Submitted by Gari_305 t3_11r3xnf in Futurology
CrelbowMannschaft t1_jc7vioz wrote
Reply to comment by No-Owl9201 in 'Highly Maneuverable' UFOs Defy All Physics, Says Government Study by Gari_305
Neither is at all likely. But one-- the alien hypothesis-- is positively outlandish. The other is a disturbing, frightening possibility. If we have widespread problems with these kinds of sensors on military aircraft, ships, and land-based systems, we need to undertake an overhaul of the technology and implementation.
InevitableGrand956 t1_jcc1yzd wrote
I’m curious how is it outlandish? There are far older solar systems then ours in our galaxy, and even older ones in other galaxies. I’m not saying you are wrong because the opposite hasn’t been proven either. All I’m saying is with how many stars and systems that are in our galaxy alone, the chances of a species of a highly intelligent and technologically advanced civilization is very likely.
CrelbowMannschaft t1_jcc3yy3 wrote
Kaz_55 t1_jccod90 wrote
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
while the chance should be very likely, the evidence we have so far doesn't support this. The question is why. We as a species are currently in the process of answering said question, i.e. rapid decline of our only known biosphere supporting higher forms of life, caused by your cited (rapid) advancement in technology without the ability of dealing with the pitfalls of said technologies.
What you are referring to is known as the Drake equation.
What we are currently experiencing is known as the Great Filter.
Kaz_55 t1_jccn72e wrote
> The other is a disturbing, frightening possibility. If we have widespread problems with these kinds of sensors[...]
But basically all of these reports are based on "edge of observability" cases. Which is also why the official report cites a lack of high quality data. These problems are inherent with any kind of sensor system and observations made using said system. Not to mention that as far as I am aware most cases aren't even down to sensor data but simply observers. "Overhauling" of these systems will at best shift the edge of observation, but not address the underlaying problem.
Case in point being the outlandish claims by pilots about "physics breaking" manouvers which are not supported by the actual videos being presented as evidence and observers being unable to correctly identify position lights on aircraft, let alone basic optics.
EDIT:
It seems like CrelbowMannschaft put me on their ignore list in order to prevent me from actually replying to this. I wonder why.
The official reports outright decry the lack of high quality data and that the nature of the employed sensor makes them ill-suited for the task they are put to here. They also list sensor malfunctions, observer misperception, airborne clutter as possible explanations. Given that the Pentagon had to admit that the only actual evidence that has been presented - the videos - show exactely that, and that the plethora of other "UFO" reports made by basically everyone aroudn the globe happen to be down to "edge of observability" issues (distance, speed, focus, etc.) and so far all reports ever made tunred out to be exllainable by mundane means when high quality data was available leads me to believe that this is, in fact, inherent to sensor or observer limitations and not in any way "disturbing" of "frightening" - apart from actual military observers (not combat pilots) being unable to identify collision lights.
CrelbowMannschaft t1_jccwtjy wrote
> But basically all of these reports are based on "edge of observability" cases.
Do you have a source for that? I haven't seen that phrase or others like it widely used in the official reporting.
>Not to mention that as far as I am aware most cases aren't even down to sensor data but simply observers.
Then your information is severely lacking.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments