Sometimes I pride myself on my taking an intellectual strategy of tackling neglected important questions. However, one indicator of a topic being neglected is that it seems low status; people who discuss it are ridiculed, and their intellectual ability doubted. Thus my strategy risks lowering my status.
S: Loring AFB and the follow-ups at other AFBs from Halloween 1975 into the following summer; Lonnie Zamora
S-: The events in UFOs and Nukes, see 2010 press conference; 10/25/17 northwest US mystery airplane; I guess Pinecastle
A: Calvine, JAL flight 1628, first part/craft of Phoenix Lights, Roswell (I mean, you said 'hardest-to-explain," and the USAF was still issuing official explanations and wrapping up investigations 50 years afterwards, so I think it qualifies)B+: Shag Harbor, Battle of Los AngelesB: Rendlesham, Ariel School, Belgian UFO wave, Falcon Lake
And see Tyler Rogoway's recent piece at thedrive.com to see why things like the 2019 USN drone encounters, Gimbal, Go Fast, etc. don't make the list.
Essentially I agree but I'm a bit queasy about that falsifiability claim you make. No Robin isn't going to wake up and change his mind in an instant as I might if aliens decloaked at Whitehouse but he could certainly wake up to evidence against it and if he goes looking he could find some attempts as explanation. Now there is surely a psychological availability bias here in that it's often hard to link up and remember many small pieces of evidence.
I think a big part of the issue here is exactly that because so few people take it seriously the quality of the explanations and the number that are ever explained will be lower than one might expect. At least with Bigfoot it's easier for amateurs to go generate negative ecidence and show their theory it was a beat or whatever plausible. You want to show something was plausibly some kind of effect of atmospheric. phenomena and you may need a plane and pile of grant money to investigate.
Yes, I agree and that's the point. We can be quite confident the Bigfoot sightings are all bullshit and use it to get some kind of baseline for people seeing weird shit that seems to conform to some interesting speculation.
I've started looking at the pentagon ufo leak you tweeted and while I'm not done so far my reaction has been: that's weird and something I don't understand is going on but the ones I've seen so far don't really strike me as behaving in ways that make sense even for a disguised alien craft. Maybe there are others that will change my mind but my reaction is mostly: I don't take the fact I and others don't know what it is as much evidence of anything but the fact the world contains lots of weird phenomenon that are often hard to explain even when you can reproduce them... like wtf is ball lighting.. if that can be real why not other weird psychological or physical phenomenon?
You yourself are saying that because these sightings violate known physics, they must be alien. I think the vastly more probably explanation is they must be errors or sensor artifacts. If they DID behave in a physically plausible way I'd be more inclined to believe they're alien.
It's all just part of the simulation. We only think we're sentient beings with free will. They've even programmed restrictions into the laws of physics to keep us from us knowing the true nature of our existence - or non-existence.
Stupid question: could technology be hacked so as to show UFOs where none exist? Do we have technology-independent evidence?
I should have included the Hessdalen lights in there in the S tier. And Pentyrch somewhere lower.
S+ tier: Nimitz
S: Loring AFB and the follow-ups at other AFBs from Halloween 1975 into the following summer; Lonnie Zamora
S-: The events in UFOs and Nukes, see 2010 press conference; 10/25/17 northwest US mystery airplane; I guess Pinecastle
A: Calvine, JAL flight 1628, first part/craft of Phoenix Lights, Roswell (I mean, you said 'hardest-to-explain," and the USAF was still issuing official explanations and wrapping up investigations 50 years afterwards, so I think it qualifies)B+: Shag Harbor, Battle of Los AngelesB: Rendlesham, Ariel School, Belgian UFO wave, Falcon Lake
And see Tyler Rogoway's recent piece at thedrive.com to see why things like the 2019 USN drone encounters, Gimbal, Go Fast, etc. don't make the list.
Essentially I agree but I'm a bit queasy about that falsifiability claim you make. No Robin isn't going to wake up and change his mind in an instant as I might if aliens decloaked at Whitehouse but he could certainly wake up to evidence against it and if he goes looking he could find some attempts as explanation. Now there is surely a psychological availability bias here in that it's often hard to link up and remember many small pieces of evidence.
I think a big part of the issue here is exactly that because so few people take it seriously the quality of the explanations and the number that are ever explained will be lower than one might expect. At least with Bigfoot it's easier for amateurs to go generate negative ecidence and show their theory it was a beat or whatever plausible. You want to show something was plausibly some kind of effect of atmospheric. phenomena and you may need a plane and pile of grant money to investigate.
Yes, I agree and that's the point. We can be quite confident the Bigfoot sightings are all bullshit and use it to get some kind of baseline for people seeing weird shit that seems to conform to some interesting speculation.
I've started looking at the pentagon ufo leak you tweeted and while I'm not done so far my reaction has been: that's weird and something I don't understand is going on but the ones I've seen so far don't really strike me as behaving in ways that make sense even for a disguised alien craft. Maybe there are others that will change my mind but my reaction is mostly: I don't take the fact I and others don't know what it is as much evidence of anything but the fact the world contains lots of weird phenomenon that are often hard to explain even when you can reproduce them... like wtf is ball lighting.. if that can be real why not other weird psychological or physical phenomenon?
Yes, time-travel is FAR harder than doing what the Tic Tac seemed to do.
https://twitter.com/bigjosh...
I will advise my children to deliver the payment to you on my death if the question is still open. Good luck!
This list of sightings says there have been almost none since 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Very suspicious
Also, with smartphones now being ubiquitous, shouldn't we have loads and loads of smartphone videos of UFOs if they are real?
"time-travel seems impossible without crazy extreme physics"
Less so than whatever method of propulsion was being utilized by e.g. the Tic Tac?
Also I don't understand why Da implies remarkable incompetence on the part of our government.
I just sent a recommendation to their guest booker, and others should too. https://www.joerogan.com/co...
I don't have a 3rd party to offer. But we should exchange info on our identities and contact info.
You yourself are saying that because these sightings violate known physics, they must be alien. I think the vastly more probably explanation is they must be errors or sensor artifacts. If they DID behave in a physically plausible way I'd be more inclined to believe they're alien.
Regarding the ranking of alternatives in the Twitter poll: Condorcet's Paradox, anyone?
Socorro, Nimitz, a couple others
It's all just part of the simulation. We only think we're sentient beings with free will. They've even programmed restrictions into the laws of physics to keep us from us knowing the true nature of our existence - or non-existence.