Those are very good points about the reliability of the relevant equipment.
I totally agree that physics must apply.
There’s a ton of weird electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena that we understand poorly. It is far more likely that the majority of ufos are actually this.
That’s interesting that you think this!
Do you have a good sense of numbers, or even just the relative distribution, of various types of reported UFOs?
Off the top of my head, a good number of reliable reports, historically, seem to have been, e.g. experimental aircraft, weather balloons.
Reports of ‘abductions’ seem fairly unreliable – my prior is that these are likely ‘modern reboots’ of what were previously supernatural or divine events, e.g. what were previously ‘devils’ or ‘demons’ are now ‘aliens’. There seems to be a significant background of hallucinations experienced by many people and it seems like this has been true basically forever.
I’d be surprised if ‘drones’ weren’t ever reported as UFOs.
But maybe “weird electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena that we understand poorly” is a better explanation, particularly for what seems like pretty reliable and recent reports of ‘objects’ for which ‘drones’ isn’t a good explanation.
Do you have a good sense of numbers, or even just the relative distribution, of various types of reported UFOs?
No clue.
I’d think it would be difficult for a number of reasons. People think you’re nuts if you talk about UFOs. Everyone has mobile phones and dashcams these days and we aren’t suddenly inundated with high quality footage of UFOs buzzing around. Governments do have reason to try to keep any legitimate evidence out of public circulation (because some of this stuff has to be conventional weapons research).
Reports of ‘abductions’ seem fairly unreliable
From what I’ve seen, if you think you’re being taken by aliens you likely have a sleep disorder.
People routinely experience ‘contact with aliens’ when they take DMT that is exactly like what people that think they’re being abducted report happening to them. We can also induce some elements of the experience with targeted fNMRI. This appears to be entirely neurological in origin (especially when you consider that some people that believe they’re abducted by aliens have been asleep in the presence of other people when they claim abduction. They are quite literally bad dreams and nothing more).
But maybe “weird electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena that we understand poorly” is a better explanation, particularly for what seems like pretty reliable and recent reports of ‘objects’ for which ‘drones’ isn’t a good explanation.
The best explanation is the one which we are least comfortable with. The U in UFO. Unidentified.
We need to be more comfortable with saying “we don’t know” about things. That doesn’t stop you from speculation or consideration, but it does introduce flexibility of thought into the situation.
I’d think the bigger question that hardly anyone asks is “Are these UFOs all the same type of thing?”. We already know that some past UFOs have been weather balloons, experimental aircraft, weather phenomena, hallucinations, etc. so I see no reason to assume that all of the stuff we are seeing belongs to the same class. Perhaps some are drones, but clearly some are not. A good argument for drones is that not all UFOs are drones.
Those are very good points about the reliability of the relevant equipment.
I totally agree that physics must apply.
That’s interesting that you think this!
Do you have a good sense of numbers, or even just the relative distribution, of various types of reported UFOs?
Off the top of my head, a good number of reliable reports, historically, seem to have been, e.g. experimental aircraft, weather balloons.
Reports of ‘abductions’ seem fairly unreliable – my prior is that these are likely ‘modern reboots’ of what were previously supernatural or divine events, e.g. what were previously ‘devils’ or ‘demons’ are now ‘aliens’. There seems to be a significant background of hallucinations experienced by many people and it seems like this has been true basically forever.
I’d be surprised if ‘drones’ weren’t ever reported as UFOs.
But maybe “weird electromagnetic atmospheric phenomena that we understand poorly” is a better explanation, particularly for what seems like pretty reliable and recent reports of ‘objects’ for which ‘drones’ isn’t a good explanation.
No clue.
I’d think it would be difficult for a number of reasons. People think you’re nuts if you talk about UFOs. Everyone has mobile phones and dashcams these days and we aren’t suddenly inundated with high quality footage of UFOs buzzing around. Governments do have reason to try to keep any legitimate evidence out of public circulation (because some of this stuff has to be conventional weapons research).
From what I’ve seen, if you think you’re being taken by aliens you likely have a sleep disorder.
People routinely experience ‘contact with aliens’ when they take DMT that is exactly like what people that think they’re being abducted report happening to them. We can also induce some elements of the experience with targeted fNMRI. This appears to be entirely neurological in origin (especially when you consider that some people that believe they’re abducted by aliens have been asleep in the presence of other people when they claim abduction. They are quite literally bad dreams and nothing more).
The best explanation is the one which we are least comfortable with. The U in UFO. Unidentified.
We need to be more comfortable with saying “we don’t know” about things. That doesn’t stop you from speculation or consideration, but it does introduce flexibility of thought into the situation.
I’d think the bigger question that hardly anyone asks is “Are these UFOs all the same type of thing?”. We already know that some past UFOs have been weather balloons, experimental aircraft, weather phenomena, hallucinations, etc. so I see no reason to assume that all of the stuff we are seeing belongs to the same class. Perhaps some are drones, but clearly some are not. A good argument for drones is that not all UFOs are drones.