[chipdart]

> I want the aliens to be real so much. But even if it doesn't turn out to be aliens, these sorts of events present an opportunity to study and explore as-of-yet unexplored or poorly understood phenomenon, which can be equally exciting.

One of the main reasons why the UFO crowd discredits itself is the way that the crazies in the community are overrepresented, and look at "this flying object is not identified" and automatically jump to the conclusion that not knowing something somehow means it definitely must support an outlandish mythology.

[fnordsensei]

At the same time, the supposedly rational opponents to this does everyone a disservice by judging all of it based on the loudest fraction of people. And then we can’t have scientific inquiry into anything, because baby/bathwater.

[dennis_jeeves2]

Agreed, mainstream 'scientific' establishment scientific inquiry is a sham. It's a modern form of religion.

[chipdart]

> At the same time, the supposedly rational opponents to this does everyone a disservice by judging all of it based on the loudest fraction of people.

Not really. The UFO community is synonymous with gullible crackpots and conspiracy loons. If the community wants to be take seriously, they themselves need to sort themselves out before they can expect to be taken seriously.

It's the boy that cried alien.

[david-gpu]

> If the community wants to be take seriously, they themselves need to sort themselves out

How do you propose we collectively do that? Appointing a UFO Pope and excommunicating the heretics?

Yes, there are folks out there who see any dot in the sky doing anything they are vaguely unfamiliar with and jump to the conclusion that it must be a bona fide alien spaceship. However, this doesn't mean the UFO community is uniformly like that. Nor is the available evidence limited to bright dots in the sky, either.

There will never be "scientific" evidence without scientists willing and funded to obtain it. And if we label every person with an interest on the subject as a "gullible crackpot and a conspiracy loon" then how likely is it that we will fund their research, and how unbiased are we to listen to the results of that research unless it fits exactly within the boundaries of our preconceived ideas of what is even possible.

I don't have the answers to the UFO hypothesis. Never seen one, never want to see one either. But I appreciate any systematic effort to collect data of the objects in our skies and identify them. If nothing else, we will at least be protecting our airspace from foreign adversaries.

[crispyambulance]

> The UFO community is synonymous with gullible crackpots and conspiracy loons.

It's worse than that. There's definitely a religious element to their beliefs. The UAP hearings last summer suggest that there's "UFO-believers" in leadership positions in the Department of defense. These people are SPENDING GOVERNMENT MONEY on insane fiascos and have been able to get a lot of attention lately.

The AARO report (https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/37...) goes into detail.

The sad thing is that some politicians have latched on to this and are using it to appease their conspiracy-laden constituencies.

[revscat]

> There's definitely a religious element to their beliefs.

Such as? I haven’t seen this attitude you’re claiming to exist.

[Buttons840]

"We can't be certain what it is, therefore, we are certain it is aliens."

You're right, and it's funny thinking about it in more abstract terms. Being "unidentified" means we can't match it to any known phenomenon, to then jump to being certain it is aliens is silly.

[keepamovin]

Although this characterization does not represent a lot of the analyses, and I think it's silly to "homogenize" a group of people and misrepresent them via stereotype.

Isn't that a definition of discrimination? That seems to be very silly. Haha! :)

Anyway, analysis focuses on "5 unexplainable observables" like : lift without control surfaces, instant acceleration, low observability, hypersonics without signatures, transmedium travel.

For a more serious introduction, see: https://www.uap.guide/

[chipdart]

> Although this characterization does not represent a lot of the analyses, and I think it's silly to "homogenize" a group of people and misrepresent them via stereotype.

You certainly aren't being serious. The term UFO has been so abused by crackpots and conspiracy loons that it managed to be synonymous with unbelievable reports of aliens.

[keepamovin]

Oh, I'm being serious. But the point about 'UFO' is different to the point about mischaracterizing people: which you seem to be doing. That seems to be an abusive thing, definitely.

[keepamovin]

Also, I think the 'UFO' term is good. Detected on radar, probably means object. UAP is too nebulous possibly deliberately so to confuse. UFO's the better term I think. I honestly think the chracterization of people interested in that as 'crazy' or 'crackpot' is not only abusive, and stupid (and not serious), it's not true at all, I don't think it ever was.

I think that idea is some kind of 'propaganda'. There has been an information war about this topic because the existence of a more powerful outside force directly challenges the authority of our Earth governments, so in the face of no other means to contest these things, they've sought to belittle interest in them to empower themselves. Controlling the narrative rather than the nuts and bolts. But the kind of abuse of the public is untrue, and like wartime propaganda against the Japanese as "they will eat your babies and take your women."

The crazy thing is having that view, and the non serious thing is characterizing people like that. That's what I think, and I think that's the right way. I mean, you can't make progress on understanding something if you try to shame anyone who wants to talk about it, get interested in it or study it.

Seriously tho, if you were an invading alien force wouldn't you want people to discount your existence as crazy? What better way to run cover for your infiltration? Hahaha! :) So the whole thing is bizarre but I think it's not profitable to go that way. It's only good to treat people well, and this topic is no exception. Not just for the reality of treating people well, but so we can study it properly. The serious way is to take it seriously. :)

And what is better, seriously, than something that could help bring about a Star Trek future? Fucking cool I think. So I think people who bring a negativity or an abusiveness there are just projecting, either their own shit, or the shit that's been fed to them by propaganda. And if you really want to be a free thinker you just have to get outside of that. I think that's the best way to move forward on this. Positive and fun. open and curious. And lookin to the future and seein what we need to see as risk and opportunity. Yeah! :) Haha

[revscat]

I see this frequently asserted, but rarely substantiated.

[ipaddr]

That's part of the campaign to discredit what others see and to encourage anyone who sees something to keep quiet.

[blueflow]

But who would do that? And why?

[chipdart]

> That's part of the campaign to discredit what others see and to encourage anyone who sees something to keep quiet.

Here's the ugly crackpot conspiracy loons angle rearing it's head.