41–50 of 63 posts
The lead author on this paper is a professor of anesthesiology. I think it's fairly safe to describe its conclusion as crank-adjacent, if not outright cranky.
Oh.. uh hold on a second... removes anesthesia mask from patient
Wake up sheeple!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has ever found the slightest smidgen of evidence of aliens, nor any plausible theory of what aliens would be like. It's about as likely as someone inventing a car that runs on water.
While it's always good to elevate evidence-based knowledge above "woo" or "belief", it's not healthy to close your mind off completely against anything that isn't currently proven. We might know that we don't know a lot of things, but the most interesting thought experiments happen in the area that concerns the things we don't know that we don't know.
I've heard "evidence" of aliens my entire life. Guess how many panned out. Zero. But that never seems to discourage anyone from believing that an artifact on a photo must have the most implausible explanation ever - aliens!
Where do you draw the line? Time travel? Teleportation? Astrology? Fortune tellers? Razor blade sharpening? Reincarnation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Not aliens" seems obvious but shouldn't be a basis for dismissing this either. I feel like sometimes we are so determined to dismiss aliens that we accept any plausible alternative too quickly, when there might be something else more interesting that is neither obvious nor aliens.
Aliens are not plausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you didn't write what you meant. I read it as we shouldn't think it is obvious that they aren't aliens.
> there might be something else more interesting that is neither obvious nor aliens.
Transient 'objects' after nuclear tests are quite possibly high energy radiation from the tests themselves. Remember these are on film, and the film is likely removed from its protective housing for some time before, during, and after imaging. (And in many cases protective housing wouldn't help anyway.) I get the sense that this topic is popular because "aliens y'all". It's much more likely to be radiation. It's poss…
When I was a research physicist I spent a lot of time looking at the effects of ionizing radiation in pictures, although mostly in the context of digital images. The mechanisms are a bit different for photo emulsions, but to me the reason I'd discount radiation is because they're specifically filtering for features that exhibit the expected point spread function (which is a geometric property of the telescope's optic…
I read the pre-publishing version of this paper, and there was then and still is a serious problem with their logic, consistent with if not bad faith, something akin to it: Assume for a moment their core hypothesis is correct, there were transient objects captured on film pre-Sputnik in LEO objects. What might we say about their nature? The authors' undisguised implication is "it's aliens" to be blunt; that's their m…
I read the pre-publishing version of this paper, and there was then and still is a serious problem with their logic, consistent with if not bad faith, something akin to it: Assume for a moment their core hypothesis is correct, there were transient objects captured on film pre-Sputnik in LEO objects. What might we say about their nature? The authors' undisguised implication is "it's aliens" to be blunt; that's their m…