Earlier this week it was revealed that a skeptic group may have been altering the Wikipedia pages of ufo investigators, sympathetic academics and UFO and UAP historic events to suit their own agenda. Mick West, and Susan Gerbic recieved the brunt of the comments regarding the changes.

From The Good Trouble Show - Matt Ford explains.

https://www.youtube.com/live/Bq-GuSs8kX8?feature=shared

3 hours long and a bit hap hazard but it is brutal. When they locate these editors who have encircled the UAP subject and deliberately pushed their own agenda across multiple subjects not just UAP there will be legal cases. The I.P. addresses are known. Syntax across known debunkers and editors has been run through chat GPT for analysis and its conclusion was that certain debunkers and editors have a high degree of either being the same person or knowing each other extremely well due to spelling errors and punctuation mistakes and vocabulary used including phrases.

Quote from: Lowls on January 22, 2024, 17:22

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on January 22, 2024, 16:16

Quote from: LDV81 on January 13, 2024, 14:07

...
Pete and gang for advice and confirmation instead of experts military or otherwise

I'll believe Pete over the military any day!

That's an interesting stance. You must elaborate.

I was mostly joking but not completely.  Pete seems to have a very balanced view of most things.  I used to have a lot of respect (or at least an assumption of competency) about the military but after some of them were in a previous administration it appears otherwise (I'm thinking of one who should be in jail except for a pardon), plus I know of one who was in military intelligence who was a complete crackpot.  Very nice guy but not who you would want in charge of anything, and I think he was a Colonel.  The crackpots seem to mostly be in the Air Force so maybe the other branches are better.  However, in my experience most military people have little background or abilities to make reasonable conclusions about scientific phenomena - I would leave that to the scientists and keep the military out of it.  As for UAPs, I'll take the opinion of independent scientists over the military any day.

The military isn't the epicentre of crackpots but I do agree. Scientists tend ro default to being skeptics first in many circumstances no less in the subject of UAP and this is not scientific at all. All data must be considered. Instead they tend to approach using prosaic means and if that fails they claim lack of data but exclude that provided by witnesses of any stripe who, also can claim their share of crackpots also.

In the militaries favour are on the lower levels people who are trained well to use their equipment, a claim not many scientists or skeptics can share. And in the upper tiers you get denial and omission  for whatever reason. Ego, position, reputation and religion and a denial.

This is now changing and so rapidly as never before seen.

Science is in the business of knowns as a metric where it is clear this is not usual. Interestingly witnesses statements aren't used for analysis but they are used to prove a prosaic claim.

Time will tell.

This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.

What can science tell me about this box.

What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.

I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.

I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.

What can science tell me about this box.

What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.

Not much. For a lot of reasons.

First, as cascoly already hinted at, the technical quality of the image is not great. More importantly, you are withholding practically all additional information that a scientist would usually have to evaluate such a photo, like for example, where it was taken (that it was taken on Earth and not for example Bajor or Quonos is kind of a given), when it was taken, what scale it has, any information about the environment, any information you would get from touching it (you could probably tell whether it is made from clay or metal or plastic or cardboard etc.) and so on.

What I can tell you is that is does not seem to be translucent, as you cannot see the background through it and it casts a shadow.

Hot off the press

https://www.dodig.mil/In-the-Spotlight/Article/3656428/press-release-evaluation-of-the-dods-actions-regarding-unidentified-anomalous-p/

Not read it yet but will do shortly. Wonder how they did.

Oh dear couple of paragraphs in and ....

The DoD OIG also found that the DoD�s lack of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to address UAP may pose a threat to military forces and national security. For instance, the DoD OIG determined that the DoD has no overarching UAP policy and, as a result, it lacks assurance that national security and flight safety threats to the United States from UAP have been identified and mitigated.

They refer to the full(er) report from August 2023 which can be found here

https://www.dodig.mil/reports.html/Article/3496071/evaluation-of-the-dods-actions-regarding-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-dodig/

and scroll to the bottom and click on this area to download the 16 page report.

Senator Gillibrand questioned by Askapol who the new director of AARO is and she sates that she asked AARO staffers whonit is and they didnt know. This appeared on their own website suddenly

Quote from: Lowls on January 25, 2024, 16:27

Quote from: cascoly on January 25, 2024, 13:58

Quote from: Lowls on January 24, 2024, 20:16

This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.

What can science tell me about this box.

What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.

I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.

I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.

not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons.  without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box. 

even the photographer's claim 'it's on earth' cannot be verified. it could also be ai generated

Precisely and this is unfortunately where we are with UAP.
Debunkers don't need to ask for more data.
Skeptics don't tend to ask for more data.
Science can't be given more data which it needs other than this photo which as you say shows nothing.

But you've excluded me from the equation.

 ...

Science would love to be given the freedom to examine UAP data. But it has to wait for it like
all the rest of us.

of COURSE science (and skeptics) need more data, as you admit in the final sentence, hence their tentative conclusion:

whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. - Wittgenstein

simply put, you don't matter - you asked about the photo and the replies emphasized the need for more data, not your CV - examining you would be the argument from authority --"they're a military genius, therefore they must be right" - look where that's gotten us in the past - lies about CIA intervention in Iran in the 5s, and a host of other countries, the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis and most damaging the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Right but we can't get to the point where science can have more data because:
There is no reliable repository therefore it all gets dumped on twitter, Facebook and utube. Once there it gets picked over by the Mick Wests and his ilk and tossed aside.

I wasn't offering a CV (slight exaggeration and neither was it about me but about witnesses) and we don't need to place witness statements to the exclusion of all else, wr need to also have witness statements regardless of social position. All data is valid. Or none of it is. Witnesses give context. Witnesses correct assumptions. Witnesses may but only, may, be unreliable. Not all.

Your way is no longer working in this circumstance. If science knew anything, science would have built it already. It hasn't that we are aware of so any assumption it has is incorrect because that's all it is, is an assumption.

But someone has built it and its being seen with increasing regularity and governments are spending a lot of time, money and resources on something that isn't allegedly real.

Kirkpatrick claims there is no evidence of extra terrestrial anything. Which is great. Why has AARO got  new director. Why have the US government issued a statement yesturday stating they aren't doing enough to make our airspace more safe from UAP. Why did Senators Schumer and Rounds create a brutal amendment. Why are congressional members going to hold future UAP briefings once they have investigated the information divulged to them in the classified meeting last week. Why did they state that no one in that meeting was left in any doubt that Grusch wasn't legitimate.

Surely this should die right now or in fact following Kirkpatricks misjudged oped. Why did Elizondo threaten Kirkpatrick that if you are not willing to tell the truth then we are. Elizondo has been a pain in the arse regarding openness. He never is. It's all duty and patriotism. What's happened to make him no longer care about that.

It needs to be pushed kicking and screaming into the light no matter the cost. Because to not do so now when too much has been leaked would cause open rebellion in the Intelligence agencies and we all know what that looks like - Snowdon etc

Quote from: Lowls on January 26, 2024, 18:37

Quote from: cascoly on January 26, 2024, 16:17

Quote from: Lowls on January 25, 2024, 16:27

Quote from: cascoly on January 25, 2024, 13:58

Quote from: Lowls on January 24, 2024, 20:16

This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.

What can science tell me about this box.

What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.

I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.

I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.

not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons.  without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box. 

even the photographer's claim 'it's on earth' cannot be verified. it could also be ai generated

Precisely and this is unfortunately where we are with UAP.
Debunkers don't need to ask for more data.
Skeptics don't tend to ask for more data.
Science can't be given more data which it needs other than this photo which as you say shows nothing.

But you've excluded me from the equation.

 ...

Science would love to be given the freedom to examine UAP data. But it has to wait for it like
all the rest of us.

of COURSE science (and skeptics) need more data, as you admit in the final sentence, hence their tentative conclusion:

whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. - Wittgenstein

simply put, you don't matter - you asked about the photo and the replies emphasized the need for more data, not your CV - examining you would be the argument from authority --"they're a military genius, therefore they must be right" - look where that's gotten us in the past - lies about CIA intervention in Iran in the 5s, and a host of other countries, the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis and most damaging the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Right but we can't get to the point where science can have more data because:
There is no reliable repository therefore it all gets dumped on twitter, Facebook and utube. Once there it gets picked over by the Mick Wests and his ilk and tossed aside.

I wasn't offering a CV (slight exaggeration and neither was it about me but about witnesses)

and we don't need to place witness statements to the exclusion of all else, wr need to also have witness statements regardless of social position. All data is valid. Or none of it is. Witnesses give context. Witnesses correct assumptions. Witnesses may but only, may, be unreliable. Not all.

so your 'photo query' was disingenuous - you just used a pointless example to regurgitate your uninformed views of how science works and slime critics once more .

 All data is valid. Or none of it is. - nonsense - are we supposed to include flat earthers, birthers, election or holocaust deniers in our considerations?

Quote

Your way is no longer working in this circumstance. If science knew anything, science would have built it already. It hasn't that we are aware of so any assumption it has is incorrect because that's all it is, is an assumption.

once again you expose your lack of understanding - it's not my way, altho my background in the sciences   you don't get to make this silly declaration about science's end.  according to you, since we didn't know about airplanes or  telephones or computers we couldn't have made them. 

it's again the opposite - science explores areas to expand its knowledge& new technologies often results.

science makes assumptions aka hypotheses, but that's only the beginning - it then performs experiments or looks for physical evidence to support or deny te hypothesis.  UFOlogy has yet to creep up to this basic procedure

Hahahahaha what is a "birther". I'm not going to even look that up it sounds annoying.

No the box experiment wasn't disingenuous at all and if you feel it was then you do 🤷 oh well. It showed exactly what the situation is. You a staunch stickler explained perfectly. Big Toe did as well .

I haven't 'exposed' anything. This context comes from fighting or war where someone exposes a weakness. Lack of knowledge of a process isn't a weakness it is just a lack of knowledge. I don't have that knowledge but is that a weakness in your eyes? Odd. But of course irrelevant. It's knowledge I don't need. Oh to apparently hold credibility with you and your 'liker' yes but not in the real world. And by real world I mean what is happening now.

"science makes assumptions aka hypotheses, but that's only the beginning - it then performs experiments or looks for physical evidence to support or deny te hypothesis"

"not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons.  without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box."

How did that work out for you? What you showed admirably was what happens to most data given to the public no matter its source. "Meh" lol. I'm not mocking you. I've had you prove an 'assumption'. Thank you. You don't have to believe it or agree - its what happened.

The data won't even get to the second stage of your scientific process model because "meh" is what happens world wide online in the public eye. Not many scientists want to risk their position fighting against such assumptions by the masses of debunkers and skeptics and their following who to be fare sometimes show some plausable explanations or theories.

Quote from: Lowls on January 22, 2024, 06:56

While Mick West is still defending his balloon theory for the Jellyfish footage Dave Falch has stepped in to give his analysis.

Conclusion: Black DARPA craft undergoing testing and footage leaked.

https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?feature=shared

He does however explain what it's unlikely to be. Spoiler: No balloon animals

When you post stupid videos and allegations like this, you make yourself look like a fool. Giant jellyfish UFO. Looks like a deflated weather balloon, drifting in the wind. Stick to serious questions like Dod, disclosure and the oversite committee, not foolish sci-fi click bait.

Do you understand the use of the word allegation? The above statement points to no but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt so you'll have to elaborate. Mick West has claimed exactly what I wrote. That's not an allegation that's a fact. If you believe with your expertise that it is a deflated weather balloon please show this is so. It looks nothing like a deflated weather balloon to me but as it is as yet an unknown we can't say for sure but please show the evidence for your assertions I'll pass them on.

Fact - https://youtu.be/ojotsKjshHc?feature=shared

And he makes a glaring error. Also fact.

Quote from: Lowls on January 27, 2024, 03:15

Hahahahaha what is a "birther". I'm not going to even look that up it sounds annoying.

No the box experiment wasn't disingenuous at all and if you feel it was then you do 🤷 oh well. It showed exactly what the situation is. You a staunch stickler explained perfectly. Big Toe did as well .
...

thanks for a reasoned reply that addressed previous posts - as someone here would say "you must be inebriated"?!?

if you don't know what a birther is, you're lucky - it's a US political meme

Thank you also. I still don't know what a birther is  and it's sounds like I should be grateful lol.

Edit: I cracked and looked it up. Good grief 😔  I do not subscribe to birtherism.

Quote from: Lowls on January 22, 2024, 06:56

While Mick West is still defending his balloon theory for the Jellyfish footage Dave Falch has stepped in to give his analysis.

Conclusion: Black DARPA craft undergoing testing and footage leaked.

https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?feature=shared

He does however explain what it's unlikely to be. Spoiler: No balloon animals

When you post stupid videos and allegations like this, you make yourself look like a fool. Giant jellyfish UFO. Looks like a deflated weather balloon, drifting in the wind. Stick to serious questions like Dod, disclosure and the oversite committee, not foolish sci-fi click bait.

It's just a weather balloon. UFO nuts make the ordinary into a mystery. They lack crit�i�cal think�ing of any kind.

Lowls, prove it's not just a weather balloon.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on January 27, 2024, 10:23

Quote from: Lowls on January 22, 2024, 06:56

While Mick West is still defending his balloon theory for the Jellyfish footage Dave Falch has stepped in to give his analysis.

Conclusion: Black DARPA craft undergoing testing and footage leaked.

https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?feature=shared

He does however explain what it's unlikely to be. Spoiler: No balloon animals

When you post stupid videos and allegations like this, you make yourself look like a fool. Giant jellyfish UFO. Looks like a deflated weather balloon, drifting in the wind. Stick to serious questions like Dod, disclosure and the oversite committee, not foolish sci-fi click bait.

It's just a weather balloon. UFO nuts make the ordinary into a mystery. They lack crit�i�cal think�ing of any kind.

Lowls, prove it's not just a weather balloon.

As I'm often reminded - you made the claim - have at it 😊

UFO nuts he said in a sweeping statement. And does sir or madame or they, have a feral belief system that you cling rigidly to. Licking some priests hand every weekend and choking back some hearty backswill filled goblet contents to rinse your chakras before returning to Satan's work or .... lol
I mean if you are a happy clapping, Bible thumping, grovelling God botherer then I can understand if these false idols doth offend. But if you are just being lazy and adding your inconsequential 'meh' to the masses then job done you've 'meh'ed' successfully and can sleep soundly that you've told that loser on that thread that barely anyone will see. I mean I'd kind of like a bit more ... detail
shall we say that we can't get our teeth stuck into but if that's what you came here to do, you've done it well and message recieved. It's bunkum and you know it.