Why Look at Flying Saucers?
lareviewofbooks.org
Why Look at Flying Saucers?
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#2Why ignore the Navy's official videos? Why lump that in with obvious nonsense?
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#3Why ignore the Navy's official videos? Why lump that in with obvious nonsense?
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#4Why ignore the Navy's official videos? Why lump that in with obvious nonsense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#5To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation.
It may be that all these claimed observations are the product of some sort of collective psychosis, as this article appears to assume, but that's just one hypothesis among many others. Empirical questions require empirical investigation, not ignoring the question.
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#6So many words, so much time, so many lives wasted on what is largely a massive, decades-long, ongoing psychological warfare operation conducted by several elements of the US government. Against their own population. Why would they do that? Beats me.
Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage_Men
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#7To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation. It may be that all these claimed observations are the product of some sort of collective psychosis, as this article appears to assume, but that's just one hypothesis among many others. Empirical questions require empirical investigation, not ignoring the question.
It's pretty much the same as with other pop-sci stuff that is being shoveled down the throat of people who still watch regular TV; sensationalized bullshit in most cases.
We know there's something out there; it's occasionally seen by people who report it, and who who often somehow fail to bring proper cameras with them. It could be aliens, foreign governments, or more mundane explanations like weather phenomena. We just don't know what it is yet.
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#8To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation. It may be that all these claimed observations are the product of some sort of collective psychosis, as this article appears to assume, but that's just one hypothesis among many others. Empirical questions require empirical investigation, not ignoring the question.
> To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation.
I think it's pretty disingenuous to present those two takes as being equally bad. Yes we don't know everything and leaving room for extraordinary things to happen is healthy, but I have yet to see evidences that aliens have cause a UAP. On the other hand we have good empirical evidence that sighting of unusal phenomenas with perfectly mundane explanations can, and do, create testimonies of so called "alien visitations". We even have pretty good psycho-sociological explanations for why this happens.
So without even looking at the specific details of a particular UAP sighting, coming at it from the angle of "people probably saw weird stuff and their brains filled the gap" is the right approach in my opinion. That doesn't mean we have to stop here of course, but it is a sensible default position.
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#9To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation. It may be that all these claimed observations are the product of some sort of collective psychosis, as this article appears to assume, but that's just one hypothesis among many others. Empirical questions require empirical investigation, not ignoring the question.
> To dismiss all evidence of UAP's out of hand as "illogical" is just as unscientific as to accept them as being proof of ET visitation. I think it's pretty disingenuous to present those two takes as being equally bad. Yes we don't know everything and leaving room for extraordinary things to happen is healthy, but I have yet to see evidences that aliens have cause a UAP. On the other hand we have good empirical evide…
> I have yet to see evidences that aliens have cause a UAP
Neither have I but the title of this article is "why look at flying saucers", not "why believe in ET visitation".
> We even have pretty good psycho-sociological explanations for why this happens.
What well accepted psychological explanation is there for 4 naval aviators reporting an encounter with an object that appeared to defy our knowledge of aerodynamics in clear weather and broad daylight in the exact location they were vectored to by an Aegis radar system ?
Re: Why Look at Flying Saucers?
#10The psychological predilection for belief in conspiracy theories is depressing. It's depressing because to me it feels like the other side of the coin for religious devotees. It seems to be seated in a deep need for a higher purpose and meaning.
When I was a kid I found all the talk of UFOs interesting. I had a fascination with space (and still do) and wanted to believe in that future.
What changed is in more recent years I inadvertently approached the problem from the other direction. By that I mean you look at what mankind's future is likely to be like which can be extrapolated to the future other other spacefaring civilizations and the implications of that on the Fermi Paradox.
It's a deep topic but basically the obvious energy future is to use all the Sun's energy output (rather than There are two parts I like about this:
1. It is based on the current understanding of physics. No magic tech or negative mass is required. If FTL is possible (and I include wormholes under FTL) or if breaking thermodynamics is possible we should be seeing a ton more not less of these things; and
2. The beauty of a lot of thought experiments with the Fermi Paradox is we don't need to decide what civilizations will do on average. Instead, if any one civilization doesn't fit that mold the whole argument falls apart. The more civilizations there are the less likely that counterargument becomes.
So with regards to UFOs, there are two common explanations among devotees:
1. Aliens and alien technology; or
2. Advanced technology governments are hiding.
In a world where the speed of light is a universal speed limit, (1) just becomes preposterous. The idea that someone would spend thousands of years getting here, hiding their presence and cooperating with governments just defies logic.
As for advanced technology... in 1947? Really? I just don't believe people are capable of that AND keeping it secret for decades. Of course people will say they haven't kept it secret and disinformation has made us all not believe it.
This fascination with UFOs just seems so... pointless.