Alien logistics: Are UFOs real? Do occupants ever need molybdenum and other supplies?

[Magical Realist]

Quit doing it, moron. Don't blame me when you actively promulgate the very thing you then whine about, like a bitch.

I'll respond on topic whenever I feel like it asswipe. When someone posts about ETs I'll post about ETs. You're the one doing all the whining. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. I'm not about to do a thing you say.

[Syne]

Ahem.

Once again the skeptics get hung up on the alien thesis of ufos. I'd say the ET hypothesis has done more damage to the reality of ufos than even skeptics themselves.

Literally whining about skeptics getting hung up on ETs...and then almost immediately hypothesizing about ETs yourself.

Again, I've never told you to quit posting, regardless of the content. You're welcome to. Including hypothesizing about aliens. It's just idiotic to then whine about skeptics sharing the same focus you regularly push. Don't get so butt-hurt because someone disagrees or criticizes you.

[Magical Realist]

I've never told you to quit posting, regardless of the content. You're welcome to. Including hypothesizing about aliens.

Good..Now shut up about it. Nothing I posted was out of place. If I want to speculate about ETs I will. If I wanna speculate about time travelers I will. If I wanna speculate about interdimensionals I will. And if I wanna post about the ET claim undermining the reality of ufos, I will. I will literally post about whatever I want with or without your bitchy whining. Isn't that insane!? lol

[Yazata]

After the text that CC quoted, the Space.com story includes this:

"Still, the E.T. idea should not be dismissed or ridiculed, Shostak and others argue. It's not very scientific to eliminate a hypothesis out of hand, after all, and some UAP encounters are very difficult to explain.

For example, the november 2004 navy sightings off the California coast were made by four pilots in two different jets, and they saw the bizarre, fast-moving object with their own eyes, two of the aviators told the CBS news program "60 Minutes" in 2021. That rules out the posibility that an instrument glitch was responsible in that case. And the same UAP was also documented by radar.

"It's not trivial to say what these things are," Shostak said."

The 2004 "tic tac" sightings off San Diego were first noticed on radar and had been seen for several days. They were described as dropping into the radar's search space from above (the direction of space), then ascending abruptly "like a ballistic missile'. When this happened yet again while the carrier battle group had aircraft aloft, a couple of those planes were vectored by radar to check out the object visually. That's when the initial "tic-tac" sightings occurred. Two aircraft, four aviators. A third aircraft higher above didn't see the object but did see ocean turbulence below where it had been sighted. The object departed at a high rate of speed, but by that time other aircraft had been launched from the carrier. They sighted the object, chased it unsuccessfully and got some video of it. So there were more than two aircraft involved in the 2004 sightings.

One of the pilots in the 2015 Atlantic sightings says that mystery objects had assumed fixed positions in the sky at about 30,000 feet where they could presumably observe the training exercises. The objects were observed both visually from a distance and on radar. They maintained fixed positions in the sky regardless of upper level wind conditions. I'm not sure what the next sequence of events was, but multiple aircraft were sent to investigate the mystery objects (plural) which accelerated, maneuvered and easily evaded the jets. Again, video was collected. The pilot remarked that he knows of aircraft that can station-keep at a fixed point and other aircraft that can maneuver and accelerate rapidly, but no aircraft that he knows of that can do both. So again, multiple witnesses and multiple modalities (radar, visual and video).

Once again, I want to argue that this isn't an either/or choice between mundane on one hand, and extra-terrestrial on the other. There are more options than that, ranging from secret R&D aircraft prototypes (US or foreign) all the way to 'Something happened that we haven't even thought of'. That latter is an unbounded set and we have no idea what it contains (since by definition we haven't thought of it). We have no way of knowing how many of those unknown possibilities there might be.

---

Once again the skeptics get hung up on the alien thesis of ufos. I'd say the ET hypothesis has done more damage to the reality of ufos than even skeptics themselves.

I think that I agree with Shostak that the ET hypothesis can't just be dismissed with a sneer. I think that it's still a live option, even if it isn't the only option or even the most likely one. There isn't really anything inherent in the ET hypothesis that make it deserving of ridicule. The ridicule is the work of the "skeptics

[Magical Realist]

Excellent analysis of those events Yazata! Once again your objective accuracy and restrained common sense come thru. You should post this over in Sci Forums. Not that that will change anything.

[Yazata]

The movie Arrival depicted alien beings using huge stone-like monoliths to teleport from planet to planet.

I absolutely loved that movie, MR. I loved that the aliens weren't humanoid and they didn't breathe air. Their biology was, well, alien.

And that wasn't the half of it. Their psychologies were totally non-human. It's really unusual in science-fiction to encounter alien aliens. Beings that are fundamentally different.

It was really hard to understand the end of the movie, which isn't surprising since our linguist protagonist was starting to think like the aliens, not like a human any longer. But I got the feeling that the aliens were a race of cosmic CC's, aware inhabitants of a block-time universe. So the aliens aren't just experiencing now like we do, they are experiencing their whole lives such that any temporal point is arbitrary. So our linguist realizes that her lost loved ones aren't lost, they are just back at a different point in the block, but just as real as anything else. She can still live with them since she's no longer tied to the present. So she communicates something very personal to the Chinese Premier that heads off nuclear war that he whispers in her ear years later in the future when she gives him a copy of her book on alien psychology, and the alien spaceships (?) leave without our ever knowing why they came in the first place. (Presumably to teach our linguist how to live her whole life simultaneously, so to speak.) So she proceeds to start writing it up in a book that ends up transforming humanity... or something like that. That's my take on it. It's not accidental that the squidlike aliens' squirted ink communications look like Zen brush painting, the movie is like a koan. 

Mind boggling and very well done. It really captured the sense of wonder that originally attracted me to SF and to philosophy.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/tFMo3UJ4B4g

[Magical Realist]

Loved that movie too! A really thought out and deep meditation on what alien existence might be like and what affect it would have on us. True aliens will be more "other" than us than similar. Certain aspects will be inconceivable to us, particularly if they are more advanced than us. Hmmm...just like ufos I guess!

[Yazata]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.scoopwhoop.com%2Fanj...f=1&nofb=1]

[Syne]

I've never told you to quit posting, regardless of the content. You're welcome to. Including hypothesizing about aliens.

Good..Now shut up about it. Nothing I posted was out of place. If I want to speculate about ETs I will. If I wanna speculate about time travelers I will. If I wanna speculate about interdimensionals I will. And if I wanna post about the ET claim undermining the reality of ufos, I will. I will literally post about whatever I want with or without your bitchy whining. Isn't that insane!? lol

See, where I would never tell you to "shut up" or quit posting, you're more than happy to. Again, again, I never said anything was "out of place." You just keep making up these nonsense straw men that anyone can see for themselves never occurred. Of course you will continue to be a blatant hypocrite without a second thought. That's the hallmark of leftists. Me pointing out your hypocrisy is not whining, but you complaining about ET claims undermining people taking UFOs seriously, while continuing to push ET claims is hypocritical, whining, and, at this point, has become deflecting projection from you. And yes, you being medicated to ward of the worst from the three voices in your head is insane.

---

After the text that CC quoted, the Space.com story includes this:

"Still, the E.T. idea should not be dismissed or ridiculed, Shostak and others argue. It's not very scientific to eliminate a hypothesis out of hand, after all, and some UAP encounters are very difficult to explain.

It's not about eliminating anything. Science is about what there is evidence for. If it weren't, it would be wasting its time hypothesizing about and looking for unicorns and the like. A SETI astronomer obviously has a bias that makes assumptions beyond the evidence...as his whole job at SETI is looking for something that has yet to be found and no objective reason to believe it ever will.

[Magical Realist]

Science is about what there is evidence for.

Science also uncovers the evidence. It explores the unknown and discovers new phenomena we didn't know existed before. If it just confined itself to what there is already evidence for it would never make any progress.