Human alien interactions

[odysseus2000]

Similarly it is possible to calculate the ratio of the (number of unexplained objects in the sky)/(number of explained objects in the sky) & to say that the chance of uap existing is < than this ratio. This is something AARO like to quote as it’s a small number & supports their prejudice that uap do not exist. If they can show that there are no unexplained objects then the case for uap goes away.

I have no idea what the life of a proton has to do with anything here. It is, of course, possible to show that something doesn't exist in a limited and localised way ("there are no jelly babies in this jar"), but that's not what we're talking about here and your statements above make no sense.

As noted by Scott, of course unidentified anomalous phenomena exist and unless <unexplained objects in the sky> is zero, which we know it isn't, then the "the chance of uap existing" is non-zero, irrespective of whether it is "< than this ratio".

So, what is your evidence for your claim that AARO have a "prejudice that uap do not exist"? Where have AARO stated that, and how does it match up with:

"AARO has opened hundreds of investigations since its founding in 2022. Half of these have been resolved with mundane explanations, for instance, weather balloons. The other half remain unexplained, with insufficient data to reach any conclusion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-domain_Anomaly_Resolution_Office

If half of AARO's hundreds of investigations remain unexplained then they are clearly stating that unidentified anomalous phenomena do exist.

This is how science works. The jelly bean analogy is false as in that case there is no doubt whether a jar has a jelly bean or not. However, science would then ask is there any evidence that an empty jar once did have jelly beans? With a mass spectrometer one could take sample swabs of the inside of the jar & look for trace amounts of jelly beans & come up with limits as to the likelihood that the jar did once have jelly beans etc.

AARO are attempting a similar procedure to find known explanations for the observed phenomenon & they have all the classified data that no one else is allowed to see. Kirkpatrick has decided that eye witness testimony & similar will not be considered so he has ignored all the folk who have come forward with eye witness testimony. Instead he has presented resolved cases of previous uap that his team have shown have known explanations, but he has not focused on unresolved things e.g. tictoc & shown how their sensor data shows it is a known phenomenon. This is a big issue for his neutrality. No one in science focuses on what is known, they focus on what is unknown & try to determine what it is.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

I am fascinated by the debate which has now reached the level of sports.

Those who think there are no ufo seize upon anything said by AARO & cheer.

Those who believe there are ufo seize upon antthing said by Grusch et al & cheer.

Neither side has presented any evidence.

Do you believe a bunch of pilots who say they have seen uap & a whistleblower who says there is a secret uap program hidden from congress & the president?

Or do you believe a bunch of people who say the pilots & Grusch are mistaken?

Regards,

Extraordinary claims, such as that aliens are visiting Earth and there is a cover-up, require extraordinary evidence. As you say neither side has presented concrete evidence hence the default position is to accept the more mundane position.

Yes & evidence requires allowing independent scientists to look at the known observational data to see if they can understand it with known phenomenon.

Bias & cheer leading is for sports, not for science.

Regards,

[mc2fool]

AARO are attempting a similar procedure to find known explanations for the observed phenomenon & they have all the classified data that no one else is allowed to see. Kirkpatrick has decided that eye witness testimony & similar will not be considered so he has ignored all the folk who have come forward with eye witness testimony. Instead he has presented resolved cases of previous uap that his team have shown have known explanations, but he has not focused on unresolved things e.g. tictoc & shown how their sensor data shows it is a known phenomenon. This is a big issue for his neutrality. No one in science focuses on what is known, they focus on what is unknown & try to determine what it is.

I think you mean "real" phenomenon for tictoc, not "known". If it were a known phenomenon it'd no longer be an unidentified one.

The fact that they have presented resolved cases is, surely, precisely 'cos they have been resolved!

All unidentified anomalous phenomena start off as unresolved. As explanations fall into place for some those become known and resolved and are no longer unidentified phenomena. What you are left with is unresolved ones, ones that are still unidentified phenomena.

So your claim that they are not looking at unresolved cases doesn't make sense; they all start as unresolved and either become resolved or stay unresolved as they are looked into it.

What is you evidence that "Kirkpatrick has decided that eye witness testimony & similar will not be considered"?. I can't find anything reflecting that on a search. Link please.

[odysseus2000]

AARO are attempting a similar procedure to find known explanations for the observed phenomenon & they have all the classified data that no one else is allowed to see. Kirkpatrick has decided that eye witness testimony & similar will not be considered so he has ignored all the folk who have come forward with eye witness testimony. Instead he has presented resolved cases of previous uap that his team have shown have known explanations, but he has not focused on unresolved things e.g. tictoc & shown how their sensor data shows it is a known phenomenon. This is a big issue for his neutrality. No one in science focuses on what is known, they focus on what is unknown & try to determine what it is.

I think you mean "real" phenomenon for tictoc, not "known". If it were a known phenomenon it'd no longer be an unidentified one.

The fact that they have presented resolved cases is, surely, precisely 'cos they have been resolved!

All unidentified anomalous phenomena start off as unresolved. As explanations fall into place for some those become known and resolved and are no longer unidentified phenomena. What you are left with is unresolved ones, ones that are still unidentified phenomena.

So your claim that they are not looking at unresolved cases doesn't make sense; they all start as unresolved and either become resolved or stay unresolved as they are looked into it.

What is you evidence that "Kirkpatrick has decided that eye witness testimony & similar will not be considered"?. I can't find anything reflecting that on a search. Link please.

If the tic-tac is due to physics we understand it must be an image created by known phenomena and accurate data should point to what it is.

Kirkpatrick has chosen to focus on primarily presenting observations to congress that his team have determined to be a some one elses problem, not on things that are still anomalous and thus his problem. This is a strange way to proceed.

Regarding eye witness statements, very many have presented their stories to AARO and all have been dismissed as lacking proof. Grusch has also put on record that he contacted Kirkpatrick over a year ago and has had no reply.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

I am fascinated by the debate which has now reached the level of sports.

Those who think there are no ufo seize upon anything said by AARO & cheer.

Those who believe there are ufo seize upon antthing said by Grusch et al & cheer.

Of course there are ufo. No sane person can deny their existence.

The question is whether they are related to extra-terrestrial life.

Scott.

There are many who believe ufo are known phenomena and only appear as anamolus due to false reporting and/or instrumental effects.

Regards,

[mc2fool]

What is you evidence that "Kirkpatrick has decided that eye witness testimony & similar will not be considered"?. I can't find anything reflecting that on a search. Link please.

Regarding eye witness statements, very many have presented their stories to AARO and all have been dismissed as lacking proof.

So, no link and no evidence of that, just supposition.

Grusch has also put on record that he contacted Kirkpatrick over a year ago and has had no reply.

OTOH Kirkpatrick says "contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO."
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/pentagon-ufo-boss-congress-hearing-00108822

[XFool]

Science often limits a potential observable that has not been observed with a limit. For example the lifetime of the proton is experimentally known to be greater then 10^34 years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_ ... c%20nuclei.

Similarly it is possible to calculate the ratio of the (number of unexplained objects in the sky)/(number of explained objects in the sky) & to say that the chance of uap existing is < than this ratio. This is something AARO like to quote as it’s a small number & supports their prejudice that uap do not exist. If they can show that there are no unexplained objects then the case for uap goes away.

This appears nonsensical. Of course UAPs "exist". Every time somebody sees something that they cannot identify, it is an UAP.

You must mean something else: That "UAPs" are extra-terrestrial. But not being able to identify something is not and cannot be evidence of anything. Other than evidence somebody has failed to identify something.

By contrast those who believe that there are uap focus on the unexplained objects & want the dod to release the information they have so that more accurate measurements can be used to set limits on the uap flight characteristics & probability of existing etc.

Again, to me this is meaningless:

1. The DoD doesn't have any such evidence to give.

2. The DoD does have evidence of UAPs - that is, evidence of non identified phenomenon. Since it is unidentified it would not be possible to give definite data about "flight characteristics". As that would require identifying a flying object in the first place...

A lot of this makes no sense to any scientist seeking to know the truth of these things.

It makes "sense" to me, in a sense...

[odysseus2000]

Regarding eye witness statements, very many have presented their stories to AARO and all have been dismissed as lacking proof.

So, no link and no evidence of that, just supposition.

Grusch has also put on record that he contacted Kirkpatrick over a year ago and has had no reply.

OTOH Kirkpatrick says "contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO."
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/pentagon-ufo-boss-congress-hearing-00108822

When you have hundreds volunteering evidence to AARO about their experience with uap and non-human intelligent creatures and AARO dismisses all of this as of not being credible evidence, even though many stories are consistent among many witness over many geographical locations then it does not require someone to write this on a web page to know what AARO's policy is.

If all the witness were of dubious character then one could understand the caution, but many are ex military who have been trained to the highest level possible in their observation and recording skills. Clearly it could be some mass conspiratorial hoax, but on the other hand it may be true. The truth is made more probable by those who claim to have experienced alien abductions showing physical signs such as unknown origin skin marks, radiation injury, pregnancies etc. All of these have been reported by DOD.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Science often limits a potential observable that has not been observed with a limit. For example the lifetime of the proton is experimentally known to be greater then 10^34 years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_ ... c%20nuclei.

Similarly it is possible to calculate the ratio of the (number of unexplained objects in the sky)/(number of explained objects in the sky) & to say that the chance of uap existing is < than this ratio. This is something AARO like to quote as it’s a small number & supports their prejudice that uap do not exist. If they can show that there are no unexplained objects then the case for uap goes away.

This appears nonsensical. Of course UAPs "exist". Every time somebody sees something that they cannot identify, it is an UAP.

You must mean something else: That "UAPs" are extra-terrestrial. But not being able to identify something is not and cannot be evidence of anything. Other than evidence somebody has failed to identify something.

By contrast those who believe that there are uap focus on the unexplained objects & want the dod to release the information they have so that more accurate measurements can be used to set limits on the uap flight characteristics & probability of existing etc.

Again, to me this is meaningless:

1. The DoD doesn't have any such evidence to give.

2. The DoD does have evidence of UAPs - that is, evidence of non identified phenomenon. Since it is unidentified it would not be possible to give definite data about "flight characteristics". As that would require identifying a flying object in the first place...

A lot of this makes no sense to any scientist seeking to know the truth of these things.

It makes "sense" to me, in a sense...

Very many people report having high resolution data and images of the UAP in various wavelengths including optical, radar and infra-red and that this was all confiscated by unknown DOD folk or in some cases unmarked bipeds.

Prior to the more recent data from the the phased array radar data there were numerous high resolution photographs taken.

If this is all meaningless DOD could get rid of much of the concerns of folk who are uap believers by disclosing what they have to folk in the government who have the appropriate security clearance, helped by similar cleared physicists from other programs who have not been read into the UAP stuff to assist with their interpretation.

Instead DOD insist that none of the data can be released, just as they also refuse to release some of the papers connected with the President Kennedy Assassination.

Grusch, under oath, has said there has been extensive analysis of the tic-tac data by DOD, but it has all been kept secret.

What is the point of all these cover ups and refusals?

Regards,

[mc2fool]

When you have hundreds volunteering evidence to AARO about their experience with uap and non-human intelligent creatures and AARO dismisses all of this as of not being credible evidence, even though many stories are consistent among many witness over many geographical locations then it does not require someone to write this on a web page to know what AARO's policy is.

Wrong. Dismissing evidence as not credible is an active, explicit, overt decision and as such has to have been stated. Otherwise how do you know it's been dismissed and the reason for it?

So, in which report and/or public statement have AARO stated that they have dismissed such evidence as not being credible? LINK PLEASE.

The truth is made more probable by those who claim to have experienced alien abductions showing physical signs such as unknown origin skin marks, radiation injury, pregnancies etc.

Oh right. Aliens are abducting women in order to have sex with/inseminate them. At least, that's what some pregnant women have claimed. Right.

[odysseus2000]

When you have hundreds volunteering evidence to AARO about their experience with uap and non-human intelligent creatures and AARO dismisses all of this as of not being credible evidence, even though many stories are consistent among many witness over many geographical locations then it does not require someone to write this on a web page to know what AARO's policy is.

Wrong. Dismissing evidence as not credible is an active, explicit, overt decision and as such has to have been stated. Otherwise how do you know it's been dismissed and the reason for it?

So, in which report and/or public statement have AARO stated that they have dismissed such evidence as not being credible? LINK PLEASE.

The truth is made more probable by those who claim to have experienced alien abductions showing physical signs such as unknown origin skin marks, radiation injury, pregnancies etc.

Oh right. Aliens are abducting women in order to have sex with/inseminate them. At least, that's what some pregnant women have claimed. Right.

If you need to have explicit statements about what someone or some organisation is doing you will find investment and trading difficult. One has to front run based upon what is being done and by listening to what the folk(s) running the enterprise say and making deductions from such observations.

Grusch and several others have made statements, some under oath, that they approached AARO and did not have their verbal accounts considered as evidence.

The argument for unexpected pregnancies in women is a long one going back decades. It was for a long time considered baloney, but then detailed medical examinations supported the claims of the women. In some cases abductions and pregnancies have gone on for generations in the same family. I have no idea if this is all fiction, I am simply reporting what DoD & others have said:

https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electroni ... Id/170026/

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

UK silent on uap:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/u ... t-30583750

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

George Knapp 4 page letter to congress with some interesting comments from the Russian military that are similar to what the UK MoD said and how they also advised air crew:

https://twitter.com/UAPJames/status/168 ... 05057?s=20

Regards,

[mc2fool]

If you need to have explicit statements about what someone or some organisation is doing you will find investment and trading difficult. One has to front run based upon what is being done and by listening to what the folk(s) running the enterprise say and making deductions from such observations.

Fine. What "observations" have you made your "deductions" from for...

"When you have hundreds volunteering evidence to AARO about their experience with uap and non-human intelligent creatures... "

What is your evidence that "hundreds" have given evidence to AARO on those topics?

"... and AARO dismisses all of this ..."

What is your evidence that AARO have dismissed all of it (as opposed to not yet having analysed them or included them all in a report)?

"... as of not being credible evidence ..."

What is your evidence that, if they have been dismissed, that they have been so as not being credible evidence (as opposed to any other reason)?

The argument for unexpected pregnancies in women is a long one going back decades.

In one case, at least 2000 years according to one set of beliefs!

It was for a long time considered baloney, but then detailed medical examinations supported the claims of the women. In some cases abductions and pregnancies have gone on for generations in the same family. I have no idea if this is all fiction, I am simply reporting what DoD & others have said:

https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electroni ... Id/170026/

It doesn't take a "detailed medical examination" to confirm a woman is pregnant -- unless you are claiming that such examinations have incontrovertibly found the woman to be carrying a non-fully-human foetus and/or gave birth to a non-fully-human. I won't bother asking if you have any evidence for this as if you have no idea if it's all fiction then clearly you don't.

However, the DoD report you linked to makes no mention of any of that other than just listing that out of 356 "selected cases" there was one "unaccounted-for pregnancy", with no other comment or detail whatsoever.

[odysseus2000]

If you need to have explicit statements about what someone or some organisation is doing you will find investment and trading difficult. One has to front run based upon what is being done and by listening to what the folk(s) running the enterprise say and making deductions from such observations.

Fine. What "observations" have you made your "deductions" from for...

"When you have hundreds volunteering evidence to AARO about their experience with uap and non-human intelligent creatures... "

What is your evidence that "hundreds" have given evidence to AARO on those topics?

"... and AARO dismisses all of this ..."

What is your evidence that AARO have dismissed all of it (as opposed to not yet having analysed them or included them all in a report)?

"... as of not being credible evidence ..."

What is your evidence that, if they have been dismissed, that they have been so as not being credible evidence (as opposed to any other reason)?

The argument for unexpected pregnancies in women is a long one going back decades.

In one case, at least 2000 years according to one set of beliefs!

It was for a long time considered baloney, but then detailed medical examinations supported the claims of the women. In some cases abductions and pregnancies have gone on for generations in the same family. I have no idea if this is all fiction, I am simply reporting what DoD & others have said:

https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electroni ... Id/170026/

It doesn't take a "detailed medical examination" to confirm a woman is pregnant -- unless you are claiming that such examinations have incontrovertibly found the woman to be carrying a non-fully-human foetus and/or gave birth to a non-fully-human. I won't bother asking if you have any evidence for this as if you have no idea if it's all fiction then clearly you don't.

However, the DoD report you linked to makes no mention of any of that other than just listing that out of 356 "selected cases" there was one "unaccounted-for pregnancy", with no other comment or detail whatsoever.

There are many sources of information that I peruse.

I don't take detailed notes of everything and prefer to get a feel for what is going on by considering many sources. When I start to hear the same stories from multiple people I weigh what these folk refer to more that when it is just single source.

Anyone who puts in the hours has access to the same information. I just convey the gist of what I have learned.

As I have repeatedly said I do not have the access of an insider and if I had I would not dare make any comments due to NDA (none disclosure agreements etc.) if I had.

What I am looking for is the pieces that I can use to try and put together this complicated and fragmented jigsaw which I consider to be the most important scientific puzzle ever.

Regards,

[mc2fool]

There are many sources of information that I peruse.

I don't take detailed notes of everything and prefer to get a feel for what is going on by considering many sources. When I start to hear the same stories from multiple people I weigh what these folk refer to more that when it is just single source.

Anyone who puts in the hours has access to the same information. I just convey the gist of what I have learned.

Oh right. "I can't give you any evidence but I know what I know, so trust me." Right.

[odysseus2000]

There are many sources of information that I peruse.

I don't take detailed notes of everything and prefer to get a feel for what is going on by considering many sources. When I start to hear the same stories from multiple people I weigh what these folk refer to more that when it is just single source.

Anyone who puts in the hours has access to the same information. I just convey the gist of what I have learned.

Oh right. "I can't give you any evidence but I know what I know, so trust me." Right.

Not at all.

If you think I am wrong then fine.

I am not here to tell anyone what to think.

If you can find evidence that shows I am wrong, then even better.

Similarly if I don’t agree with you I will likely say so & why, but the why may only be circumstantial, an inference drawn from my studies.

This is a huge field, full of potential charlatans & bereft of hard evidence. One can either ignore it all & wait for confirmation or dismissal or one can peruse the many accounts & attempt to gain understanding. The most difficult things to evaluate are from those who are not articulate but had some kind of observation or experience. It is easy to dismiss such folk, but an ensemble with similar claims becomes more likely indicative of something or of deliberate seeding of misinformation.

Not so long ago anyone saying they had seen a ufo was dismissed as a crank. Now those cranks have been shown to be right.

Regards,

[XFool]

I am not here to tell anyone what to think.

If you can find evidence that shows I am wrong, then even better.

But this seems to be a continuing issue here. It isn't for anyone to prove alien craft don't exist, it's for those who claim they do to produce the evidence that they do. This is inherently not a symmetric situation.

Similarly if I don’t agree with you I will likely say so & why, but the why may only be circumstantial, an inference drawn from my studies.

This is a huge field, full of potential charlatans & bereft of hard evidence.

Well yes, indeed. Lots of words, lots of reports, but no hard evidence of anything at all, after all this time.

One can either ignore it all & wait for confirmation or dismissal or one can peruse the many accounts & attempt to gain understanding.

Or draw one's own conclusions.

Not so long ago anyone saying they had seen a ufo was dismissed as a crank. Now those cranks have been shown to be right.

Right about what? I don't doubt lots have people have seen things they cannot explain or understand - it is the conclusion that some draw from this I am disputing. You cannot draw any useful or valid conclusions from ignorance.

[mc2fool]

There are many sources of information that I peruse.

I don't take detailed notes of everything and prefer to get a feel for what is going on by considering many sources. When I start to hear the same stories from multiple people I weigh what these folk refer to more that when it is just single source.

Oh right. "I can't give you any evidence but I know what I know, so trust me." Right.

Not at all.

If you think I am wrong then fine.

I am not here to tell anyone what to think.

If you can find evidence that shows I am wrong, then even better.

Nobody can assess if you are right or wrong because you have given no evidence for me or anyone else reading this thread to examine to make the assessment. It's not for me/us to try and find evidence that shows you are wrong but for you to provide evidence to support your claims, but all we get is your "feel for what is going on". Fine, you have a feel, but without presented evidence we can only feel that it's a yet to be substantiated parti pris.

Not so long ago anyone saying they had seen a ufo was dismissed as a crank. Now those cranks have been shown to be right.

No, people saying they'd seen an unidentified flying object were making a simple statement of fact. It was the ones that made the leap into claiming that they were alien spaceships that were considered cranks -- and they have not (as yet) been shown to be right!

[CliffEdge]

Oh right. "I can't give you any evidence but I know what I know, so trust me." Right.

Not at all.

If you think I am wrong then fine.

I am not here to tell anyone what to think.

If you can find evidence that shows I am wrong, then even better.

Similarly if I don’t agree with you I will likely say so & why, but the why may only be circumstantial, an inference drawn from my studies.

This is a huge field, full of potential charlatans & bereft of hard evidence. One can either ignore it all & wait for confirmation or dismissal or one can peruse the many accounts & attempt to gain understanding. The most difficult things to evaluate are from those who are not articulate but had some kind of observation or experience. It is easy to dismiss such folk, but an ensemble with similar claims becomes more likely indicative of something or of deliberate seeding of misinformation.

Not so long ago anyone saying they had seen a ufo was dismissed as a crank. Now those cranks have been shown to be right.

Regards,

Right about what? You try to present yourself as an objective, open minded inquirer after the truth. You fail.
Your basic belief is that UFOs are aliens. You try to hide that this where you are coming from but you don't succeed.
I suspect that all your posts on all your threads are a waste of Fools' time. Make them more humorous and I'd enjoy them more and they'd have more value. If you find that difficult, and I know that it can be for some people, at least try. You will gain respect for trying.