Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.

[UncleDave]

You are stuck on the following, flawed, assumption - the data is accurate.

All your physics; velocity, acceleration, power, heat, is predicated on accurate track data.

Remove that assumption, and it all falls apart, none of your posted math holds together.

That is Occam’s razor - the data is flawed. So the fantastic explanations are not needed.

Perhaps it is wrong

What are the odds all the data is wrong?

When our very best people and equipment safe and measure the same things from multiple vantage point using multiple pieces of gear
including eyes whats the probability its all wrong?

Should we believe or not believe Fravor?

Why did our government reverse itself on this phenomenon and now label it as a threat?

 

[UncleDave]

Your main problem is that you've come up with answers already. What's wrong with we don't know?

Why don't you answer some other basic questions as you seem to demand answers that aren't there? What's dark matter then? Dark energy? The meaning of quantum entanglement? Origin of the big bang? Nature of zero point energy and how you can get something from nothing? Is the universe really flat? We don't have answers to those questions either.

I've come up with nothing but more questions.

Its super easy to just say the data is wrong, but if that's really the case - why did we reverse our policy and stance on these being a threat?

 

[PWMDMD]

Perhaps it is wrong

What are the odds all the data is wrong?

When our very best people and equipment safe and measure the same things from multiple vantage point using multiple pieces of gear
including eyes whats the probability its all wrong?

Should we believe or not believe Fravor?

Why did our government reverse itself on this phenomenon and now label it as a threat?

When the data doesn't agree with a MOUNTAIN of evidence in support for a theory that has been experimentally tested a million different ways....well....it's suspect.

 

[KrisZ]

You are stuck on the following, flawed, assumption - the data is accurate.

All your physics; velocity, acceleration, power, heat, is predicated on accurate track data.

Remove that assumption, and it all falls apart, none of your posted math holds together.

That is Occam’s razor - the data is flawed. So the fantastic explanations are not needed.

The way I see it, I’d doesn’t matter whether the data is accurate or not, if I can use known physics formulas and calculate acceleration, speed etc, and the numbers come out as expected, no matter how large they may be, no laws of physics were broken.

To me, broken laws of physics means our known physics formulas will no longer apply or the results will make no sense. That’s what is being said about the inside of a black hole. It is because through observation we cannot apply any known to us formulas that would explain their behavior. It all works around it and at the event horizon, but falls apart once inside.

 

[Wolf359]

I've come up with nothing but more questions.

Its super easy to just say the data is wrong, but if that's really the case - why did we reverse our policy and stance on these being a threat?

The data is suspect, can't really say it's wrong. You need preponderance of evidence. Remember, repeatable reproducible results are the hallmark of science. There are many other possibilities besides aliens. It's unknown. There's always the threat of the unknown. Could be nothing. But forewarned is forearmed. (And four arms are better than two). Your inferences are basically suspect. One doesn't automatically lead to another. Correlation does not imply causation. Just many logical errors in your deductions.

 

[PWMDMD]

I've come up with nothing but more questions.

Its super easy to just say the data is wrong, but if that's really the case - why did we reverse our policy and stance on these being a threat?

The best anyone can say is the data is inconclusive and it needs verification. If your job is national security you have to entertain ideas even if they have a small chance of being a threat.

My point is this data totally goes against the most successful theory ever discovered with +100 years and tens of thousands of experiments with data all supporting the theory. Incredible claims require incredible evidence and that evidence is just not there in this case.

What's more likely? Our understanding of physics is broken even though we have no evidence for that outside this one "phenomenon" or the data being presented somehow does not represent what is actually happening in reality?

 

[UncleDave]

When the data doesn't agree with a MOUNTAIN of evidence in support for a theory that has been experimentally tested a million different ways....well....it's suspect.

Yes, and if it were one source of data the conclusion is easy to make the data is bad.

What are the odds all the data from all the sources are bad?

 

[PWMDMD]

Yes, and if it were one source of data the conclusion is easy to make the data is bad.

What are the odds all the data from all the sources are bad?

If they are collecting and analysis the data with a similar method...HIGH!

 

[UncleDave]

The best anyone can say is the data is inconclusive and it needs verification. If your job is national security you have to entertain ideas even if they have a small chance of being a threat.

My point is this data totally goes against the most successful theory ever discovered with +100 years and tens of thousands of experiments with data all supporting the theory. Incredible claims require incredible evidence and that evidence is just not there in this case.

What's more likely? Our understanding of physics is broken even though we have no evidence for that outside this one "phenomenon" or the data being presented somehow does not represent what is actually happening in reality?

After decades of data showing the same things, at what point do you suspect something else is going on?

 

[UncleDave]

If they are collecting and analysis the data with a similar method...HIGH!

Agreed - but they arent - multiple pieces of independent gear are involved as well as biological gear - pilots eyes.

 

[Astro14]

Perhaps it is wrong

What are the odds all the data is wrong?

When our very best people and equipment safe and measure the same things from multiple vantage point using multiple pieces of gear
including eyes whats the probability its all wrong?

Should we believe or not believe Fravor?

Why did our government reverse itself on this phenomenon and now label it as a threat?

I think it’s quite clear that I don’t believe him. The claims are fantastic. I am skeptical.

Why should I believe him? Seriously, why should I?

I‘ve seen false tracks, glitches, and jamming. I’ve got experience with radars, with military equipment, with Navy equipment.

Every time this subject (UFOs) comes up, I have to explain the flaws in equipment, flaws in processing, flaws in human perception that lead to illusions and false data.

I’m tired of explaining.

This discussion is like arguing with Flat Earthers and Moon Conspiracy Theorists - no amount of logic, experience, or rational discussion will sway their belief in false conclusions.

So, let’s be clear - you’ve found others who share your beliefs and you rest your conclusions on that shared belief. Belief that the data is real. Belief that the fantastic explanation is more plausible than the ordinary. Belief that somehow, a military radar and a military operator, didn’t make a mistake.

As a guy with a degree in Astrophysics, and 30 years of military experience, I do not share the beliefs on which you’ve based your argument. Radars are flawed. People are flawed. Illusions happen as a result of both. I have experienced illusions in flight. They usually resolve, as more data becomes available, within minutes.

Willing suspension of disbelief makes for an enjoyable science fiction read, or time watching a Marvel Movie.

But that same willing suspension does not allow for rational examination of this phenomena. The fact that government agencies are taking it seriously has two explanations, first, is that the ability to deceive our equipment represents a real, present threat to defense, and second, that science education is woefully inadequate across our education system.

So, yes, investigate, but no, don’t believe in fantastic explanation.

 

[Wolf359]

You DO realize that we already have the math for warp drive? No need for unknown physics. That's not even taking into account the possibility of beings from alternate dimensions, etc.
You're also not seeming to realize that we've only had electricity for less than 200 years, nuclear physics for less than 100 and that there would be civilizations that are, technologically, millions of years ahead of us.

These types of statements are the most arrogant, naive statements one can make.

Brock

You do realize that the math doesn't mean anything if you can't test it in the real world right? String theory is like that, it talks about multiple dimensions, 10, 11, 26.

And one of the crazy things with math is renormalization. You end up with some infinities in the calculations but you can't have that in the real world so they just eliminate the infinities and the numbers work out. Fun.

String theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Renormalization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[UncleDave]

I think it’s quite clear that I don’t believe him. The claims are fantastic. I am skeptical.

Why should I believe him? Seriously, why should I?

I‘ve seen false tracks, glitches, and jamming. I’ve got experience with radars, with military equipment, with Navy equipment.

Every time this subject (UFOs) comes up, I have to explain the flaws in equipment, flaws in processing, flaws in human perception that lead to illusions and false data.

I’m tired of explaining.

This discussion is like arguing with Flat Earthers and Moon Conspiracy Theorists - no amount of logic, experience, or rational discussion will sway their belief in false conclusions.

So, let’s be clear - you’ve found others who share your beliefs and you rest your conclusions on that shared belief. Belief that the data is real. Belief that the fantastic explanation is more plausible than the ordinary. Belief that somehow, a military radar and a military operator, didn’t make a mistake.

As a guy with a degree in Astrophysics, and 30 years of military experience, I do not share the beliefs on which you’ve based your argument. Radars are flawed. People are flawed. Illusions happen as a result of both. I have experienced illusions in flight. They usually resolve, as more data becomes available, within minutes.

Willing suspension of disbelief makes for an enjoyable science fiction read, or time watching a Marvel Movie.

But that same willing suspension does not allow for rational examination of this phenomena. The fact that government agencies are taking it seriously has two explanations, first, is that the ability to deceive our equipment represents a real, present threat to defense, and second, that science education is woefully inadequate across our education system.

So, yes, investigate, but no, don’t believe in fantastic explanation.

Unlike many I hope the data is false and do not want the answer to be "aliens". There is nothing good that can come of this conclusion.

The only reason to believe Fravor is that others with him, and third party data all seem to corroborate his fantastic story which it seems to.

If we believe the data is wrong all then its also true our very best gear and people can all be fooled simultaneously.
This conclusion is equally suspect and give me no joy either.

Net net - this is ALL bad.

 

[Astro14]

The way I see it, I’d doesn’t matter whether the data is accurate or not, if I can use known physics formulas and calculate acceleration, speed etc, and the numbers come out as expected, no matter how large they may be, no laws of physics were broken.

To me, broken laws of physics means our known physics formulas will no longer apply or the results will make no sense. That’s what is being said about the inside of a black hole. It is because through observation we cannot apply any known to us formulas that would explain their behavior. It all works around it and at the event horizon, but falls apart once inside.

Nowhere in this discussion have I stated that laws of physics were broken. That is the claim of others.

But accurate data is required to explain the phenomena.

With blind acceptance of the data we have, we are left wandering through an intellectual wilderness of wild speculation, assumption and fantasy.

 

[KrisZ]

Nowhere in this discussion have I stated that laws of physics were broken. That is the claim of others.

But accurate data is required to explain the phenomena.

With blind acceptance of the data we have, we are left wandering through an intellectual wilderness of wild speculation, assumption and fantasy.

Apologies for not being clear. I agree with you 100%.

The mention of “broken laws of physics” was by others, not you of course.

I just wanted to point out the fallacy of that claim especially using measured data. At that point I don’t really care if the data is accurate or not. Of course the data is highly suspect in this case. But all of these stories like to claim broke laws of physical or “non Newtonian flight characteristics” I guess to give more credibility to an average person.

To me it shows heavy bias, despite claims of not being biased. And it’s hard to make logical arguments when people are stuck on only one possible explanation.

 

[sk_pete]

 

[UncleDave]

To accept the data we've collected over decade leads to fantastical illogical conclusion we simply refuse to accept.

To dismiss the data leads to the conclusion our best equipment and poeple are not reliable and have been fooled/jammed interrupted on both a technological and biological front concurrently - then both return to normal after the event occurs.

 

[UncleDave]

Apologies for not being clear. I agree with you 100%.

The mention of “broken laws of physics” was by others, not you of course.

I just wanted to point out the fallacy of that claim especially using measured data. At that point I don’t really care if the data is accurate or not. Of course the data is highly suspect in this case. But all of these stories like to claim broke laws of physical or “non Newtonian flight characteristics” I guess to give more credibility to an average person.

To me it shows heavy bias, despite claims of not being biased. And it’s hard to make logical arguments when people are stuck on only one possible explanation.

To quote the article

These unidentified craft typically exhibit anomalous flight characteristics, such as traveling at extremely high speeds, changing direction or accelerating at extremely high rates, and hovering motionless for long periods of time. Furthermore, these craft appear to violate the laws of physics in that they do not have flight or control surfaces, any visible means of propulsion apparently violating Newton’s Third Law, and can operate in multiple media, such as space (low Earth orbit), air, and water without apparent hindrance, sonic booms, or heat dumps [4].

 

[KrisZ]

To accept the data we've collected over decade leads to fantastical illogical conclusion we simply refuse to accept.

To dismiss the data leads to the conclusion our best equipment and poeple are not reliable and have been fooled/jammed interrupted on both a technological and biological front concurrently - then both return to normal after the event occurs.

Couldn’t it be some sort of high security test of new equipment, or a high level threat exercise to test how the military reacts, where only the very top echelons were aware of it? And it stayed top secret perhaps?

Nah, that could never be it. My imagination is running wild, I better come down to earth and believe it was aliens

 

[UncleDave]

Couldn’t it be some sort of high security test of new equipment, or a high level threat exercise to test how the military reacts, where only the very top echelons were aware of it? And it stayed too secret perhaps?

Nah, that could never be it. My imagination is running wild, I better come down to earth and believe it was aliens

Who knows?

What we do know is our government changed its stance on the subject radically categorizing the phenomenon as a threat.