[juskrey]

Throughout my already 20 year IT career, I can't even count how many times I've come across extremely paranoid explanations, often in the verge of insanity, of regular computer behavior like basic non obvious algos or glitches. From people otherwise normal. What is interesting, almost never I could change person's mind, once toxic explanation is in.

Recently, with all that internet marketing and real surveillance tech, this worsened a lot. Some humans are just wired differently.

[ethbr0]

This speaks to both sides of the problem in getting to the truth.

On the one hand, we sensationalize events farther than the data supports ("My radar showed extremely high velocity, so there must have been a craft moving at those speeds").

On the other hand, we use sensationalism to dismiss accurate reports ("You said your radar showed extremely high velocity, therefore what are you reporting, a UFO?").

The new approach seems best: report, collect, and analyze the data, and see where it goes.

[deadbeeves]

You have to admit, given that resources are finite, the dismissive attitude is warranted. Why is it that alien spaceships (let's call them what people actually think is being discussed, and not just any random flying thing that we don't know what it is) only show up on equipment when you can barely tell what you're looking at, and never clearly and unambiguously from multiple places?

[ethbr0]

I look at it from the opposite perspective.

If you were a foreign power running things in military ranges that gave odd sensor readings (say, balloons with radar characterization gear), wouldn't it be convenient if your adversary dismissed reports as fanciful?

The fact is that any contact in a military range, where militarily valuable radar and signal emissions abound, is a threat to national security.

Gear is going to malfunction and throw off a non-zero number of false positives. But any contact is important enough that it at least deserves to have a report taken and logged on it.

[deadbeeves]

You're talking about a different interpretation of the word "UFO" than I used above. Ever since those reports came out some years ago of pilots reporting UFOs, the implication has been very strong that "UFO" doesn't just mean "here's something that showed up on the sensors that we don't know what it is".

Yes, the military should investigate all reports of UFOs in the strict sense to see if they've found some new piece of equipment from a foreign nation. I assume they've done that before releasing the footage to the public after figuring out what it is they actually detected.

[ethbr0]

The current furore, from the more reasonable heads in Congress, is that the military has historically not done that.

They had (a) no centralized collection point or widely used reporting mechanism, (b) no staffed office tasked with investigations (afaik, only the Navy had an office, and it was ~3 bodies with other duties), & (c) no periodic review.

They essentially ignored it as a potential problem. So Indiana Jones, "top men" type stuff.

Unfortunately, a lot of the public debate is "aliens", because media and idiots. But there's a serious underlying problem.

[deadbeeves]

Fair enough. That is pretty dumb and rather a major oversight IMO.

[bloak]

Sorry for the pedantry, but if they are flying around in the earth's atmosphere then they are not "spaceships" even if they are being operated by extraterrestrials. Likewise, NASA's Mars Helicopter is not a spacesheep even though it is operated by extramartians. I think it's good to get that terminology right so as not to confuse naive readers into assuming that the things that are putatively observed as UFOs crossed space to get here: they may have been constructed on earth by aliens that arrived 500 years ago, or whatever.

My personal guess is that there probably are extraterrestrials on the earth observing us but they are competently remaining hidded and have nothing to do with any UFO observation by a human. Of course I don't have any good evidence for that: it's just a hunch.

[deadbeeves]

>Sorry for the pedantry, but if they are flying around in the earth's atmosphere then they are not "spaceships" even if they are being operated by extraterrestrials.

I'll see your pedantry and raise you my own pedantry. The fact that a hypothetical craft flies around in an atmosphere does not imply that it's not a spaceship. A vessel could conceivably be capable of flying through some fluid at one time and through the vacuum of space at another, and would thus be called a spaceship. For example, the Space Shuttle was a spaceship even when it was operating under aerodynamic forces. Since we're talking about alien ships, they would have to be alien spaceships, because otherwise we would have to accept that these aliens have the necessary infrastructure and facilities to land their spaceships somewhere (some kind of alien spaceport on Earth?), disembark, and board their alien aircraft to fly around Earth's atmosphere, which is an even more ridiculous idea.

[revscat]

In my experience the only people using the word “alien” are people like you: the dismissers. My belief is that there is something strange going on, but we do not know what.

Getting some people to even admit that much is a struggle, even after 70+ years of it happening.

[deadbeeves]

To me, just saying that it's something "strange" would be a hard sell, because I would have to agree that it's definitely nothing mundane shot such that I can't recognize it for what it is. I could agree that we don't know what some of these things are, as long our degree of ignorance is properly bounded. I don't think there's equal chance that they're, say, bigfoots on hoverboards or birds. "Look, this thing here looks like it might be some kind of secret Chinese UAV because it moves like human aircraft move but is too small to fit a person" is something that I think is worth looking into. "This looks like it could be a tear in spacetime" isn't. Nor is "we have no idea whatsoever what this is".

[heyoni]

We went from UFO to UAP and it feels like the former has become a dysphemism (forgive me, it’s my first time using the word) or a pejorative. And now here you are going straight for the”A” word :D

[naasking]

> You have to admit, given that resources are finite, the dismissive attitude is warranted.

Why? It costs almost nothing to just collect data. How do you know they're not witnessing advanced tech from another nation? Or maybe it's a pervasive flaw in our sensors. Seems like those are both well within the military's mandate. Even if it's just an interesting new physical phenomenon, it would be great to have some evidence.

[giardini]

The article is alarmist but we have no sign of malevolent (or even intentional) behavior. We need to wait for more information.

[jasmer]

Yes, good point, this is as much a 'psychological' phenom as anything else.

Particularly in the areas of populism and conspiracy theory.

[heinternets]

I would love to hear what some of these explanations were

[juskrey]

Mostly "Someone did it on purpose". Usually person they don't like, or rival department, or government, overall situation ranging from light computer illiteracy to full blown X-Files scenario.