Spend more looking for UFOs or, you know, we could invest in, say, cyber security for our elections and infrastructure programs...
The government should not spend money on anything I personally disagree with.
The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
211–220 of 287 posts
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we often fail to realize -- esp. in our tech bubble -- is that science is now mistrusted by the mainstream in society.
I think it's more to do with the those claiming things in the name of science that puts many people off. Science is a process, a method by which we can answer certain types of questions. To often people hear things like settled science, or the science is crystal clear, not up for debate.. These are political posturing and have little to do with actual science. It's absurd, and some people realize this. As with any sc…
FYI, you meant "fallible". "Infallible" means they don't make mistakes.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend? Such oddball connections are probably the only the way such a program would ever get funded. Edit: well, obviously he didn't have the money. Misspoke. I meant the means (a company with the required infrastructure).
No, the logical step is to stop and think whether or not you should use public money to do this. If he raised some VC funding, he can go hunt Minotaur for all I care. But this is my money he's using to do this. No thanks
I’d rather my tax money go towards huntin aliens than fighting wars TBH. I mean yeah, there’s lot of other things I’d like to see funded but this seems like a drop in the bucket when we’re talking the grand scheme of things.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Robert Bigelow doesn't believe "something unexplainable" has been happening in our skies - he believes the explanation for those things is alien spacecraft. He isn't interested in seaching for truth, he has an agenda. It's also disingenuous to skip over more plausible explanations, including hoaxes, the memetic effect of UFO culture, classified military aircraft and disinformation campaigns, and misidentification of…
I can see where you might think I was asserting one way or the other whether Robert Bigelow was qualified for this work, and that's my fault. I have no opinion about this man specifically. I am just saying that I think this problem is worth further study by the organizations which exist for the purpose of knowing these kinds of things. That being said, according to the article, "Mr. Bigelow said he was 'absolutely co…
> And while on the surface that might seem to reveal his having an agenda and disqualify any of his analyses, do we feel the same way about physicists that believe God created the universe?
I don't, but only so long as they don't ascribe magical or supernatural qualities to physical phenomena.
It's one thing to believe alien spacecraft as an extremely unlikely possibility, and another to consider it not only likely, but indisputably so. The lack of skepticism combined with unfalsifiable claims are what disqualify him, in my view.
There does seem to be a fringe of interesting events in the field worth studying. I'm not convinced that there aren't plausible explanations for them - after all, how many "black triangle" sightings are likely to have been classified stealth aircraft? But I also think the negativity serves a valuable purpose as long as it keeps people from entertaining flights of fancy.
I'll believe the Robert Bigelows and Bob Lazars and Whitley Streibers of the world when they can back their claims up with undeniable and irrefutable evidence. Given the nature of their claims, I don't believe that's an unreasonable bar to set. Even Einstein was doubted until someone proved him right.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
What we often fail to realize -- esp. in our tech bubble -- is that science is now mistrusted by the mainstream in society.
I think it's more to do with the those claiming things in the name of science that puts many people off. Science is a process, a method by which we can answer certain types of questions. To often people hear things like settled science, or the science is crystal clear, not up for debate.. These are political posturing and have little to do with actual science. It's absurd, and some people realize this. As with any sc…
I think that when many people here think of science then it is the science, the methodology.
What you are describing is the science, the institution and this is perhaps also how wider public perceives it.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet no surveillance cameras captured it? No cameras at the gate? No cameras near or around? This was 2006, well after the days when the idea of 24/7 eyes everywhere was considered a conspiracy, it was the days of bush and the Patriot Act and consistent airport watch. And we get... no actual real evidence?
Pretty sure they don’t have security cameras pointed at the sky
I'm pretty sure that if there were really a giant unidentifiable craft hovering over an American airport terminal less than a decade after 9/11 someone would have found a way to point something at it.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who has put in well qualified bids with university consortiums for multiple US government research contracts, including DARPA and other similar groups I can confirm that this is completely false. What is the size of your organization? How are you submitting bids, and where are you getting your solicitations? Does someone in your company network with the government liaisons beyond just the one you've submit…
I was responding to your statement: For example, if you approach the US government through a solicitation with really any half-reasonable suggestion for processing enormous amounts of data, and you'll get a contract. Your subsequent comment proves my point: it isn't that easy. As it happens, we are well qualified, and we've won a number as well. My point is that your original statement is completely wrong (and ironic…
Nah. I mean in the context of finding solicitations and submitting bids for the US government generally, life's easier selling those services versus selling something like socks or transportation or something. I mean what I said: If you wanted to collude with elected officials and funnel government dollars into your business, you're not going to have as much scrutiny submitting bids for those kinds of solicitations than some of the people out there trying to submit bids to sell the Army a better rifle sling.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem is all the crazy mythology around the subject. But strip that off and it has always seemed to me that there is an interesting residue of facts. It's not enough to prove anything but it's enough to be intriguing. One possible answer to the Fermi paradox is that they are here but are just not making overt obvious contact. If this were true we'd probably be talking about a "post-singularity" super in…
After reading "The Dark Forest" I've leaned towards the idea that we are under pervasive observation (likely by hard-to-detect autonomous AI agents of some form, the origin of which is relatively inconsequential) and once the probability tilts towards a non-zero value that we are a threat beyond a certain blast radius we'll be wiped out. If that were true, and the message of that being the case were delivered somehow…
Why not wipe us out now though? Observing you risk missing the "danger" point in our evolution, wiping us out now eliminates that risk. I suspect there's more to it than that.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, the logical next stop would be to pause and think very long and very hard about why the subject isn't treated as legitimate by mainstream science.
I don't think that would be your logical next step as it doesn't logically follow from the earlier steps. My post started with "Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money.". So my post presupposes that interest. You don't have that interest (at least not in the same way) so your point is moot. You can't say "Say that you have an interest. Your next logical step would be no…
Nothing really "logically follows" from what you said since you were speaking informally rather than proposing an airtight logical syllogism. And since this is a conversation, I don't have to choose to follow along with whatever premises you choose to stipulate if I don't think they adequately reflect the reality they're attempting to model, or if I don't agree with you that they presuppose the things you think they presuppose.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend? Such oddball connections are probably the only the way such a program would ever get funded. Edit: well, obviously he didn't have the money. Misspoke. I meant the means (a company with the required infrastructure).
For me, the logical next stop would be to pause and think very long and very hard about why the subject isn't treated as legitimate by mainstream science.
Fallacious appeals to shame, in all likelihood