Let's, then, talk about, why the articles about UFOs aren't published and peer-reviewed in well-established scientific magazines?
The bulk of the scientific community worldwide have toys like a 75 billion LHC, but don’t have “advanced tech” at their disposal such as@Gagi how do you expect the scientific community go about studying the UFOs and releasing such a paper? What would the paper even be on? The military are the ones who have the fighter jets, the advanced radar systems and cameras, the expertise on vehicles and knowledge on the latest technology and the years of documentation.
Should public scientists point cameras in the sky randomly and just hope they happen to come across a phenomenon, and if they did, how do they measure it and how do they repeat it in a controlled manner to establish any sort of theory or conclusion?
The only way we are going to see research papers from public scientific institutions is if they collaborate directly with the military and get their hands on the data
but they are going to release blurry footage for you to "make your mind up yourself". strange isn't it? how they don't release anything of actuall substance but are willing (for reasons no-one can explain to me) to release that? why?It doesn’t take a genius to understand why that’s not happening, the US are not going divulge the workings and information from its various military sensors and systems,
no, doesn't convey that, at all, which is precisey why the bulk of the entire science community ignores it / shrugs it offyet still convey the evidence and conclusions
One of Donald Trumps last orders as president was to demand an intelligence committee put together a UFO report exactly in this manner and within 180 days. We are getting that in literally a few days, they’ve been working on it for months. Let us see what it says.
The bulk of the scientific community worldwide have toys like a 75 billion LHC, but don’t have “advanced tech” at their disposal such as
jets, radar and camera's on par to that of an jet developed in the late 80's such as an F18 and a nimitz class carrier..... Seriously?
but they are going to release blurry footage for you to "make your mind up yourself". strange isn't it? how they don't release anything of actuall substance but are willing (for reasons no-one can explain to me) to release that? why?
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.
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 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?
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.
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 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.
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.
but again we’d have to disagree with each other that this represents the majority of scientific projects.
the same place where all the papers "proving" the earth is round are as opposed to flat. You have to first get passed the point where the likelihood of a theory (or UAP) actually being something extraordinary is greater then the aformentioned mundaine phenomena or object, (based on the gathered data.) and so far it just doesn't.The stigma around UAPs was brought up as it sets a timeframe for when science would have become more aware and open to study the subject, roughly 5 years. Not long considering we might need years to gather data. The funding required, although not breaking into the top 1% you keep referencing, may be expensive enough to put it in the top 10%. I’ve found one analysis that puts the avg. funding for research papers in 2014 at $45,000. Thats significantly lower than the requirements for a UAP study. The limitations are obvious enough, we can again agree to disagree on that. After all, considering the UAP is a real phenomenon (whatever may be behind it) where are the papers studying that and confirming all these cases are in fact birds or weather phenomena? They don't appear to exist either because the same barriers and factors exist, it works both ways.
yes but only as being more likely then magic physics breaking aliens. and again, you skip a step.Any UAP study that wants to consider options beyond the very basics of what you described needs to know if what they are looking at is a military drone or operation. That's what we are talking about here, the high quality studies, so it would have to be addressed. You yourself listed highly classified drones as a likely candidate.
Are you feeling the entirety of this current situation is unfolding based off the 3 videos? (which btw I double checked were not released via the Pentagon). Your’e talking as if its these videos alone that are causing this commotion, public campaign, report and general responses from the govs/military. They’re clearly studying and drawing conclusions on evidence that goes beyond a single video. The conversation has gone beyond birds. The report is likely going to prove exactly what I’m saying, let’s see how many cases its been looking at, its not going to just be the nimitz. We should know very soon.
because thats not how it works hensmonIf the answer to all this is so mundane as the sceptics suggest i.e birds then why did 99% of the cases not yield a single piece of evidence that concludes that theory???
nowhere in that entire quote or conversation does Sam express positive believe that alien visitationare defacto taking place and that the government covers that up. selective quoting 101, in an edition of "medium"Sam has announced that he is not only convinced that ET visitation is real but that he's been contacted by US government to help aid with the disclosure process that is about to take place(!!!).