60 minutes interviews USN pilots who saw a UFO

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its worth remembering, there was not one sentient being that emerged, it was two. There is evidence of interbreeding between neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, presumably non cooperative, but perhaps otherwise.Yes, neanderthal was inferior in many ways to Homo Sapiens, but perhaps if there had not been Humans, they may have gone the distance.

As for Dogs, mine can pick out a packet of polos at 20 feet. Truly when they figure out opposing thumbs we will have had our day.

[Rick]

15 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

While I'm not suggesting that it happened, if there had been tool-using lizard cavemen during the age of dinosaurs (or earlier), there's practically no way how we would discover proof or even hust convincing hints of such intelligent species.

We can only say with high confidence that our planetary biology produced at least one technological species. There are quite a number of tool-using species (Chimpanzees, Ravens, Otters and a few more), language-capable species (all Great Apes). Dogs have demonstrated a certain capability for abstract thought and understanding object concepts. We have barely begun to understand epigenetics-controlled intelligence (such as in Octopi). I'd argue that the chance for the emergence of intelligence in evolution is not one in billions, but at least a dozen in billions. Still not a super impressive ratio, but at least one order of magnitude better.

I'll be fully impressed with human intelligence understanding alien life when the following two things are explained.

1. What do women want?

2. What are cats thinking?

[DB]

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

They'll send Mimes.

Mines can be stopped cold by telling them you're behind a sheet of glass.

[Ivanhoe]

42 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its worth remembering, there was not one sentient being that emerged, it was two.

The number is an artifact of classification. By changing the class rules, one can make it 1, or 5.

There is evidence of interbreeding between neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, presumably non cooperative, but perhaps otherwise.

If you've ever been in a crowded bar at closing time, you would not put a lot of weight on your non-cooperative hypothesis.

Yes, neanderthal was inferior in many ways to Homo Sapiens, but perhaps if there had not been Humans, they may have gone the distance.

They certainly were built ruggedly enough to fend off reptilians, space clowns, etc. Your superiority assertion, however, smacks of speciesism. 

 

[RETAC21]

57 minutes ago, Rick said:

I'll be fully impressed with human intelligence understanding alien life when the following two things are explained.

1. What do women want?

2. What are cats thinking?

That can only be explained by the aplications of non-linear diferential equations applied to quantum mechanics, where no constants are known and all it's entirely possible that no solution exist. Both can be used to prove the existance/non-existance of God or aliens at the same time

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

While I'm not suggesting that it happened, if there had been tool-using lizard cavemen during the age of dinosaurs (or earlier), there's practically no way how we would discover proof or even hust convincing hints of such intelligent species.

We can only say with high confidence that our planetary biology produced at least one technological species. There are quite a number of tool-using species (Chimpanzees, Ravens, Otters and a few more), language-capable species (all Great Apes). Dogs have demonstrated a certain capability for abstract thought and understanding object concepts. We have barely begun to understand epigenetics-controlled intelligence (such as in Octopi). I'd argue that the chance for the emergence of intelligence in evolution is not one in billions, but at least a dozen in billions. Still not a super impressive ratio, but at least one order of magnitude better.

Using tools is but the first step, what we don't see if evidence that the dinosaurs ever made it to space (voluntarily, involuntarily through meteoroid propulsion, sure), which we would have found if they had.

But we can yet be surprised.

[R011]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its worth remembering, there was not one sentient being that emerged, it was two. There is evidence of interbreeding between neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, presumably non cooperative, but perhaps otherwise.Yes, neanderthal was inferior in many ways to Homo Sapiens, but perhaps if there had not been Humans, they may have gone the distance.

As for Dogs, mine can pick out a packet of polos at 20 feet. Truly when they figure out opposing thumbs we will have had our day.

There's no reason to suggest interbreeding was not as consensual as it was between Anglo Saxons and Celtic Britons nor does it seem Neanderthals were inferior in any meaningful respect to other contemporary Homo Sapiens.

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Classic Glenn dishonesty - Sure, there are species that are even older, none of them have developed intelligence, none of them has left the planet voluntarily, there's only one out of billions that have done it, so there's all the likeliness that there's one species or two (heck, even a 100) in the history of the Galaxy that has reached the same level. 

The galactic marathon theory in a nutshell is that the probable reason they would be here and not talking is because star faring species are much more common than you are thinking, and that the most potentially dangerous thing in the galaxy to an established star faring species is a new star faring species.  So, you sit at their home world and you keep them there.   Can't much send out any colony ships to other stars if every time you try to, a missile doing .1c obliterates it, right?

Edited May 26, 2021 by glenn239

[RETAC21]

24 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The galactic marathon theory in a nutshell is that the probable reason they would be here and not talking is because star faring species are much more common than you are thinking, and that the most potentially dangerous thing in the galaxy to an established star faring species is a new star faring species.  So, you sit at their home world and you keep them there.   Can't much send out any colony ships to other stars if every time you try to, a missile doing .1c obliterates it, right?

Wut? you have described dark forest theory but without following to its logical conclusion. The moment you see a civilization go into outer space, you squash it, because the rate at which it will advance is unknown and communications back home are complex enough.

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Wut? you have described dark forest theory but without following to its logical conclusion. The moment you see a civilization go into outer space, you squash it, because the rate at which it will advance is unknown and communications back home are complex enough.

Destroying us does not appear to be the intention, based on the fact that we're not dead.  Helping us also doesn't appear to be it either.  So they're watching us.   Not from "back home", but right here, in this solar system.  The implication from your point, taken through to its logical conclusion, is that total destruction is theoretically possible.

[RETAC21]

26 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Destroying us does not appear to be the intention, based on the fact that we're not dead.  Helping us also doesn't appear to be it either.  So they're watching us.   Not from "back home", but right here, in this solar system.  The implication from your point, taken through to its logical conclusion, is that total destruction is theoretically possible.

The Glenn fallacy strikes again. Maybe we are alive because nobody is watching us... wait, actually there's a probability of nearly 1 that nobody is watching us because there's no one else and the assurance that there's no one else in the solar system.

[Ssnake]

While I don't believe that "they" are "here" I can't help but notice that either theory rests on assumptions for which we have yet insufficient data. We cannot yet say with confidence that life is "rare" or "ubiquitous" in this universe. If we find organisms, no matter how primitive, in the oceans of the icy moons or some fossil remains of them on Mars then it would tilt the balance massively in favor of the assumption that life is a common phenomenon throughout the universe. Until then, life may very well be super rare.

(I don't think so, but who knows?)

I would not put the hurdle for intelligence so high as to say there has to be proof of space faring dinosaurs. A Neanderthal equivalent of dinosaurs would already demonstrate that the development of intelligence might happen more often than one might think if the sole metric is boot marks on the lunar surface. Tool use may only be one step towards a technological civilization. Practicing language may be the crucial step from biological to cultural evolution (which is orders of magnitude faster), and taming fire may then be the final critical step to provide bodies with a nutrient surplus that in turn allows brains to grow bigger and develop higher cognitive skills.

But cave men already had all this. Cro Magnon, and Homo Habilis put us on the trajectory to become space farers.

 

The point is, there's huge error bars with the assumptions how likely the development of higher intelligence is. Therefore a statement that the probability is "near 1" for "not being watched" is incomplete without giving a confidence level, and that is somewhere between .5 and .6 at best for all that we can say right now.

[MiloMorai]

[RETAC21]

9 hours ago, Ssnake said:

While I don't believe that "they" are "here" I can't help but notice that either theory rests on assumptions for which we have yet insufficient data. We cannot yet say with confidence that life is "rare" or "ubiquitous" in this universe. If we find organisms, no matter how primitive, in the oceans of the icy moons or some fossil remains of them on Mars then it would tilt the balance massively in favor of the assumption that life is a common phenomenon throughout the universe. Until then, life may very well be super rare.

(I don't think so, but who knows?)

I would not put the hurdle for intelligence so high as to say there has to be proof of space faring dinosaurs. A Neanderthal equivalent of dinosaurs would already demonstrate that the development of intelligence might happen more often than one might think if the sole metric is boot marks on the lunar surface. Tool use may only be one step towards a technological civilization. Practicing language may be the crucial step from biological to cultural evolution (which is orders of magnitude faster), and taming fire may then be the final critical step to provide bodies with a nutrient surplus that in turn allows brains to grow bigger and develop higher cognitive skills.

But cave men already had all this. Cro Magnon, and Homo Habilis put us on the trajectory to become space farers.

 

The point is, there's huge error bars with the assumptions how likely the development of higher intelligence is. Therefore a statement that the probability is "near 1" for "not being watched" is incomplete without giving a confidence level, and that is somewhere between .5 and .6 at best for all that we can say right now.

But that's not the point, "life" probably isn't rare, as the basic ingredients are common and there's enough time and energy for it to evolve.

Intelligence, if defined as using basic tools or language, is probably rare but not so much that you couldn't find it in another world if there's enough "life" (Whales and dolphins communicate, for example). 

Advanced "intelligence" such as that required tp develop a technological society capable of space travel however, is likely to be exceedingly rare to the single digit in a galaxy. Even if you take a sample of all the primate species, only 1 out of 447 species currently existing has been able to get to that hurdle, just barely. 

Over the lifespan of the galaxy, it's highly likely more than one species will reach this threshold, but given the looooong time the galaxy is around is nearly impossible that they develop at the same time and are not extinct by the time the next species reaches the threshold.

 

[glenn239]

18 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

The Glenn fallacy strikes again. Maybe we are alive because nobody is watching us... wait, actually there's a probability of nearly 1 that nobody is watching us because there's no one else and the assurance that there's no one else in the solar system.

So, the problem is, if no one is watching us, then what exactly is it that's pulling 800 gee maneuvers on Navy tracking radars off the coast of Virginia?  They've already checked the radars and they're functioning perfectly.  They're tracking them on multiple, independent sensors including hundreds of sets of mk1 eyeballs.  So, whatever it is, it's metallic and it's pulling 800 gees.  What do you propose it is?

Edited May 27, 2021 by glenn239

[RETAC21]

13 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

So, the problem is, if no one is watching us, then what exactly is it that's pulling 800 gee maneuvers on Navy tracking radars off the coast of Virginia?  They've already checked the radars and they're functioning perfectly.  They're tracking them on multiple, independent sensors including hundreds of sets of mk1 eyeballs.  So, whatever it is, it's metallic and it's pulling 800 gees.  What do you propose it is?

Glenn239's credulity, obviously

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Ssnake said:

While I don't believe that "they" are "here" I can't help but notice that either theory rests on assumptions for which we have yet insufficient data. We cannot yet say with confidence that life is "rare" or "ubiquitous" in this universe.

I've watched all sorts of programs with Neil deGrass Tyson or Brian Cox, amongst others, and they all seem to jump really fast to the "we are probably alone" hypothesis.  That's fine once or twice, but that doesn't tell us what's playing with the US Navy in the Atlantic, and its very unscientific for a bunch of scientists to go decades without once seriously treating these reports as real and conjuring up a real theory to account for them.  There is a powerful bias towards rejection, and bias is useless in any case where it's wrong.

In any case where there is insufficient data you evolve a model to cover each contingency.  RETAC21 is outlining the model to cover the "we are alone or almost alone" theory.  That's fine.  If we take that premise, then we can map out the galaxy and come up with all sorts of reasons why we are alone.  Then, over the next 10,000 years, we'll use science to fill in your point about "insufficient data" and come up with an increasingly tight hypothesis on why we are alone.

But if we are being watched, for real, then we need to generate the theory as to why that is the case.   All of RETAC21's explanations in this case will be completely useless.   There's never been a seriously credible scientific investigation of the UFO phenomenon from the Galactic Zoo angle.  But the variables required spill out here too.   Insufficient data, as you say, but we can make accurate guesses.  For example, I would guess that the reason we are not being talked to would be because the conversation would go something like this,

ET - Hi, we're from the other side of the galaxy.  Not saying which way, but from out there.

Human - Cool.  Give us your technology.

ET - Um, no.  

Human - C'mon.  Ignore all those wars of aggression anytime we realize the enemy is weak.  Just give us your technology.

ET - How about this instead.  You stay the fuck on your little rock, kill each other or don't, and don't even think of leaving this solar system, and in return that planet killing missile we have in stasis out beyond Pluto can stay in stasis.  Sounds good?

 

 

 

[glenn239]

11 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Glenn239's credulity, obviously

So the answer to my question to you of what it is you think those US Navy radars are tracking that has caused the main stream media to start telling everyone that UFO's might be real, is that you start trolling?

 

[RETAC21]

Just now, glenn239 said:

So the answer to my question to you of what it is you think those US Navy radars are tracking that has caused the main stream media to start telling everyone that UFO's might be real, is that you start trolling?

 

Interestingly, there's no source that mentions this radar thing you claim... there are interviews with pilot that saw things they didn't know what they were but that doesn't mean anything else than... they didn't know what they saw. Go back a few pages to see how an alien mothership "watched by HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AND TRACKED BY RADAR AND OPTICS OMG!!" turned out to be... a rocket stage re-entering over Hawaii.

So yes, the only thing doing 800 g's here is your credulity.

[glenn239]

Just now, RETAC21 said:

Interestingly, there's no source that mentions this radar thing you claim... there are interviews with pilot that saw things they didn't know what they were but that doesn't mean anything else than... they didn't know what they saw. Go back a few pages to see how an alien mothership "watched by HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE AND TRACKED BY RADAR AND OPTICS OMG!!" turned out to be... a rocket stage re-entering over Hawaii.

So yes, the only thing doing 800 g's here is your credulity.

Um, no sunshine, the US Navy is saying that shit is pulling 800 gees on their radar systems.  

Anyways, you're clearly starting to go on tilt here so let's wait and see what the report says.  If it's that UFO's are probably real, I'll keep an eye out for some South American cult you can join that denies it.  If it's that UFO's are not real I'll shrug and move onto other stuff in about 2 seconds.

[RETAC21]

Just now, glenn239 said:

Um, no sunshine, the US Navy is saying that shit is pulling 800 gees on their radar systems.  

Source?

[Der Zeitgeist]

40 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

So, the problem is, if no one is watching us, then what exactly is it that's pulling 800 gee maneuvers on Navy tracking radars off the coast of Virginia?  They've already checked the radars and they're functioning perfectly.  They're tracking them on multiple, independent sensors including hundreds of sets of mk1 eyeballs.  So, whatever it is, it's metallic and it's pulling 800 gees.  What do you propose it is?

All of the various videos that were provided with the 60 Minutes piece (most of which were released some time ago already) have been explained several times to be pretty mundane optical or aerial phenomena. I've posted some videos with explanations already.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Der Zeitgeist

[Der Zeitgeist]

This article by Mick West gives a good overview of the various videos and their mundane, non-exotic explanations:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/26/ufo-sightings-why-federal-reports-probably-wont-point-aliens/7426795002/

[alternative link in case of paywall:]
https://news.yahoo.com/aliens-havent-landed-why-skeptical-090251254.html

Edited May 27, 2021 by Der Zeitgeist

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

All of the various videos that were provided with the 60 Minutes piece (most of which were released some time ago already) have been explained several times to be pretty mundane optical or aerial phenomena. I've posted some videos with explanations already.

Let's just wait and see what the US military report is.   It's coming out in a couple weeks.    

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Here is the point. Those objects might be 'real', they might pull 50g manoeuvers. They might display apparent intelligence. But until someone provides some evidence they are 'alien', which is complete supposition, then its unproven.  I think many of these objects are real, but there is an explanation for them that is not alien in origin. We know that, because after 70 years of the buggers invading our airspace, not once has it ever been demonstrated to be the case.

In the 18th Century they were Ghost Lights. In the 1880's they were Ghost Airships. In the 1910's they were Ghost Zeppelins. In the 1930's they were Ghost planes. In the 1940's they were Ghost Rockets. In the 1950's they were flying Saucers. All these are explanations that were not obviously the truth, or people would not have moved on from them at some point. So if its not any of these, then why does anyone think that they must, inevitably, be aliens because they have no other explanation?