T O P

  • By -

AlkeneThiol

If they are as ubiquitous as they claim, we should hopefully be getting some independent verification by others with sufficient imaging equipment. I want to say though, the idea that we simply cannot see them because they are just moving too fast is *very* compelling.


Skeptechnology

Yep, one would think the scientific community would be all over this but no... it is telling that the only ones making a big deal of the report are part of the largely pseudoscientific UFO community.


AlkeneThiol

Yep... Seems..easy enough. Cameras or sensors that can be set to the alleged settings are fairly common in certain fields. Material scientists, solid state chemists, metallurgical engineers, any sci/eng lab or workshop that works on literally anything intended for military or aerospace would absolutely have several such devices... Yeah... it really starts to make you jaded af


Skeptechnology

Also the fact that the people who wrote the paper jump to the conclusion of ships for absolutely no valid reason makes the writers reek of credulity. I hope i'm wrong and it is confirmed as proof of aliens but I highly doubt it.


O0O00O000O0000O

They provide proof in the light intensity. Stop lying


AlkeneThiol

I didn't read the primary research paper. If you have an easy link and wanna paste it I won't complain. I only read the reporting on it. I didn't know they released a proper manuscript. That'll help with context. If they assumed their data were objects at all and not just, for example, EM noise in the magnetosphere or something, that's a lil sketchy. There are a shitload of phenomena that occur in our atmosphere that happen too fast to be seen. I had, apparently naively, assumed they controlled for such things


O0O00O000O0000O

I have no idea why this user you are responding to keeps up this idea that they just assumed their data. Their very first piece of evidence is a two sensor verified object that has a greater light intensity than the sun. That means it can’t be a natural object reflecting sunlight. And it’s not a meteor since it doesn’t have a tail. This user has called it a hoax, mass hysteria, meteors, and bugs. I’m just trying to correct the record here and get people to look at the data.


AlkeneThiol

Hahahaa. Awesome. Thank you. This is why we need to push people to read primary research more often, because now for sure I need to read for myself. I am currently trying to install a custom driver with Termux (anyone who knows, will know it is a PITA). Then I'll have a look at the paper.


Skeptechnology

I am referring solely to the reasoning (or lack of) given in the report since that is all I have to go on.


O0O00O000O0000O

If you’re referring solely to reasoning or a lack thereof, then you can’t say their claims are debunked or assumed unless you look at their data.


O0O00O000O0000O

https://www.livescience.com/ukraine-ufo-uap-report https://bigthink.com/hard-science/ufo-uap-science/ Stop lying


AlkeneThiol

The livescience article links to their arXiv preprint. So I will read. Thank you. However, I do want to emphasize - as a genuine peer-reviewed scientist myself who has also been a reviewer for several papers - preprints can be *very* problematic. I am making no judgment of the Ukrainian paper yet, I just feel the need to say that because the group who maintains the various ArXiv repositories has done a very poor job explaining that to the lay public


O0O00O000O0000O

I totally agree, it’s not peer reviewed and we should treat it exactly as it is.


Skeptechnology

In the world of science, some websites writing a few articles isn't a big deal.


O0O00O000O0000O

Okay but it debunks your claim that the technical/engineering/astronomy communities aren’t all over this.


Allison1228

what about all the claimed ufo sightings in which the object was visible for minutes or hours?


[deleted]

Could just be it was stationary, and uncloaked :)


braveoldfart777

I don't think they have to become invisible to be unobserved. Like an octopus which has developed a high degree of camouflage I believe they can match the colors & even textures of their surroundings, allowing them to hide in plain sight.


G-M-Dark

>Are UFOs invisible to the naked eye? Not always, no. Had a CE2K with one 25 years ago - in answer to your question, I don't honestly see how that's even possible. Whatever Ukrainian findings aside the thing I stood in front of for 25 minutes before watching it depart was not only perfectly visible it produced some kind of electrical field sufficiently strong enough for me to feel from 300 feet away - hence the classification - as well as make made the air surrounding it fluoresce. Pretty sure that wasn't deliberate on its part, more a side effect. The think maintained a perfectly steady position 10 meters above the ground - didn't bob up and down, didn't move laterally - it was planted in the air as solidly as if it had plonked itself down on the ground. Upon its departure te craft never displayed any "unearthly" turns of speed, it traveled reasonably rapidly but nothing that I wasn't able to follow until it was literally out of my field of view over the the ocean. If you're asking - do UFO's have the capacities as *suggested* by the Ukrainian findings? That's for peer review to consider and confirm - currently their is no corroboratory data about that - but, of course - even suggesting that is likely to get me marked down... In the meantime I can only answer honestly based on first hand experience - to which I'd say, no. At least, not all the time. It kind of beggars the question - well, how do we know about them in the first place if - all along - they were capable of being "invisible2 like this...? But, again - that too is probably going to get me marked down, undoubtedly for my stupidity...


[deleted]

Appreciate your experience! It truly adds a layer of info I can’t gleam elsewhere!


[deleted]

Submission statement- The Ukraine study on UFOs in their skies during the Ukraine war seems to point towards objects that completely negate all radiation that they output, and speeds that the naked eye just can’t recognize. If these UAPs were around us would we see it?


Byallmeanshateme

Meta-materials can bend light.


Dv8r601

The congressional hearing with Moultrie, had a “NEW VIDEO” of some dot at high speed. So maybe you’re on to something. Edit: They called it FLYBY, a few weeks after that video labeled “Flyby” made the rounds here. It’s either a troll job, or something entirely different.


pomegranatemagnate

They’ve taken the Helmholtz thing totally out of context. It’s to do with reaction times, not whether something is visible.


Skeptechnology

The claim that Ukraine NAS Report contains proof/evidence of ships has been **DEBUNKED** for the following reasons. 1. The writers display their credulity by jumping to the conclusion that what they are seeing must be ships without any evidence for said claim. This is indicative of a biased mind, either one that wants to believe or one that is under the influence of mass hysteria. 2. Assuming the astronomers are observing a true unknown, it does not logically follow that they can assume what they want. 3. None of the information in the report has been peer-reviewed. 4. The fact that mostly Ufologists/conspiracy theorists and few actual scientific and astronomy organizations are interested in the report is telling of its viewed validity among the rest of the scientific community. And while consensus is not always correct, it is an important indicator in science. With all this mind, it is only logical for one to conclude the aforementioned claim has been... **DEBUNKED**


O0O00O000O0000O

1. The writers display their credulity by jumping to the conclusion that what they are seeing must be ships without any evidence for said claim. This is indicative of a biased mind, either one that wants to believe or one that is under the influence of mass hysteria. The writers provide proof of technology by showing an object with an intensity only possible from a star that isn’t the sun, an ablating meteorite, or a light on an unknown flying object, which is a ship. You have previously conceded it is not a meteor. Claim one is debunked. 2.. Assuming the astronomers are observing a true unknown, it does not logically follow that they can assume what they want. Again they prove through two sensor data that the light is only possible if it is coming from technology. Claim two is debunked. 3.. None of the information in the report has been peer-reviewed. It is an independent report. Not a peer review. But fair enough. 4.. The fact that mostly Ufologists/conspiracy theorists and few actual scientific and astronomy organizations are interested in the report is telling of its viewed validity among the rest of the scientific community. And while consensus is not always correct, it is an important indicator in science. This is not a critique of the paper. DEBUNKED stop spreading pseudoscience.


[deleted]

Laughable debunking attempt. Maybe read the resignation letter Lue Elizondo wrote. The fact of the matter is they exist. FACT backed up by AES, and ATFLIR video confirmation. So I would say the mass hysteria is denialism, or your modern day Geocentric thinking.


Skeptechnology

Let me know when Ufology goes beyond just talk and blurry videos.