391–400 of 978 posts
As much as I'm thankful for Graves' work, I'd been hoping another pilot had come forward with new information, or even just more validation of his stories.
https://www.uap.guide/ is a great compilation of all official/verified evidence of UAP activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Magic that works isn't called magic, so magic not working is basically tautological. Inscribing intricate patterns on crystals to summon non-human intelligence you can converse with? That's not magic, that's computer engineering and science. It's not magic, because it works. Magic is whatever hasn't been demonstrated to work. Transmuting lead into gold? That was magic until we figured out nuclear physics, then it bec…
Aliens haven’t been demonstrated to exist, but we have seen that life exists in the only solar system we’re capable of closely observing. We humans have a long history of erroneously assuming that we’re the special case. Magic implies we have no idea of how a phenomenon is possible, but we know perfectly well that the existence of aliens is possible. They’re like black holes or gravitational waves before we found phy…
At a certain point, when you can't reconcile observed reality with your beautiful theory, you've got to question the theory. That's the essence of science, discarding theories that cannot be reconciled with observed reality. It may be the case that advanced life capable of sending radio signals or traveling the stars is so exceedingly unlikely to form that even life on earth was a freak fluke of luck. Remember that life on earth got stuck in the mono-cellular stage for billions of years. There was no assurance it would ever get past that stage. And the number of stars in the universe is a weak rebuttal to this line of thinking, since it only takes a handful of independent "one in a million" chances to create a a probability so stupidly small that it makes the number of stars in the entire observable universe seem mundane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's incredible that armchair experts can dismiss something as a glitch from corroborated observations from some of the best aerial operators of the most powerful and well funded military on earth. Yes, glitches exist, but don't yet account for all cases. One can read the congressional reports that say the same.
I thought the whole point of this article is that those reports are uninteresting because so much information is withheld. I’m also curious to know if there are reports similar to these coming from civilian or commercial pilots. I mean, it doesn’t take a too gun pilot to observe a tic tac shaped flying object but it seems to me that it’s all coming from the us military who share similar technology. There is one other…
But yes, to be fair, there is a selection bias here in a sense.
Space is big. No, bigger than that. A LOT bigger than even that! Your brain can't really grasp these distances. Our closest star is still over 4 light years away. There's 41 stars Let's suppose that an alien civilization is able to travel faster than the speed of light. How long is it going to take them to travel here even if they're 50ly away?[2] Even at 10c that's 5 years. Even at 50c that's still a year! (a year is probably reasonable time, but the speed is unreasonable).
So to find alien life on Earth we'd have to have one of a few things happen:
1) Luck. Even if probability is low, there's no reason we couldn't just be lucky in having a relatively close neighbor and that they are significantly more advanced than us.
2) Alien life is extremely common. Far more common than our guesses. Not just life, but life more advanced than us! They're also good at being hidden (we can't find their radio signals despite looking specifically at these stars first. They could have just advanced way earlier and be past radio (why abandon radio?)). They would also have to either a) have pretty fast space drives (mind you >= 1c breaks our understanding of physics. See point 3) and/or b) be pretty willing to travel vast distances/spend a long time traveling (decades to generations). To travel to Proxima Centauri (4.2ly) at 0.5c you would track >3.5yrs onboard and >8 from Earth/"off ship" (~2/~4.5 at 0.9c).[3] Remember that the time "off ship" is still seen by the civilization sending the ship, so beings doing this would likely be giving up their lives at home. c) Aliens can send remote ships that either have extremely advanced AI (willing to wait years to recover that data) and/or the ability to communicate with said ship faster than the speed of light (we still have no physics mechanism for an ansible and this would break our understanding of causality).
3) There's ways to travel SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the speed of light. At these distances even 100c can be slow. This _shatters_ our understanding of physics, causality, and the universe[4]. They are ALSO able to drop out of warp being undetected (even our hypothetical FTL drives and wormholes have huge gamma signatures. That energy has to go somewhere and it is a lot of energy).
So I'm not saying that it isn't aliens, but consider that space is a lot bigger than you even thought. I don't think many people consider this aspect of space travel when they are imagining aliens. Probably because this makes for extremely boring Sci-Fis (a few do consider this, like Ender's Game, but it is not common). These distances are so far beyond what our brains were designed to understand that even our wildest imaginations don't give us a reasonably okay intuition.
[0] https://www.icc.dur.ac.uk/~tt/Lectures/Galaxies/LocalGroup/B...
[1] https://lovethenightsky.com/stars-within-100-light-years/
[2] 50ly is fairly arbitrary, but near an estimate of civilizations that would be capable of picking up our radio emissions under the assumption that they had amazing detection capabilities and could detect a very weak signal with a lot of noise (the sun produces pretty strong radio emissions)
[3] https://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/ (for our 50ly example at 0.9998c will get you to Earth in ~1yr on board time. Still 50 years "off-ship")
[4] https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aliens isn't being thrown out a priori, because the hypothesis isn't just "it's aliens". The hypothesis, to fit the evidence is: "it's aliens, using technology advanced enough that it can do things nothing else on Earth can do, without generating the normally expected physical effects, and are also mostly but not entirely undetectable".
Given what we’ve learned about the challenges of interstellar travel, it’s safe to assume that any civilization capable of visiting us would be thousands of years beyond our current understanding of physics. If you compare our current understanding of physics to what humans knew thousands of years ago, it’s logical that the technology of an interstellar civilization would be as far beyond our understanding as a nucle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of them. My dad did accident investigation for the Air Force for a time. One time there was a crash into the sea, amply witnessed by many on board a Navy ship, including pilots. They all said the wings came off the airplane before it hit the water. (The airplane had a reputation for wings coming off.) These people honestly believed that's what they saw. Except for one Navy seaman, on his first trip on a boat. He…
This is one example using a minor observational discrepancy. Put it this way- All the observers agreed with the reality that the plane did hit the water. You're basically using this 1 example to prove that 10, 100, 1000 people all saying that the plane hit the water (with or without wings) is not evidence of anything hitting the water (assuming no aircraft was found).
There is a genuinely terrifying explanation that fits all of the data-points: That something about routine exposure to the physical effects of flying military jets effects a pilot's perceptual accuracy. This is also definitely something that would be on the hush rota; if your seasoned missile operator just reported overtaking Santa's sleigh at Mach something, it wouldn't inspire much confidence in either the new recr…
This doesn't do much for the data point of on-video capture of some such phenomena, though: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52457805
I don't get it. In recent years a number of people who I know and I view to be very intelligent have started talk to me about how they believe reports of aliens trolling US fighter pilots and that the US government is covering this up. And I'm aware that "trolling" might be viewed as an uncharitable way of looking at it, but I actually think that's the most accurate description of what's being reported in these sight…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
It's completely disingenuous to just link that video as an authoritative source (when it's not... in any way). You should also put Ryan Grave's response to that video - https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0