Alien motherships: Pentagon official floats a theory for unexplained sightings

[milestogo]

The official in charge of a secretive Pentagon effort to investigate unexplained aerial incursions has co-authored an academic paper that presents an out-of-this-world theory: Recent objects could actually be alien probes from a mothership sent to study Earth. In a draft paper dated March 7, Sean Kirkpatrick, head of the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, and Harvard professor Avi Loeb teamed up to write that the objects, which appear to defy all physics, could be “probes” from an extraterrestrial “parent craft.”

It’s unusual for government officials, especially those involved in the nascent effort to collect intelligence on recent sightings, to discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life, although top agency officials don’t rule it out when asked. After Loeb posted it online, the paper gained notoriety from a post on Military Times and has also circulated among science-focused news outlets. More than half of the five-page paper is devoted to discussing the possibility that the unexplained objects DoD is studying could be the “probes” in the mothership scenario, including most of the page-long introduction. One section is titled: “The Extraterrestrial Possibility” and another “Propulsion Methods.”

Kirkpatrick’s involvement in the academic paper demonstrates that the Pentagon is open to scientific debate of the origins of UFOs, an important signal to send to the academic world, experts said. But they add that his decision to attach his name to a theory considered in most academic circles to be highly unsubstantiated also raises questions about AARO’s credibility.

The paper explains that interstellar objects such as the cigar-shaped “Oumuamua” that scientists spotted flying through the galaxy in 2017 “could potentially be a parent craft that releases many small probes during its close passage to Earth.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/14/pentagon-ufo-alien-object-00092108

[MineralMan]

1. Yeah, sure...

[FoxNewsSucks]

9. Can you or anyone disprove it?

We're here, why wouldn't there be life on other worlds?

[MineralMan]

12. Uh, no. Disproving things like that isn't really possible, is it?

I don't feel any need to do so, however.

[FoxNewsSucks]

14. Only by proving what they actually are

which hasn't been done. So alien origin is as likely as anything else.

[MineralMan]

21. Not really.

[Sugarcoated]

59. Absolutely

it's certainly possible

[Silent3]

62. There's an enormous unsupported leap of illogic in going from "possible"...

...to "as likely as anything else".

[Silent3]

60. "So alien origin is as likely as anything else"

Really? That's how you think unknowns should be handled? That's how you imagine probability of various explanations should work?

[FoxNewsSucks]

64. WHere did I say that all unknowns should be handled that way?

[Silent3]

67. You didn't. You did use that "logic" for ET visitations, however...

...so I'm challenging to think about why you would handle ET visitations with that poor reasoning by making you consider the absurdity of handling all unknowns that way.

[brooklynite]

17. The question isn't "is there life elsewhere"

The question is: "is it possible for an alien civilization to get here given the extreme distances between stars and the scientific complexity of travel at relativistic speed"?

Add to which, as your speed increases to light speed, the most microscopic dust particles in space effectively become boulders in your path.

[FoxNewsSucks]

23. Obviously any civilization capable of such travel would be far advanced over us

in technology and would have addressed those issues as well as others we haven't yet imagined. We can't do it, and humanity may not survive to a future where we are that advanced, but that doesn't make it impossible.

[brooklynite]

32. But somehow they're not advanced enough to hide their probes?

This "advanced civilization can solve any scientific problem" assertion is baseless.

[edisdead]

35. Or they just don't care

Or they just don’t care if we know about their probes. If we are harmless to them why would they. There are likely how many insects we each pass bu everyday without giving them any thought.

[brooklynite]

37. Again. pure speculation.

I find that, as with religion, a lot of people WANT there to be alien visitors, and search for any findings which seem to support the belief.

[FoxNewsSucks]

47. I don't see why so many get their knickers in knots over discussions about aliens.

It's not impossible, it can't yet be proven or disproven, it's an interesting topic. Certainly one of the more innocuous speculative discussions.

Anytime people see unexplainable things, there will be speculation. I don't see the harm.

[Silent3]

63. It wouldn't be "harmful" in any obviously direct way for adults to speculate Santa Claus is real

It would still, however, be a very tall order to engage in such speculation on a public forum and not expect anyone else to comment (which is hardly the same thing as "get their knickers in knots" ) about the absurdity of adults giving the existence of Santa Claus much credence.

When you confuse concepts like "possible" and "as likely as anything else", expect it to be called out.

[FoxNewsSucks]

66. Is there evidence that Santa exists? It's not the same thing at all.

There do seem to be a lot of knotted knickers, however.

[Silent3]

68. There is no high-quality evidence of ETs visiting earth either

I use Santa Claus as a deliberately absurd example, but the parallels remain, even if alien visitation is a bit more plausible.

[Sugarcoated]

118. Yup

Always

[edisdead]

50. I mean we are talking about aliens.

Of course its speculation.


I don’t want there to be aliens. Just if there are I have no reason to believe that I have any understanding of them.

I also have no reason to believe there are such things as aliens visiting us.Personally however, I believe there probably are other life forms somewhere out there. And probably of varying degrees of intelligence.

[The Revolution]

51. If they don't care, then why aren't they more obvious?

Why wouldn't a probe just be hovering around Times Square or the Pentagon or the Super Bowl or anything else that might be interesting if you are studying another civilization? Why not just crash through your living room window and hover around your house? If they see us like insects, why would they care?

But instead they sort of try to hide but not really? Lots of people see they but no one can get a good picture? Why half-ass it?

[edisdead]

54. I do not know

More accurately I do not pretend to understand the reasonings of another species that may or may not exist. I can’t even come to fathom the thinking of republicans.

[Ligyron]

116. Those UFO's with lights shown at night make not a lot of sense.

Any civilization advanced enough to master interplanetary travel would not only not need lights to see, but could no doubt be invisible if they so wished.

[Model35mech]

58. Which is directly connected to "what makes it worth or profitable to come here?"

Anything that makes it worthwhile to do must be measured against its cost.

Trade isn't in the cards considering the time and distance. Short of conquering and capturing a planet for a civilization to survive some distant apocalypse there really isn't a reason to make the trip.

[Silent3]

71. Cost might cease to be an important issue for an advanced technology

I'm someone who strongly doubts alien visitations have happened. And even if they have, the stuff of UFO sightings probably doesn't have a thing to do with it.

That said, however, you have to consider (this is the basis for the Fermi Paradox) that if aliens master self-replicating technology, probes could be launched into space, find resources in space, use those resources to make more probes, etc. Aliens, or at least their technology (if there's even a distinction to be made there), would spread geometrically through space. Even if the speed of light is a limitation, every part of our whole galaxy could be reached this way in a few million years -- a blink of an eye in geologic time.

[Model35mech]

76. There will always be a "cost" that cost must be offset by "worth"

Setting aside Star Trek optimizm about a futire without a desire for worth and the need to fight for worth.

What would be in it for an advanced civilzation?

The opportunity to watch earthlings thrash each other to death in conflicts they've out grown?

Sorry I don't see it

[PatSeg]

77. Curiosity perhaps?

Humans on this planet have done a great deal of exploration throughout history primarily out of curiosity. There may have eventually been some worth assigned to what they discovered, but many times there wasn't.

As for observing earthlings, it is possible that other sentient beings would keep track of humans to see when and if they were ready for some form of contact. Or they could be observing us the way we observe wildlife.

Our perspective about anything beyond our planet and solar system is so limited. I think we have to assume that there is far more out there than we could ever imagine.

[friend of a friend]

81. Let's hope they won't treat us like we treat the indigenous people on this planet.

[PatSeg]

123. Indeed

We could hope that they are truly more evolved than we are.

[Silent3]

87. Your thinking is strangely Earth-focussed

This has nothing to do with any decisions about Earth in particular. Spreading out throughout space would be for knowledge, resources, territory, self-preservation... whatever motivations an alien civilization might have. Aliens would have to first learn that Earth exists and what's going on here before categorizing the "worth" of Earth anyway.

If costs are low enough (and they can became extremely low), mere curiosity would be motivation enough to continue observations of Earth, even visit if it so suited them and whatever their interests and imperatives might be.

As long as we don't collapse our civilization first (a real possibility), we humans ourselves aren't far off from creating a world where most material needs can be met practically for free. And if we have the patience for it, our descendants (biological or technological) can themselves easily spread throughout this galaxy over the next couple of millions of years. Speculation? Yes, but very reasonable extrapolation too.

[Model35mech]

95. It appears yours are maybe no less so...

"knowledge, resources, territory, self-preservation" all potential benefits

Unless I've missed something, time is a cost that must be met to make any of those things come true

[Silent3]

104. Another species might have far more patience than we have

We ourselves might learn more patience too. Besides, it would only take a few humans (or alien beings, for that matter) to initiate a geometric-growth space settlement program, based on self-replicating technology, and then the project could be self-perpetuating, regardless of anyone's patience, or lack thereof, for the end result.

Further: much of the significance of time cost is opportunity cost, that is, what else could you be doing with your time rather than another thing? If activities aren't mutually exclusive, the opportunity cost vanishes. Self-replicating technology spreads like weeds or viruses -- once it gets going, you don't have to put any time or effort into keeping it going.

Even further: Travel time could be of little or no importance for many different reasons:

1) Faster-than-light travel is developed.
2) It's not fragile or impatient conscious beings doing the traveling, but "seeds" of a sort: technology for building/growing biological and/or artificial life upon arrival at resource-rich potential habitats.
3) The beings traveling don't care about the passage of time.
4) Travel very close to, but not over, the speed of light is developed. Do you realize it's possible to cross our own galaxy, not breaking any known laws of physics, in about 25 years? That's 25 years for the passengers, however. 100,000 years would pass on Earth, but passengers would only age 25 years on a journey using constant 1g acceleration.

[Ms. Toad]

89. Why did we go to the moon, or to mars?

Certainly not trade, conquer or capture.

[Model35mech]

94. We went to the moon to develop missle technology for the air force

"We"" haven't yet gotten to Mars, only our hardware has, which is cool in many ways.

And just like going to the moon that has served multiple purposes besides the obvious.

[Ms. Toad]

107. Kind of the point I was trying to make.

The list you provided as motives for someone else coming here was extremely limited. There are lots of reasons for space travel.

[stopdiggin]

33. Um? We don't HAVE to?

Just as we're under no obligation to disprove Jewish space lasers.

After you've captured a Jewish space laser ... Then we can start defining ...

[FoxNewsSucks]

48. Not the same as the stupid Jewish space laser thing.

First of all, that was a comment by a knuckle-dragging ignorant bigot.

Second, we can be reasonably certain that there is no technology for any Jewish Space Lasers, and that any space lasers that might exist now or in the near future would be controlled by some nation's military, not a religion.

Not the same as UFOs at all.

[stopdiggin]

90. and yet still clearly in the realm of

completely unfounded speculation. And I'll repeat NOBODY has a duty to disprove your fevered speculations. You're quite free to entertain yourself with them. But you cannot demand respect for that same entertaining pastime.

[FoxNewsSucks]

93. Then don't read it. It certainly doesn't demand your smug insults

You're free to have your own opinion, as are we all.

[stopdiggin]

99. you started out with a clear logical fallacy

"Can you or anyone disprove it?" A challenge that several took up. Then went on to, "as likely as any other .." Which also garnered push back.

I don't take umbrage at you having an 'opinion.' I just don't feeling like letting you express it - without the feedback and challenge that I think it deserves.

And, apologies if they are in order. I do think it is better to keep things at a civil level. Sometimes hard to keep track of in a back and forth ... But that should be the goal.

[FoxNewsSucks]

102. Thank you for that,

and as someone else acknowledged, alien visitation is more plausible than the things others brought up, like Santa or Jewish Space lasers.

At least space aliens are within the realm of possibility. That was my point.

[dalton99a]

2. Perhaps Elon Musk can capture the captain:

The paper explains that interstellar objects such as the cigar-shaped “Oumuamua” that scientists spotted flying through the galaxy in 2017 “could potentially be a parent craft that releases many small probes during its close passage to Earth." | M. Kornmesser/NASA

[brooklynite]

19. "potentially"

As far as I can see, this is human pattern seeking: it LOOKS like what WE imagine a spaceship looks like, so lets speculate that it is one.

[Polybius]

98. It looks like a rock to me n/t

[Liberal In Texas]

103. It's not a photograph. Artist conception.

If you were going to make a huge interstellar environment to live in with hundreds of crew and their families for long term endurance a hollowed-out asteroid of suitable size would do the trick. Arthur C. Clark envisioned this in "Rendezvous With Rama." A thick skin to shield radiation and meteorites, a rotation for gravity inside and an enclosed ecosystem.

[hunter]

29. Too bad they didn't take Musk away with them.

Oh well, there's always a next time.

[marybourg]

3. We've also learned lately

that high government officials are just as likely as anyone else to be a member of the lunatic fringe. Just sayin'.

[GuppyGal]

15. +1000

[LastDemocratInSC]

22. Michael Flynn, for example. Batshit crazy but navigated through the promotion process successfully.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. Oh, dear lord.

Oumuamua was absolutely NOT an alien craft. It was from outside our solar system, which made it unusual. But still not something manufactured elsewhere.

And don't you think that astronomers, especially the amateur ones who are still almost entirely using ordinary telescopes (unlike the pros who often use infrared or ultraviolet or radio for looking at the skies) would have long ago spotted such things? Keep in mind, that a surprising number of things like new comets are first discovered by the amateurs.

[H2O Man]

56. Respectfully disagree.

In my youth, although I had a relatively cheap telescope, I would frequently consume large doses of good LSD, lay out on a miniature golf course, and watch the night sky. I saw amazing things, though I do not claim that any were UFOs. Rather, I was.

[peggysue2]

5. Hummmmm

Do I smell disinformation here? Something very smelly and flakey about these ongoing, presumed Pentagon articles on 'alien' objects. Just saying.

[Midnight Writer]

45. I'm with you.

The only difference between these UFO sightings and the ones that have occurred throughout history is that these sightings are being promoted by the Pentagon.

[Goonch]

6. 👇👇👇👇🛸

[Srkdqltr]

7. So well now that is real proof. I'm convinced.

What the heck is that and how do we know? Has to be a UFO. UFO, of course, is unidentified flying object. That means , we don't know what the heck it is either.

[Disaffected]

16. We do know however it is a

blurry blob.

[Srkdqltr]

26. It is.

[Brenda]

27. Bug on the camera lens? nt

[Disaffected]

53. Why not?

In any case that's a much more believable explanation that an alien spacecraft.

[Brenda]

70. I agree even though I've experienced a few UFO encounters.

With a phone/camera in every pocket why don't we have any clear pictures, in color? The tic-tac could be anything in that image.

Something strange has been going on for a very long time but it has become a book tour/shiny object genre these days. I don't believe a word the Pentagon people say, known liars.

An excellent book to read about these strange things is "Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times" by Jacques Vallee.

I don't know exactly what I saw (they looked like large, stationary, quiet vehicles in the sky) but it does seem highly unlikely the UFO pilots would travel vast distances just to wreck their ride in the desert.

[Disaffected]

73. Thanks for the book ref.

"With a phone/camera in every pocket why don't we have any clear pictures, in color? "

Indeed, that is an oft asked and pertinent question for which the UFOlogists never seem to have an answer. Well almost never - someone here opined a few months ago that current phone/cameras don't have the image taking capabilities to properly photograph these elusive objects (which is nonsense IMO).

Personally, I've never seen a UFO (I prefer to refer to them though as UAPs (unidentified Areal Phenomena)). Doesn't ,mean that they don't exist however of course - the atmosphere and light can produce all sorts of strange visual effects but none shown so far even come close to alien spacecraft territory, even (and especially) the "blurry blobs".

[Brenda]

79. You're welcome.

It really is a fascinating, hard researched, well referenced book.

About 20 years ago I saw an extremely dramatic light burst in the night sky over the ocean while standing on a boardwalk and was in the presence of about 10 strangers...we all gasped at the same time. It sure as hell looked like a wormhole opening (as displayed in sci-fi shows) and was so scary we all ran away. If I had a camera on me I could not have taken a picture of it unless I was taking a picture of the night sky over a beach at that exact moment.

Since then I've come to believe it's possible I could have witnessed a supernova event or some such.

[Disaffected]

83. Would not have been a supernova

as they typically appear suddenly and blaze away for weeks before finally slowly fading. It also would have made headlines as supernovae (within our own galaxy) are rare (average about one per century).

Maybe a distant lightning burst (perhaps reflecting in some odd way from surrounding clouds and/or magnified by atmospheric refraction). Was there any sound afterwards?

[Brenda]

85. Hey, thanks for supernova info

A big NO to the lightning burst...no clouds that night. No sound either.

This was on the Gulf coast not too far from Naval Air Station Pensacola, which right there I was aware of and normally would have thought oh, flight training jets, afterburners, etc.

But, NO. What we saw was huge, not from jets.

[chowder66]

44. Here ya go....

[Goonch]

55. Very Interesting And Super Serious

[chowder66]

57. OMG!! My brother use to recite this to me when I was a kid. lol

I have to send it to him.

[hunter]

31. That's what happens when you cut and paste code from video games.

Sometimes you drag in an easter egg or two.

[chowder66]

43. Here is the explanation...

[Iggo]

8. Are Americans stupid enough to fall for this distraction again?

Probably.

[cloudbase]

10. Theory? My ass! nt

[Enoki33]

11. I try to keep an open mind. There are way

too many unanswered questions about our ancient civilizations, and totally illogical to subscribe to the dogma that humans are the only intelligent life in the universe.

[wnylib]

41. See my #39.

[triron]

86. Agreed. Sure seems to be a lot of narrow minded folk here

.

[Disaffected]

13. Good grief - silly Oumuamua theories again.

There is no credible evidence that Oumuamua is an alien spacecraft. Some of it seems to be a product of fevered imaginations of folks who are trying to justify their employment.

The mysterious acceleration of the object anomaly which was used to claim the thing could not be a natural phenomenon is explained by outgassing of hydrogen which can occur when an object has travelled through the extreme cold of interstellar space and is warmed by its approach to the Sun i.e. frozen hydrogen accumulated on the thing turns to gas and is expelled thus providing a thrust opposite to the direction of the Sun's radiation. This is dissimilar to what happens with "ordinary" comets in that the expelled hydrogen gas is not as visible as a normally seen comet's tail.

[brush]

18. Surprising. Roswell was hushed up but this maybe an alien ship?

Something's changed, or some really stuck his neck out.

[LastDemocratInSC]

24. Roswell was definitely not hushed up.

The essential findings of the incident were published in the New Yorker magazine. And the findings explain part of the crazy mess in the world is in:

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/daily-cartoon-051017-roswell-trump

[brush]

25. HeeHee. Love it. I'm guessing your tongue was planted firmly in cheek...

as you typed that.

[FoxNewsSucks]

49. That's always been one of my favorite cartoons

[dalton99a]

111. +1

[LastDemocratInSC]

80. Yes.

[librechik]

20. Wow--a De-Bunker De-Bait!

punch bowl duly shat on. So proud! Tesla would admire all of you. Not.

There would be no science if not for speculation. Snuff it out then.

[wnylib]

39. Speculation, called a hypothesis in science,

is only a part of what science is about. Critical examination of a hypothesis is an essential part of science in order to establish facts and to then assemble facts into a theory. Unsubstantiated speculation gets rejected, or "snuffed out." In order to establish facts and then a theory based on those facts, unsubstantiated speculations get discarded in the process of keeping the ones that are substantiated by evidence.

Regarding UFOs, all we know is that some people report seeing objects in the sky that they cannot identify as a specifically known thing. Most times, when investigated, a UFO report turns out to have an ordinary explanation. So far, there is zero evidence that UFOs are alien spaceships. The initial question about UFOs is, "What is that object that I don't recognize?" To then speculate as a response that it is a spaceship from another galaxy or planet within our own galaxy is a tremendous leap without any basis. The spaceship speculation leaps to the idea that a UFO is something that is made, either by humans on earth or by aliens from somewhere else, and is not a natural phenomenon.

That speculation, which has zero evidence to back it up, then gets other unfounded speculations piled on top of it, like the notion that ancient civilizations were created by aliens.

By that time you've got enough imagined notions to create a sci fi novel or film, but nothing that is substantiated by evidence.

[stopdiggin]

91. thanks. it is that yawning chasm

of (unsupported) speculation between - "I don't know what that is .." - to, "It's got to be aliens!" - that throws a monkey wrench in to the mechanics. Most 'skeptics' are absolutely willing to acknowledge the reality of UFOs. Unidentified. Flying. Objects. But that's the sum total of our understanding so far.

[Enoki33]

125. Just saw. The problem seems to be the

required evidence is often based on the assumption that the limits of physics as we know it remains a constant throughout the universe, all while mankind's understanding of that universe continues to expand on an almost daily basis, reminding how little we really know. Speculation is often an integral part of what we may find.

[stopdiggin]

28. yeah - but then it COULD be ..

the embryonic seedlings of the all powerful flying spaghetti monster too!
I mean - it's possible! Right?

[JanLip]

34. The only aliens I know

The alien from the day the earth stood still and ET. Buzz Lightyear fought aliens. I think. Now don’t anyone get upset with my post. I’m just kidding around. There may be outer space beings. I’ve just never seen one. I guess seeing is believing.

Jan 🚀

[Bayard]

30. Hey--I'm always ready to believe in aliens

In the whole big universe, they have to be out there. But I can't imagine they would be interested in a little planet that is bent on violence and self-destruction.

[Cartoonist]

38. Aliens dig our music

I think the first UFO was sighted after a Chuck Berry show.

[Silent3]

69. Not that I consider evidence for alien visitation very good, but...

...if an alien civilization has anything akin to our sense of exploration for the sake of exploration, they'd want to know about many things, including "a little planet that is bent on violence and self-destruction". That would obviously be a fascinating subject for research.

Besides, aliens would have to visit us first, or at least have come close enough to pick up our limited-by-the-speed-of-light transmissions, before they could determine we were "a little planet that is bent on violence and self-destruction".

I suppose you could speculate that an advanced alien species might be capable of faster-than-light remote viewing, and somehow know from a great distance, no travel necessary, what we are like without a visit.

The flip side, however, of realizing that an advanced alien species might have technology that goes beyond our understanding of physics, is to not simply assume anything about the particulars of which ways they might or might not exceed us.

It's still good practice to consider that we humans might very well be correct about light speed being a strong limitation for everyone everywhere. In that case, alien visitation, if it happens at all, would likely be by a slow, geometric spread of alien technology in all possible directions through the galaxy, a spread that would eventually encounter our planet, regardless or whether we seem particularly worthwhile or not. (See "Fermi paradox".)

[Bayard]

108. "our limited-by-the-speed-of-light transmissions,"

Do you think they are picking up our historical documents?

[Silent3]

109. Of course!

[milestogo]

36. I just thought it was pretty cool to hear the Pentagon say "alien mothership".

[frogmarch]

40. Steve

NASA’s UFO Study Isn’t Really Looking for Space Aliens
A new investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena could have bigger impacts on atmospheric science than on astrobiology

Excerpt:

Across his years of studying auroras, University of Calgary physicist Eric Donovan had periodically seen pictures and data showing something strange: a curve of purple light swiping across the sky, linear green features glowing beneath. It was atypical, but he didn’t give it too much thought. “I put it into some bucket that I understood,” he says.

That changed when he found himself at a bar with a group of amateur aurora photographers after a science talk. Over beers, members of the Alberta Aurora Chasers were showing off their pictures. Following a discussion, one attendee showed him a shot of the same sort of purple arc that Donovan had noticed over the years. Images of it look otherworldly—the sort of thing one might see in an alien planet’s sky.

Looking at the photograph, Donovan realized the lights actually lived in an “unidentified” bucket that he didn’t understand. They also didn’t have a name. So he and the aurora chasers started calling the phenomenon Steve, after a name a group of animals give to shrubbery they don’t understand in the children’s movie Over the Hedge.

Soon Donovan and his scientific colleagues teamed up with the aurora chasers to try to track down more apparitions of Steve—to observe it, attempt to understand the mechanism behind it and change an unknown into a known.

That’s also the thrust of a new NASA project that aims to study UFOs. The narrative of Steve—people notice something strange in the heavens above and dig deeper—could someday play out similarly in the space agency’s efforts to learn more about unidentified things in Earth’s atmosphere.

more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-rsquo-s-ufo-study-isn-rsquo-t-really-looking-for-space-aliens/




[wnylib]

46. Interesting article. Thanks for posting

something that takes a genuinely scientific approach to examining UAPs, which is a much better term for them than UFO.

[stopdiggin]

92. thanks. that's great! -(nt)-

[Takket]

42. a theory is just that, a theory.....

people shouldn't regard this as anything more than what it is. Speculation with all the factual basis of discussing what you think will happen in the next episode of your favorite TV show in front of the water cooler.

A theory is not proof, or a conclusion, or an official explanation.

[wnylib]

52. You are using the word theory to describe

Last edited Sun Apr 16, 2023, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

a hypothesis. It's a common, popular misuse of the word theory, so you are not alone in doing this.

A theory IS a conclusion, after hypotheses have been suggested, examined, tested, and accepted or discarded based on the evidence. After phenomena have been observed and recorded, and hypotheses have been tested for evidence, the results that can be substantiated with evidence to explain something get put together into a theory. So, a theory is a conclusion, based on evidence that had been tested, observed, and verified as valid and reproducible by someone else.

What you described is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is speculation that needs to be tested and scrutinized critically for evidence to either substantiate it or drop it as unsubstantiated.

When people say, "I have a theory about ..." what they really mean is that they have a hypothesis that is not yet established by evidence.

So, you've got the right idea and description, but the wrong word for it. Speculation is a hypothesis. Theory is a conclusion that has a collection of tested evidence to substantiate it. Theories can change if new, solid evidence is discovered. But they are still much more valid and established through evidence than a hypothesis is.

[airplaneman]

61. I like your explanation. I would just have speculated his theory was a hypothesis. n/t

[Silent3]

65. As long as you don't confuse the scientific use of the word "theory"...

...with the colloquial use of the term (a way too common confusion), it's okay to casually use the word "theory" to refer to a speculative idea.

As for the scientific use of the word "theory", yes, theories generally have strong evidence to back them up, but a more important distinction to make is that theories are explanatory frameworks.

What a lot of creationists who spout nonsense about "evolution is just a theory" don't get, besides the scientific use of the word "theory", is not just the great body of strong evidence in favor of evolution, but that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not evolution happened.

That evolution has occurred is treated scientifically as a given, for all practical intents and purposes as a fact. The theory of evolution is the framework that provides us with a way to understand that fact, examine evidence in light of that fact, and make new predictions based on that fact.

[wnylib]

105. I can agree with everything you said except where you said that

it's ok to use the word theory in casual conversation precisely because people DO confuse the colloquial use of theory with the scientific meaning. You gave a good example of that confusion regarding creationists and their objections to evolution.

Most of the time when people use the word theory to speculate about something, it is in regard to something scientific, like far-fetched hypotheses about ancient civilizations being built by aliens, or that aliens from other planets taught people about scientific or mathematical concepts to use in building civilizations. Another so-called "theory" is that those aliens interbred with human hominid ancestors to create Homo sapiens. Or that ancient people had high tech knowledge to travel great distances across the globe in short time periods to spread ideas as a means of explaining how completely different and geographically separate cultures came up with similar ideas or technology.

There's also the "theory" that ancient civilizations had far advanced technology, up to and including nuclear energy, but lost it when the civilization collapsed or blew itself up with nuclear energy. Never mind that there is no evidence of an ancient nuclear holocaust on earth to substantiate even a hypothesis, let alone an actual theory.

My favorite nonsense "theory" is that the Nazca lines in Peru are runways used by ancient alien airplanes.

I don't get how or why people jump to speculative conclusions (which they call theories) without a shred of anything to found them on.

"What if" speculation is fun. It can lead to inventions of material objects, or of fiction stories. It can even lead to scientific discovery, but for scientific discovery, the speculation has to be founded on something,.

[Silent3]

106. I'm only telling you what many dictionaries would tell you. Despite the confusion it can cause...

...the colloquial usage of the word "theory" is too well established to call that use an error. Inadvisable or worth avoiding, perhaps? Maybe, but not an error.

[wnylib]

117. Well, it's a pet peeve of mine that

common usage of the word theory promotes the misunderstanding of what a real, scientific theory is. As you pointed out, it gives people like creationists the notion that they can discount credible science as "just a theory" and promote far out speculations as equal to scientific knowledge. "My theory is as good as anything that science says."

A lot of foolish ideas get spread that way. Some of those foolish ideas ("theories" ), in biology, for example, promote racism and gender discrimination.

[Sympthsical]

72. Eight billion cameras in this world

Not a single good picture to date.

All fuzzy blobs and uncertainties. Just like Sasquatch and Loch Ness. Weird, that.

There are probably aliens in the universe. They are probably not here.

"They could be!" is not an argument. We could be swallowed by a black hole in the next year. Unlikely, but possible.

Not changing any plans around it.

[Cetacea]

74. And very few are capable of taking professional photos and few carry pro equipment with them

Not to mention that phone cameras are awful for capturing distant sky objects; hell, most people don't even look at the sky.
And there are a lot of good, credible photos out there.

[Sympthsical]

75. If it were true, the media would have been all over it

I have to pretend that the media - our media - would pass up opportunities for ratings and one of the biggest stories in human history.

And they're just not for reasons. Instead it's all relegated to crackpot YouTube channels and bulletin boards.

We'd also have to believe that our government suddenly became crazy competent about keeping secrets and that they've managed to do it for nearly 80 years.

I would like to meet that government.

Occam's razor says to me that people are assigning things they can't explain in the moment to aliens.

[edhopper]

78. Taken by people with

amateur cameras without professional equipment? But phones? Can't be done.

There are no good, credible photos.

[Brenda]

82. I agree with one of your points:

"hell, most people don't even look at the sky"

That is so damned true. I recall watching some of the most amazing cloud formations while sitting in my car and looking around and no one else was oogling them like me. Heads down on their phone.

Okay, I agree with two things: phone cameras can't capture night sky objects well. True.

But...lot of good, credible photos out there. Just show me those or the website of those. Please?

[Disaffected]

84. That's a pretty weak excuse since there are

no "credible photos out there" at all (if there are, I'd very much like to see them). So where can they be found?? Any cites??

And please no fakes or blurry blobs - they signify nothing.

How about the gazillions of sky photos taken over the many years by astronomers? One would expect one or two good shots of alien spacecraft if they exist.

IMO there are about as many credible photos of alien spacecraft as there are of unicorns, sasquatches and leprechauns (or kind hearted Republicans).

[ecstatic]

114. chiming in to ask for the link

to the credible photos! I'm in the mood to look!

[dalton99a]

112. +1. Heck, ghosts walk among us and there is still not one decent pic or video

[Sympthsical]

115. You'd appreciate this

[dalton99a]

120. +1. Excellent!

About time somebody said something about that stupid show. Thanks!

[Rafi]

124. A little google research will yield surprising results.

There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of clear photos dating back to the 1930's depicting classic saucer shaped craft. These photos were taken prior to modern methods of altering photographs and many were published in a timely manner preventing any manipulation.

Congress was provided with much stronger, clearer evidence than the videos released by the navy in 2017.

There are only a few possibilities:
They are ours, or another nation's.
They are alien from off earth origin.
They are timetravelers, or extra-dimensional.
They are from earth, but created by an unknown civilization that is hidden on our planet. The oceans, the artic, or deep underground are all places that could provide areas that would avoid detection.

Since recorded sightings date back thousands of years and photos ninety or so, I seriously doubt they are of US, Chinese, or Russian origin.

[triron]

88. Read about Dr. Erik Lentz.

Last edited Sun Apr 16, 2023, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Physics of FTL travel.

[blogslug]

96. The MOTHERSHIP is already here

To see it you just need to give up the funk...

[milestogo]

97. Is that used at beauty shops?

[blogslug]

101. Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-Funk_Mothership

[Shanti Shanti Shanti]

100. I've been saying it all along, we are seeing scout craft from motherships hidden out in Oort cloud

We have no idea what they want other than eggs from our females for their breeding experiments

It's so obvious

[area51]

110. I'm not saying it's aliens ...

Sorry, I can't resist.

[ecstatic]

113. I wish they could get better camera footage

Why haven't they put better cameras on some of the military jets? And most importantly, a military team needs to be assigned the sole task of waiting the object out to see where it goes. I'm still betting on the object being terrestrial. If the object is able to fly/hover indefinitely, I think that points to the possibility of a living creature. Alpine Swift birds can fly for 6 months without stopping. I don't think any machines, alien or human, can hover for that long.

[neverforget]

119. I saw a cylindrical object while I was walking back to work on my lunch break in 2019.

I looked up in the sky like I always do see what kind of jet is flying overhead into PDX. This particular jet was Southwest Airlines flying under the clouds which were at 6500' that day. (I checked the weather when I got back to the office.) Anyway, in my line of sight towards the jet, I saw what I thought at first was a hawk because it was flying in circles but I quickly realized that it wasn't a hawk. It was a long silver cylindrical object about 20-30' in length and made no noise. It circled 2 times before it stopped and moved off to the southwest quickly gaining speed before I lost it behind some trees. I guess it was at 1500-2500' agl. In that time, maybe 30 seconds, I did not think of getting my phone out to get a picture. I was too stunned with what I had saw. Was it a drone? It didn't make any noise and moved faster than any drone I had seen before. (Doesn't mean that it couldn't be) A balloon? If it was a balloon, it was going against the wind and picking up speed.

It looked like this:
https://flipboard.com/article/cigar-shaped-ufo-over-idaho-it-definitely-exists/f-14f768880b%2Fufosightingsfootage.uk

[miyazaki]

121. I saw Bigfoot once!

It made a sound I would not want to hear twice in my life.

[Kennah]

122. Aliens is both a cover story and a disinformation campaign

The first jet fighter, Bell P-59 Airacomet, first flew in 1942. They stuck a fake prop on it while on the ground.



Allies used inflatable tanks to fool the Germans during WWII.



Roswell? 1947? Well, the hint of space aliens and a spacecraft are a great cover for Project Mogul (1947-1949), which was a project putting microphones on high-altitude balloons flown over the Soviet Union to detect nuclear detonations.

U-2 was the first of many planes flying out of Groom Lake, aka Area 51, which is part of Nellis Air Force Range, starting in the mid 50s.

Aliens is a great continuing cover story. Gave cover to the development of multiple different aircraft.

Instead of trying to match technology, the Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation spend money trying to contact aliens rather than steal technology for their own stealth aircraft.