  (1.4%). Of those few 100 million years humans have existed for roughly 200.000 (0.2%, so 0.0028% of the age of the universe). And the we have only discovered using radio signals 130 years ago or so, space travel 50 years ago.

 

So to meet the alien civilization needs to not only be close enough but also reach this level of civilization at the exact time we are at that level as well. The odds of that are tremendously small, even with millions of different uncorrelated species developing in the universe throughout its existance thus far.

 

And the I did not even consider physical or psychological reasons that make learning of each others' existance impossible or unlike (eg the inability to decern the other entity as a life form, no desire the explore, the knowledge that staying hidden is much safer due to the likely existance of von-neumann machines etc).

 

People that say there must be no life in the universe because we have not observes it are highly uninformed. It's actually quite likely there is and has been and still we will never know.

[Dynamic]

A small factual correction - the best evidence we have now is that life developed very soon after the Earth cooled enough to form a crust and oceans, so something closer to 3.5 billion years ago. Quite a long time later multicellular life and mytochondria came along and later still, sexual reproduction being added to the mix alongside mutation gave rise to more rapid speciation and testing of various potential evolutionary paths. But we also know that all life we find on Earth today has a common ancestor and a single form of DNA/RNA for protein generation and replication rather than any successful alternative replicating molecule being successful enough to last alongside.

 

Nonetheless you point stands about Earth having had only a short window (so far) where complex multicellular life has existed and an extremely short window where an intelligent species has existed, and a truly minute window when they have approached the technology to detect distant planets, communicate beyond their planet and explore anywhere outside their planet's own atmosphere.

 

Lets invert the question and consider detecting life on Earth from another star.

 

An alien species with technology a little better than ours, but possibly within 100 years of today's, looking at earth remotely perhaps as it transits the Sun, might detect certain chemical signatures of life, such as molecular oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if their distance is within a few hundred million light years of Earth. That radius takes in just a few nearby galaxies but excludes much of the known observable universe and other galaxy clusters. We're close to having the ability to detect such atmospheric signatures on exoplanets for the first time, so that is plausible first with relatively close stars, then with more distant ones as technology improves.

 

They would have to be within a few thousand light years to detect human changes to the planet and perhaps gases released from early metal smelting etc within the last few thousand years as civilizations emerged. That radius is well within our own galaxy, the Milky Way, meaning they couldn't detect us outside our galaxy until a long time in the future.

 

They would have to be within the order of 100 light years to detect radio waves from human communications, a little more to detect signs of the Industrial Revolution. That's a small corner of our neighbourhood at the edge of the Milky Way, containing only a relatively modest number of stars and planets. The nearest stars are about 4 light years away, and there are about 13600 stars within 100 light years, mostly red dwarfs. The orders of magnitude to detect our modern space-going world-wide communicating civilisation really shrink dramatically when you consider how few stars are within say 50 light years.

 

Inverting again, we might have the technology to be able to make certain remote atmospheric gas detections (via spectroscopy of transiting exoplanets) that strongly imply life, on exoplanets perhaps 10-100 light years away, within the next decade or two, probably easily by the end of this century, and perhaps by 2100 we'd be able to detect them on the far side of our own galaxy (about 50,000 light years away, and these signs of life having left those planets 50,000 years ago).

 

I think we probably will have the technology to find one or two independent lines of compelling evidence for simple life existing on exoplanets within this century. It's far less likely we'll be able to detect signs of a technologically advanced industrial age species so soon, mainly because they ought to be less far likely to exist at the same time we'd be around to observe them, within the radius where we're capable of observing their presence. That detection would gradually become more likely as we improve sensitivity of detection to increase the detectable radius, but I wouldn't be surprised if we detected none within 100 light years of the Sun.

[wachtwoord]

I enjoyed reading your reasoning based on inversion and fully agree. The only way any of this changes is if faster than light travel is possible in our universe or some way around it such as intact wormhole traversion of matter or information. At this point that seems unlikely though.

 

Thanks for the factual correction. I was an order of magnitude off on when life developed on earth it seems :)

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

One of the things I find fascinating in the discussion of extra-terrestial life is the discussion of the "great hurdles".

 

For example, life may be relatively common, but a great hurdle is going from single celled life & very small organisms to larger, more complex organisms.  This could be a "great hurdle" that most planets with life never overcomes.

 

Another hurdle is intelligence.  Another could be technology.  For example, there appear to be lots of places with liquid water under protective sheets of ice.  A complex, intelligent life form may find it next to impossible to accumulate much technology if they are living underwater.  Very hard to smelt metal when you are in water.

 

Another hurdle could be forming & maintaining complex societies.  Another hurdle could be most cultures never progress into the "technological age".  Another hurdle could be pandemics...or nuclear/biological war OR another hurdle could be that most cultures don't use radio communication more than 2-300 years.  If so, they are only broadcasting for incredibly limited periods of time.

 

Another hurdle could be that once MOST cultures get technology & industrialization, they destroy the environment. 

 

OR

 

Maybe cultures make it past this, but AI does them in?

 

OR

 

Could it be that cultures eventually lose their edge and simply collapse?

 

OR

 

Could it be that there is something that we are not even contemplating that does most cultures in?

 

I am going to guess that we as humans have passed some of these great hurdles, but that we also have looming in front of us.

[wachtwoord]

Occam‘s razor applies here - you don’t need a god or aliens to explain how life came to earth , you shouldn’t use them as your hypothesis. No, we can’t exclude it, nor do we have to. Anyone can believe what he wants- some things can be proven, some just plausibly explained, in the absence of hard evidence, the simplest solution should be the preferred one.

 

Very true, the simplest solution meaning the one with the fewest low probability assumptions, not just the simplest to state such as "god did it" or "it's all a simulation"

 

Do scientists not also do this by saying "time did it"? We just assume given large amounts of time that something has/will happen based on mathematical probability. They all seem equally arbitrary to me. It also doesn't benefit science to simply ignore the possibility of a God or a Simulation. It doesn't necessarily help it either. I think it's ignorant when people like Dawkins say there absolutely is no God. I much prefer people like Sam Harris who are open to the idea, but don't let it deflect them from scientific empirical study.

 

Science does not find truth, it approaches it.

 

I want to briefly respond to this as well.

 

There are very few things that are impossible (most things we call impossible are simply highly unlikely to the extreme).

 

God, when defined as "an omnipotent entity that exists within our universe" is an example of something that is impossible, see the omnipotence paradox (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox )

 

However if we change the definition to "nigh-allpowerful" or speak of an entity outside our universe (as no observation outside our universe is possible) we revert to highly improbable (due to the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit)

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

It seems that the media are now chattering about the UFO's.

 

Here is an interesting article:

 

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/the-navy-tracks-ufo-sightings-scientists-explain-what-s-really-going-on-1.584080

 

I found a few things very interesting about this article.  The article claims that many UFO sightings can be explained by rather simple things.  Such things as a pilot having fatigue, or that it is reflected lights, or perhaps it is a satellite launch.  All of which are certainly valid and could be the explanation in certain cases.

 

HOWEVER, I found it fascinating that the article tries to use these explanations for what has been encountered by the Navy pilots.  Does the author think the readers are mentally deficient?  NONE of the aforementioned explanations would be even remotely plausible in what has been encountered by the Navy.  One possible explanation featured in the article was that it was a drone.  I definitely think that is a possibility, but I don't think it is going to be Elon Musk's SpaceX drone(s)!  Some of the sightings happened around 2004, SpaceX was founded May 6th 2002.  So a little later than a year after it's founding, SpaceX came up with these crazy, futuristic drones? 

 

How are reflected lights going to be picked up by RADAR?  How is a pilot's fatigue going to be picked up on camera?  Are not highly trained pilots better observers than regular folk?

 

The way the article was written, makes me wonder if the author even watched/read/contemplated what was shown in the Navy videos?

 

 

[Dynamic]

Are not highly trained pilots better observers than regular folk?

 

No, highly trained military and law-enforcement personnel are almost certainly prone to the exact same heuristics and mental shortcuts in their vision systems and methods of laying down and reinforcing memories as the majority of homo sapiens. Pilots are selected on very few visual defects - I know that colorblindness prevents people from becoming professional pilots, for example - but the way the brain interprets visual information and where it focuses its attention is only slightly different due to training, mostly in training for flying in cloud and trusting instruments like the artificial horizon more than the flawed perception of their senses. But other than that, pilots are trained to be observant to the environment all around them rather than on tunnel vision of what right in front of them perhaps better than typical car drivers, but not regarding interpretation of what they perceive.

 

If any class of professionals has a small edge on seeing the world as it is, and occasionally avoiding visual misperception, it's magicians, who have discovered and shared numerous and diverse ways of diverting human attention and can sometimes spot these if they can guess what to look for when practised by fellow practitioners of their art.

[Pelagic]

Hey all:

 

It seems that the media are now chattering about the UFO's.

 

Here is an interesting article:

 

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/the-navy-tracks-ufo-sightings-scientists-explain-what-s-really-going-on-1.584080

 

I found a few things very interesting about this article.  The article claims that many UFO sightings can be explained by rather simple things.  Such things as a pilot having fatigue, or that it is reflected lights, or perhaps it is a satellite launch.  All of which are certainly valid and could be the explanation in certain cases.

 

HOWEVER, I found it fascinating that the article tries to use these explanations for what has been encountered by the Navy pilots.  Does the author think the readers are mentally deficient?  NONE of the aforementioned explanations would be even remotely plausible in what has been encountered by the Navy.  One possible explanation featured in the article was that it was a drone.  I definitely think that is a possibility, but I don't think it is going to be Elon Musk's SpaceX drone(s)!  Some of the sightings happened around 2004, SpaceX was founded May 6th 2002.  So a little later than a year after it's founding, SpaceX came up with these crazy, futuristic drones? 

 

How are reflected lights going to be picked up by RADAR?  How is a pilot's fatigue going to be picked up on camera?  Are not highly trained pilots better observers than regular folk?

 

The way the article was written, makes me wonder if the author even watched/read/contemplated what was shown in the Navy videos?

 

I have a bit of experience with recreational radar and I've come to trust it at least as much as my own eyes. If a return is being displayed on the radar screen, there's something there. You may not be able to see it with your eyes for a variety of reasons but if the radar is displaying a return, there's something there. This is what makes these sighting different than the vast majority of UFO sightings. It's not just the pilots who saw them, there were multiple sightings observed through 4 different methods of observation (the pilots eyes, radar, video recording, and IR camera recording).

 

Could any one of these observation methods be wrong? Absolutely. But to think an object picked up multiple times by all 4 systems over the course of multiple encounters was not there defies logic. Do pilots see weird things occasionally? Sure. Do multiple pilots (each F/A-18 has a crew of 2) see the same weird thing multiple times over the course of weeks and observe it with a multitude of onboard systems? No. Fatigue, reflected light, haze, or whatever might explain, and probably does explain, the occasional "UFO" sighting here and there but I think applying a general explanation to these specific sightings fails basic reasoning.

 

That said, it's a big leap from UFO to alien spacecraft. It's very likely that whatever they saw was a man made aircraft they just weren't familiar with. Still a curiosity given the capabilities of the aircraft described by the pilots but not quite aliens exist level news.

[valcont]

Looks like the senators got a briefing on UFO sightings today. Trump was briefed last week.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/warner-classified-briefing-ufos-1544273

 

 

[DTEJD1997]

Looks like the senators got a briefing on UFO sightings today. Trump was briefed last week.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/warner-classified-briefing-ufos-1544273

 

it would be very interesting to see what was in those briefings.  I am sure that the military has more information than what they are letting onto the public.

 

Once again, I am shocked that these incidents and stories are not getting more play/attention.

[DTEJD1997]

hey all:

 

Interesting story today that the videos from the Navy are real and never were meant to be publicly released.  Please see:

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a29073804/navy-ufo-videos-real/

 

The military is saying the videos are unexplained, BUT that there are NOT aliens in/controlling the crafts.

 

If the videos are truly unexplained, then how do they know that the objects are not controlled by aliens?  If they are unexplained, then who knows exactly what they are?  COULD be aliens?

 

One thing that I think is a common thread in all three videos is that the UFO's are all above the water.

 

Instead of Aliens, would it not be wild if there was another intelligence living in the oceans?  This was part of the story of the movie, Abyss.

[rkbabang]

Strange lights off the Outer Banks spark UFO debate

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article235790617.html

[Liberty]

https://twitter.com/DannyDutch/status/1194886790118809600