Yes seriously. Just because science has given us the hadron collider it doesn't mean the scientific community is swimming in money, it's not. You don’t seem to understand how research works in the real world, even publishing papers can be expensive. Im not arguing its impossible for public scientists to study UAPs but there's valid and obvious reasons why we haven't seen that happen, even ones that pursue the alternate hypothesis of weather or quantam phenomena...
Access to funding unquestionably and notoriously provides barriers to scientific research, In all fields. If you wanted a high quality UAP study it would be a very, very expensive and time consuming endeavour i.e the multiple cameras, the tracking and radar systems, the fighter jets, the military pilots and many other things. That's a big barrier.
No actually I do understand, and have a grasp of the amount of the money involved, which is why I think your proposition is ludacris.
There is a hell of a lot of money being pumped in the science community comparitivly then you care to admit here,. Now its not as much as the US militairy, granted. but case in point: SETI is a 5 billion dollar look-for-aliens project, with an annual cost of running it of 2.5 million (per dish).
(with 0 results over multible decades i might add, so its not exactly a profitable endeavour) and thats an oldy, off the cuff example by the way, the newer generations of proposed experiments in that field are way more expensive/world spanning.
bottom line:
its absolute peanuts compared to running/piloting a dozen or so mid altitude planes equiped with mundaine equipment such as radars and camera's, on par with that of an f18, to gather similar data then the stuff presented here for a couple of years.
How on earth do you reconsile the idea of them somehow
not being able to afford that and having to beg the pentagon for scraps, but they can somehow get the funding to pump billions into all manner of sky-watch science projects like HUBBLE, SETI, ARICEBO etc. most of which actually have an equally low result return rate.
its a nonsense argument, i'm sorry but it just is.
No. the scientific community isn't broke, and a (proper) study of UFO phenomena does not depend on them having to collaborate with the pentagon to gather evidence/material. It might
benefit them, but they're far from
dependend on it, which is what you suggest is the prime reason as to why we haven't seen papers published.
You DO need military collaboration as how else would they be able to rule out military drone hypothesis when drawing conclusions? If it’s rare quantum phenomena you’d need apparatus to capture and rule out that hypothesis too, whatever that consists of. You’d then point all this at the sky and have to wait months or maybe years with the random chance to find something, with jets on standby for the moment this happens. All this with no idea how it appears, when it appears, where it comes from, why it appears, if it will come back...
no, you don't.. those things are post hoc. The first thing you need to do is gather
actual data that conclusivly isn't a bird/balloon recorded in parallax or a plane in the infrared spectrum. then, when you've ruled out those hypothese properly, you can scale up. but you don't need that from the onset.
Einstein didn't start with LIGO, it was a graduall buildup to try and falsify his claims on gravity waves.
No pretending it's not complicated, extremely time consuming and expensive and with a return of investment that’s unclear, potentially non existent. Who’s gonna pay for that?
The exact same people, who'd pay for a 5 billion dollar alien search installation with a 0 return rate spanning multible decades. iow you and me. the taxpayers.
and by way. most of them are and would be (speaking for the US) arguably quite happy to do so either, as opposed to that money being spend on say foreign wars (or national healthcare)
We’re also forgetting that as little as 5 years ago UAP/UFO’s were accepted to be nothing more than conspiracy and hoaxes, so expecting that the scientific communities would have approached this up until now is naive. The rare ones that have considered it would need to find someone to give them the funding for such an endeavour of which they themselves likely believe is hoax too.
well yeah on this part we sort of agree. they (and I) actually still think this is a hoax, as in, not aliens. but that wasn't your argument if i'm right, your argument was (in a nutshell)
1, they don't/can't get the money.
2, they (therefor)
need to be in bed with the militairy, to get any kind of evidence gathered.
both I think are absolute bollocks, but on the side of them (the science community) considering this not even worthy of further study, either due to lack of (proper) data sets or more mundaine explanations being far more likely..yeah I agree..
The hypothesis put forth by the Ufologists of X object breaking physics based on Y footage and "testimonies" ..isn't even
worthy of serious consideration by the bulk of all that is science, Any scientist worth their salt will first occam razor it on first sight, and those who are genuinly interrested will be dissapointed to find it being the aforementioned upon closer inspection.
The videos were leaked and not Pentagon releases I believe, one as early as 07. And yes a short FLIR clip is non sensitive when compared to the entire data files and workings of different radar systems, of which you’d need for a complete evaluation in a paper (and more). My point that the Pentagon would not want that released still stands, so far they've given us nothing anyway.
both actually, There have been cases of "leaked pentagon footage they're covering it it up wooo" since as far back as the 70's, ofcourse. But in this instance, we're talking about footage (officially) released by the pentagon
after an (alleged recent leak.
the reason you see so much hype around this now is a rehearsal of the so called "disclosure" feedback loop:
or to quote scientific american:
“The advocates of alien disclosure are encroaching on these real issues of UAPs,” West says. These believers take mundane videos of incidents that are simply unidentified, he says, then reframe them as evidence of extraordinary technology—which, of course, is intended to mean “aliens,” even if enthusiasts for that hypothesis will not explicitly say so. This cultivates credulous media attention, which in turn creates a feedback loop of public interest, more media and then pressure on politicians to “do something.”