Why are we not letting scientists handle this matter?
Probably hard pressed to find any reputable scientist who wants to waste their time debunking trivial bullshit.
Right now the US military and NASA is in agreement that UAPs exist, there’s thousands of citizens interested in UAPs/NHI, yet not a single scientist in the past 75 years wanted to find the answer to what these UAPs are?
Science in itself is debunking trivial bullshit until you find a rock solid solution and right now we don’t have a solution.
The answer? You think there is only one? UAPs are a hodgepodge of anomalies. They’re not a single phenomenon. There are people in various fields who would and do study them. Odd things on a radar will certainly be of interest to radar manufacturers for exqmple.
But we all know what people mean by UFOs, er., UAPs. “I’m not saying it’s aliens. But it’s aliens…”
Spoiler: it’s not aliens.
I think NASA’s and the wider scientific community’s stance on this is less “Not a chance.” and more “If you really want us to look into this, you have to fund it.” No one is volunteering to be the official “It’s not aliens.” guy and get death threats from conspiracy theorists and shit.
And the question for us should be “How much tax money should we spend on this?” rather than “Do we want an answer?”
But do we really want an answer?
I want an answer but not from scientists. I want to know about the people who believe the aliens crash landed and the government has the spaceship. So, they have the technology to bend space and time at will or at least avoid micro-meteors the whole way. But then they get to Earth and fly directly into a tree?
If the bullshit was really some new atmospheric disturbance or anamoly, I’m sure they’d be interested in figuring out about that.
Sure, but like 99% of the time it’s mundane.
It’s only mundane once explained. So, like, 99% of science in general.
“Mundane” meaning “not aliens”.
So much time and money being wasted on pseudoscientific bunkum.
GONADS125@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There are legitimate scientific organizations studying UAP, such as UAPx and the Galileo Project at Harvard.
Referring to UAP and not aliens, our government has admitted to having [secret government programs (www.nytimes.com./2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html) monitoring/studying UAP, and other nations around the world have as well, including the UK and France who’ve both opened their information to the public. The US is uniquely secretive, withholding, and obfuscating the subject.
If you want a rational representation of valid information, I would encourage you to read my post. Everything is cited and it contains declassified US government documents and admission of the existence of UAP and secret government programs monitoring them. Again, I’m speaking in regard to UAP (Anomalous Aerial Phenomenon) and not aliens.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Tell me when they have something tangible that isn’t “here’s this thing on video that we can’t identify”. We’ve been collecting data for >80 years so I’m sure there must be something by now? Or is “fuzzy photography” the extent of it?
UAP has the same stigma as well. You can’t say "Oh, it’s Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon while winking and nodding about aliens and hinting at conspiracies. We know what you mean.
Decades of “it might be aliens” when looking at blurry and out-of-context videos and photos deserves the stigma. It’s not aliens. It’s never aliens. All we have is “we don’t know what that thing was.” Until we do and then it’s an insect close to the camera, an internal reflection on an SLR lens, another aircraft, etc.
To jump to the conclusion that aliens is even an option is ridiculous given the number of crap we have in the skies today.
GONADS125@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’re clearly uneducated in the topic if you think a bug on lense is responsible for these crafts when there have been many instances in which radar has verified recordings and/or eyewitness reports. That rules out bugs.
And the UAP have been measured at temperatures that rule out birds or other warm-blooded animals.
There’s enough evidence that exists to make the belief that these physical objects exist rational and reasonable. Just because you haven’t honestly evaluated the evidence for something doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Ugh. Just… Don’t.
Evidence for… WHAT?
magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’d be taken a lot more seriously if you dropped the “admission” phrasing.
GONADS125@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What would be better phrasing? Acknowledged? It was previously classified and denied, and they have now admitted to the existence of the programs and phenomenon.
The information is valid regardless if people want to believe it. My post is thoroughly cited.
magnusrufus@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s cool man if you want to keep sounding like a dime store Don Quixote. The adversarial subtext of your phrasing will make the majority of people ignore you and will taint the perception of whatever you cite.