Right, whilst my PC is rendering lets delve into the counter counter counter counter argument. because why no.
I’ve already, in relation to the 1-8 “facts” you reference, made the case that all of those are depended on what the pentagon filtered before release. For which you or any Ufologist cannot rule out 1 external or interal manipulation, or 2 straight made-up for (political) agenda’s such as funding for research or military development… which is still far more likely than physics breaking down.
The podcast link is a reference to the Nimitz encounters in 2004 which is also cited as a case in the paper. So I’ll go in deeper in on that case later, concerning the pilots story itself: Testimonial evidence is just too weak evidence when extraordinary/physics breaking evidence is required, its just not good enough sorry.
as for the paper itself:
quick side note on MDPI’s Entropy, the journal its published in: Entropy is, to be charitable, a questionable tier science Journal with a whopping IF of 2.4, not exactly what you would call stellar.. and who’ve been on previous occasions critized for pseudo-science and quote “doing anything for money” with articles making the claim that a “spiritual environment” affects the development of cancer cells…right…sufficed to say they don't publish high profile quality research papers like the one’s you see in Nature or Science. So we’re already not off to a brilliant start. Personally I think (but that’s my opinion) that they hitch a ride on the popularity of open access journals..but hey..then again at least they don’t do Noetic science articles as far as I can find in 5 min google.
Its essentially a backwards physics calculation of case studies that for the majority depend on said testimonial evidence, and in some cases radar or visual data, aswell as the assumption that they are in fact objects/vehicles exhibiting those features, with uncertainties being assigned to the data and/or pilot witness error by the authors.
(and youtube links as sources in some cases..lol) .
But that’s not even all, Non of the case studies in the article actually are empirically researched on whether or not it actually IS a UFO/Alien object, its just the base assumption so as to run the calculations. Which is fine in itself, happens in science papers all the time, nice example being the paper by Michael Alcubierre, but make no mistake, this is not an evidence of Alien UFO’s paper. It’s a, what would the physics be it if we assumme thats the case, paper. And as such...fine.
Concerning the Nimitz encounter case study specifically (as I’m not going to go through all the case studies and it being the most “credible” and recent), there are far more mundane and non-pseudoscientific explanations available other the aliens including things like Parallax. Sub-Reconnaissance drones being interpreted by radar, Camera glare in the footage etc. On top of inconsistencies in the stories of the (newbie) pilots (How can someone see what a forty-foot object was doing from forty miles away whilst flying in a mach 0.8 jet?)
or from an article by J Nickel:
“we suggest that several things were going on during what was, after all, a training mission of the USS
Nimitz carrier strike group. We believe the churning water Fravor first saw was caused by a submerging sub; that the sightings of a UFO above the water (variously reported)—which hovered, then came toward one pilot—could have been those of a reconnaissance drone; that there may have been confusion (then and later) over the object or objects caused by the admixture of visual sightings with infrared video viewing; and, finally, that one video image showing an object suddenly zooming off screen was likely caused by the plane’s banking while the camera was stopped at the end of its sweep. Apparently not only had the incident not been considered serious enough to have warranted a debriefing of Fravor—let alone of the several other pilots and radar operator—but most of the carrier group’s personnel at the time regarded Fravor’s response as laughable. Major McGaha and I regard the entire incident not as evidence of an extraterrestrial encounter but as a comedy of errors involving the pilots.“
Due to 1,2,3,4 and 5 we can then say without doubt these are real encountered objects, and not geographical phenomena, human illusion or hallucination. So that theory can be ruled out. Each is captured on radar and across multiple instances, these are multiples events, sometimes multiple craft in a single event. Therefore we are left with two options; either everyone is telling the truth and these wingless objects are in fact moving at G-forces far beyond human possibility, with maneuvers that defy physics, OR the individuals and organizations involved are lying about what they’ve witnessed and the collected data too.
Wrong, we can doubt that, reasonably and in fact very much. Its highly unlikely that these are (mass) object behaving the way they do. Even if the institute providing the claim isn’t perse lying on the data sets. Why aren’t you for instance not accounting for say, as of yet unmapped quantum phenomena? Please explain to us why that’s less likely than “therefor magic alien spacecraft”? so no, that theory can’t be ruled out. Neither can things like Black swann mass instrument malfunction, coïnciding with mass hallucination... Which are both however unlikely, still a magnitude more likely than magic Alien spacecrafts breaking physics, .
However it's said that without the ‘lying’ variable in your argument you guys would be forced to concede that these craft are indeed Alien
No thats a fallacy. we wouldn't..and might I note that you're somewhat engaging in religious fundamentalists reductionist reasoning when they say: “well if it can’t be explained by science then you MUST concede that its God!"
We would at best concede nofkyo, your assumption however, that its extraterrestrials visiting us and breaking reality in the manner that you propose...is something that needs to be proven with more then "testimonials" and radar blips... since its all the way up the latter of unlikelyhood, I would argue that the chances of us living a computer simulation and those phenomena being part of program glitches or the admin checking in, are statistically more likely.
unless you think it possible that humans have invented craft that can move at 1000’s of Gs?
No, i don't think thats possible, Why do you think aliens as opposed to that somehow CAN do it though? what makes them so special that they don't have to follow the physical laws that govern this universe? and if they somehow could invent it. then why is that possibility excluded for humans precisely?
That’s why I keep bring it up. A debate against alien visitation must first work with ‘they are lying’ as the primary hypothesis. Either the multiple data sets are correct or they are not.
Correct.. and multible data sets being wrong or altered for whatever reason at least doesn’t break reality in the manner that an non air displacing 1000 G mass object does and is such more likely then all of physics out the window.
I know some of you touched on it already, but I would like to know in (somewhat) detail what kind of theory you would put forward to explain specifically why they would collectively lie about all of this, and then what evidence you could find to support it. That’s a genuine ask, not an attempt be me to be facetious (I think a plausible theory could possibly be made).
...you need a theory written for you as to why powerfull governmental and militairy bodies might lie?..
well.. ok then.
1 Humans lie. I don’t think that’s disputable.
2 Humans are hierarchical creatures by nature who, form tribes, institutions, governments etc.
3 within said hierarchies (and the power they try hold or gather in opposition to their peers) lies are usefull tools for among which but not limited to, political or financial gain. (like funding for a new research or military program)
4 Evidence to support that:
1971 pentagon papers,
“we have found weapons of mass destruction in Irak”
Guantanamo bay torturtes that allegedly never happened,
and more recently Flynn.
there, now please hand me my nobel price for the "why governments might lie" theory please
Regarding the astronauts Mitchell and Cooper. Attributing there cases to hallucinations/brain farts/visual tricks is not relevant with Mitchel and very unlikely with Cooper.
Yup, I agree, its unlikely. But its still more likely than thermodynamics out the window.
The fact that the man is very very sure, and absolutely claims it and has no doubt. And some other pilots maybe saw something too doesn't on top of that eve rule out visual tricks, memory reconsolidation, hallucination under stress etc. especially not in favor of alien objects breaking physics.
you really believe him ok. I don’t..since the chances of him being factually correct and physics being broken is less than the alternative.