In this post I complained that three pundits took UFOs “seriously” mainly by talking “only about the fact that other people seem to be taking UFOs as aliens seriously.” Tyler Cowen pointed out to me, correctly, that I haven’t given him sufficient credit, as I just quoted from his Bloomberg column, but not from
I think Brian Holtz's similar argument in these comments is correct, but your argument is not correct, because you have unrealistic standards for "clear."
You can calibrate your expectations for phone cameras by using your own phone camera. For many purposes it is much worse than the naked eye. Take pictures and movies of the horizon, of planes, of the moon, of planes at night.
The quality is often not great, but having a second independent camera from a different vantage point eliminates huge swaths of possible explanations.
I'm shocked that the UAPTF report did not give a breakdown of how many sensors recorded various incidents, especially for the 18 that "appear" to involve unusual movement.
I should investigate more. Everybody is so focused on tic-tac, gofast, etc., that I didn't watch many recent videos beyond these famous ones. Can you share links to the videos you find most suggestive?
I'm not at all convinced that those three events are typical. But it could be interesting to see the distribution over the quality of those films. How many are posted for public review?
I was hoping you would address my point about how you reconcile your "huge volume of sightings" claim with the fact that none of these observers seemed to remember to take out their phones. This is a very serious problem for any "UAPs are aliens" theory, and I hope you stop ignoring it.
Fishermen have phones and generally know how to turn on the camera. Witness credibility and authority wouldn't matter if even a single person just filmed a clear video. Absent that, the "hugeness" of the volume of witnesses actually undermines the case that UAPs are aliens, given that none of them filmed it. By comparison, almost no human had ever seen an albino giraffe. In any case, the number is far from "huge." And yet, amazingly clear and distinct pictures of albino giraffes are easy to find.
In the video of "top 10 UFOs filmed from planes", four looked like cases where the person saw the phenomenon and only then -- and only they -- took out a camera to film it. Contrast this with multiple cameras capturing each of: the 2009 Sully landing in the Hudson, the 2013 meteor in Russia, and the 2020 Iran airliner shootdown. Sure, there are plenty of identified aerial phenomena with only one camera on them, but alien UAP are supernaturally talented at boycotting multi-camera situations.
I predict that alien craft will never be convincingly captured by our sensor grid no matter how much it keeps improving. And because our sensor grid will always have edges and gaps, I predict we will always have believers in Aliens of the Gaps.
How many windows in a plane are being filmed in video out of at any one time? I expect two cameras going at once is rare, no matter what is happening outside the window.
You seem to be unaware of the huge volume of sightings, from fishing vessels and much more. The US Navy is only the focus now because of their more integrated data collection and higher social authority.
Your point (1) is so obvious I don't see how Tyler doesn't get it. But his not getting it explains his comment about immortality. He thinks the aliens are still biological and so send "unmanned drone probes" on millennia-long missions. He thinks the missions would be "manned" only if the alien "men" were long-lived.
I agree with your point (6), and don't understand how anyone well-versed in Fermi Paradox literature can think the galaxy is bustling with multiple civilizations all independently deciding not to be grabby.
I don't see Tyler saying alien UFO behaviors are random. Maybe that's an implication from his naive assertion that they are relatively dumb surveillance drones. I agree with lump1 that if UFOs are alien then their behavior is the exact opposite of random or dumb. Instead, they have a bizarre motive and magical ability to stay exactly in the Low Information Zone of our sensor grid.
For example, they magically avoid being filmed by more than one smartphone/dashcam/FLIR-pod/security-cam/traffic-cam/doorbell-cam. This ESP-like ability seems more technologically advanced than their alleged hyper-G/hypersonic aerospace tech. E.g. the compilation you tweeted of UAPs filmed from smartphones through airliner windows. How did the aliens know that only one smartphone per airliner would be able to film them? A single multi-recorded UAP would be more persuasive than the rest of the compilation combined. Were there other angles that the compiler didn't bother to include? That would be like the Mellon/Elizondo claims that the leaked Navy videos aren't the best ones.
So why would UFOs be casually putting around in restricted Navy airspace miles out to sea from San Diego, but never actually fly over San Diego itself? (Relevant to your point 5) If this is about revealing themselves to us, how do we model their preference for streaking US Navy brahs (as opposed to, say, UCSD professors and students)? I know there may be militaries in other countries that may have had UAP sightings and classified them, but that's just it: Why do they visit only the people with the power to classify their observations? If UAPs are aliens then this could not be a random pattern. One clear iphone video from a stray fishing boat and their jig would be up, and yet this hasn't happened. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is entitled to the belief that UAPs are aliens without having an explanation for this pattern of where and by whom UAPs are observed, and why no clear recordings of them exist unclassified in a world with billions of great cameras. It doesn't have to be a great explanation, but I'm genuinely curious about how you think this is best reconciled. Do you think they know us so well that they can perfectly forecast where they can go without being recorded on clear video?
I continue to try and understand the logical steps between 'they don't actively communicate with us' to 'we hardly matter to them.'
If mattering to them means that we are significant in a way that could threaten them, then obviously not. If mattering means that they have deigned to reveal their presence, then yes, we do matter to them.
I'm inclined to believe that this is a 'gut feeling' that we just have different views on, but perhaps they're irrelevant semantics? I agree with your other points, except for 7 which I just don't fully understand yet (my problem, not yours!).
I think Brian Holtz's similar argument in these comments is correct, but your argument is not correct, because you have unrealistic standards for "clear."
You can calibrate your expectations for phone cameras by using your own phone camera. For many purposes it is much worse than the naked eye. Take pictures and movies of the horizon, of planes, of the moon, of planes at night.
The 3 events I mentioned are all on YouTube.
2009 Sully landing: 4 cameras https://www.youtube.com/wat...
2013 Russia meteor: >20 cameras: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
2020 Iran airline shootdown: >4 cameras: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
The quality is often not great, but having a second independent camera from a different vantage point eliminates huge swaths of possible explanations.
I'm shocked that the UAPTF report did not give a breakdown of how many sensors recorded various incidents, especially for the 18 that "appear" to involve unusual movement.
I should investigate more. Everybody is so focused on tic-tac, gofast, etc., that I didn't watch many recent videos beyond these famous ones. Can you share links to the videos you find most suggestive?
I'm not at all convinced that those three events are typical. But it could be interesting to see the distribution over the quality of those films. How many are posted for public review?
They DO film what they see. You just have unrealistic standards for "clear".
I was hoping you would address my point about how you reconcile your "huge volume of sightings" claim with the fact that none of these observers seemed to remember to take out their phones. This is a very serious problem for any "UAPs are aliens" theory, and I hope you stop ignoring it.
Fishermen have phones and generally know how to turn on the camera. Witness credibility and authority wouldn't matter if even a single person just filmed a clear video. Absent that, the "hugeness" of the volume of witnesses actually undermines the case that UAPs are aliens, given that none of them filmed it. By comparison, almost no human had ever seen an albino giraffe. In any case, the number is far from "huge." And yet, amazingly clear and distinct pictures of albino giraffes are easy to find.
https://marginalrevolution....
What is "Mood affiliation"?
Upon rereading I see that you are summarizing his point. My apologies.
In the video of "top 10 UFOs filmed from planes", four looked like cases where the person saw the phenomenon and only then -- and only they -- took out a camera to film it. Contrast this with multiple cameras capturing each of: the 2009 Sully landing in the Hudson, the 2013 meteor in Russia, and the 2020 Iran airliner shootdown. Sure, there are plenty of identified aerial phenomena with only one camera on them, but alien UAP are supernaturally talented at boycotting multi-camera situations.
I predict that alien craft will never be convincingly captured by our sensor grid no matter how much it keeps improving. And because our sensor grid will always have edges and gaps, I predict we will always have believers in Aliens of the Gaps.
How many windows in a plane are being filmed in video out of at any one time? I expect two cameras going at once is rare, no matter what is happening outside the window.
You seem to be unaware of the huge volume of sightings, from fishing vessels and much more. The US Navy is only the focus now because of their more integrated data collection and higher social authority.
Your point (1) is so obvious I don't see how Tyler doesn't get it. But his not getting it explains his comment about immortality. He thinks the aliens are still biological and so send "unmanned drone probes" on millennia-long missions. He thinks the missions would be "manned" only if the alien "men" were long-lived.
I agree with your point (6), and don't understand how anyone well-versed in Fermi Paradox literature can think the galaxy is bustling with multiple civilizations all independently deciding not to be grabby.
I don't see Tyler saying alien UFO behaviors are random. Maybe that's an implication from his naive assertion that they are relatively dumb surveillance drones. I agree with lump1 that if UFOs are alien then their behavior is the exact opposite of random or dumb. Instead, they have a bizarre motive and magical ability to stay exactly in the Low Information Zone of our sensor grid.
For example, they magically avoid being filmed by more than one smartphone/dashcam/FLIR-pod/security-cam/traffic-cam/doorbell-cam. This ESP-like ability seems more technologically advanced than their alleged hyper-G/hypersonic aerospace tech. E.g. the compilation you tweeted of UAPs filmed from smartphones through airliner windows. How did the aliens know that only one smartphone per airliner would be able to film them? A single multi-recorded UAP would be more persuasive than the rest of the compilation combined. Were there other angles that the compiler didn't bother to include? That would be like the Mellon/Elizondo claims that the leaked Navy videos aren't the best ones.
So why would UFOs be casually putting around in restricted Navy airspace miles out to sea from San Diego, but never actually fly over San Diego itself? (Relevant to your point 5) If this is about revealing themselves to us, how do we model their preference for streaking US Navy brahs (as opposed to, say, UCSD professors and students)? I know there may be militaries in other countries that may have had UAP sightings and classified them, but that's just it: Why do they visit only the people with the power to classify their observations? If UAPs are aliens then this could not be a random pattern. One clear iphone video from a stray fishing boat and their jig would be up, and yet this hasn't happened. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is entitled to the belief that UAPs are aliens without having an explanation for this pattern of where and by whom UAPs are observed, and why no clear recordings of them exist unclassified in a world with billions of great cameras. It doesn't have to be a great explanation, but I'm genuinely curious about how you think this is best reconciled. Do you think they know us so well that they can perfectly forecast where they can go without being recorded on clear video?
I didn't at all claim that we hardly matter to them, nor that their lack of talking is evidence of that.
I continue to try and understand the logical steps between 'they don't actively communicate with us' to 'we hardly matter to them.'
If mattering to them means that we are significant in a way that could threaten them, then obviously not. If mattering means that they have deigned to reveal their presence, then yes, we do matter to them.
I'm inclined to believe that this is a 'gut feeling' that we just have different views on, but perhaps they're irrelevant semantics? I agree with your other points, except for 7 which I just don't fully understand yet (my problem, not yours!).