None; we know of no alien spacecraft.

Then upon what basis do you propose to ascribe EM-affective properties to them? Isn't it so they fit the observation and thus support the pre-desired conclusion?

However, in this case multiple eyewitnesses reported EM effects from a UFO.

They report EM effects. Whether they were caused by the UFO would require identifying the object and determining whether it were capable of causing EM effects. UFO "researchers" habitually conflate observation with hypothesis regarding causation. This is why they are not taken seriously.

I'd agree they may've been mistaken.

"May" is irrelevant. Without any proof of causation there is absolutely no obligation to accept their interpretation.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

There were 'em' effects and some people attributed them to a 'ufo', that doesn't mean the two were related.

I would say knowing the capability and reliability of our electronics fit on the Frigates I served on they were probably just broken. Our Sonar array, the cutting edge at the time was always breaking, same with the Radar sets. Idon't think that any of our operators ever thought that any outside agency was responsible unless we knew there was an exercise of some kind and we were expecting it.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Inflation, SuperString, Mbrane theories are all minority opinions?

I didn't see where peer review is optional.
How do we find out if this paper wasn't peer reviewed?

Also,
"It is on the science citation index and is one of the highest rated astronautics journals in the world."

Is this not so?
Does such a journal publish optionally reviewed papers with egregious lack of scientific basis?


I'll concede that apparently scientists, physicists, astrophysicists have varying degrees of what they perceive to be physics. My "reality is" was quite wrong.

Theoretically, at only 10% the speed of light it is feasible to reach the nearest stars in 40-50yrs with plasuible technology, no?
I don't think assuming sufficiently advanced tech being "magic" is a serious science foul.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Bostrum offers an alternative way of looking at the evidence. We can't tell anything about the prevalence of extraterrestrial civilisations merely by looking at our own, but by expanding our search we can start to draw conclusions based on what we find. So far we have found nothing - but this may be simply because we haven't looked far enough.

Once we gain the technology to look deeper into the universe in a search for life and civilisations, then we can start drawing some tentative conclusions. If we continue to find no evidence, that would have certain implications, which we have explored in a number of threads on this forum; and of course if we do find evidence of life or civilisations,that would open a whole new field of inquiry.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I agree but these aren't isolated reports of such.
It seems special pleading to ascribe so much mishap to radar / visual cases.
At what point can we believe these people saw / experienced what they claim?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

We can "believe" them when they present evidence.

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I forgot to ask:
Are we to assume also those reports in Morrocco, 3-4hours after the Tehran incident, from multiple eyewitnesses of a similar UFO were mistaken?
And then again in Tehran a couple years later?

Sorry guys, but it strikes as me as special pleading indeed to ascribe over and over radar/visual cases, apparently credible multiple eyewitnesses, alleged EM effects, all as mistakes.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

That is curious, since Macabee and Pratt say that Jafari was in the first plane, and Damirian and Shokry were in the second plane.
Admittedly Macabee relies on Pratt for much of his evidence, but Pratt seems to have read some of the official reports.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Inflation, SuperString, Mbrane theories are all minority opinions?

Yes, when applied to the question of alien visitation. You have cited exactly one paper on the subject. You claimed that "our best" experts established this finding. Pointing to the general topics the authors allude to does not create support for their specific findings.

I didn't see where peer review is optional.

http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sites.../page/187/l/en
wherein it is stated that the editor may not necessarily choose to contact referees for a submission.

How do we find out if this paper wasn't peer reviewed?

Your evidence, your burden of proof. You are the one who has relied upon the "fact" that your paper was peer-reviewed as some sort of metric of its scientific validity. It is your responsibility to discover whether this paper was reviewed and, if so, the nature of that review. You are simply assuming it was somehow guaranteed to be correct.

Is this not so?

"Highest-rated" can mean many things. You are trying to inflate the credibility of this paper by lauding the venue in which it was published. That's indirect and disingenuous. I'm evaluating the credibility of the paper based on the properties of the paper itself.

Does such a journal publish optionally reviewed papers with egregious lack of scientific basis?

JBIS explicitly accepts papers that are forward-looking (i.e., speculative) in nature on subject including interstellar flight and exobiology.
http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/sites.../page/186/l/en

It is an appropriate venue in which to publish a speculative article on the probability of alien visitation. That doesn't make it "physics."

Theoretically, at only 10% the speed of light it is feasible to reach the nearest stars in 40-50yrs with plasuible technology, no?

Irrelevant. Your authors accept that interstellar distance is a problem. They simply go on to speculate that aliens would have solved that problem -- somehow. Their line of reasoning is based on the same UFO-enthusiast hogwash: "We can't limit the capability of aliens, therefore we can't say they can't have solved it."

I don't think assuming sufficiently advanced tech being "magic" is a serious science foul.

It most certainly is when your findings center around attempting to determine the likelihood of alien visitation. Simply assuming that magic technology exists, so that you can inflate your estimate of what would be possible with it, is very wrong.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I agree but these aren't isolated reports of such.

You mean it isn't the first time this improper conflation has occurred.

At what point can we believe these people saw / experienced what they claim?

At what point will UFO "researchers" begin to respect the distinction between what is seen and what is hypothesized?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Even if they were not, why would we expect the two cases to be connected? The movement of this object seems to have been consistently (and bizarrely) eastward, supposedly backing away from a pursuing F4 (or, more probably, remaining at a constant distance of 4AU). Morrocco is to the west of Tehran.
Why would we expect reports years apart to be connected? Are we to imagine that the object was hiding nearby for several years?

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

Reading Pratt's account, I note that the object faded out slowly;
A slow fade and climb into the sky is exactly the sort of behaviour I would expect of a misidentified planet.

Exactly the same phenomenon occurs at the end of the second Rendlesham Forest sighting, where the object slowly fades from sight into the approaching dawn... this suggests to me misidentified celestial objects are responsible for at least part of both incidents.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

This is a thing you do, and you ought not. You are conflating the existence of these concepts with the idea that they support your claims.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Supporting outlandish claims by the use of faulty reasoning is a "hallmark" of visiting alien proponents.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Summed up exactly in 26 words. I've been trying to express this thought for some years.

__________________
Nothing beautiful was ever made from gravel.

Fine Jay, as I said, my stating "reality is ... " was quite wrong.
Let me concede:

A handful of scientists have put forth that our best astro / physics arguably predict Earth should/could have been visited by now. It starts with Fermi's calcuations and diffusion modeling, followed by Olum's Conflict Between Anthropic Reasoning and Observation and Gato-Rivera's Brane Worlds, Subanthropic principle and Undetectability Conjecture coupled with "Inflation Theory Implications for ET Visitation."
While they may be astr / physicists you might not accept their notions of Inflation, Superstring, Mbrane, multiverse etc cosmologies as our "best" physics and astrophysics, especially when it comes to the ETH.
Your choice.
As for me, I've come to accept these cosmologies even while we really have no idea what's going on. I accept the "magical" nature of hypothetical ETi tech. A couple hundred years ago going to the moon was quite the "magical" notion, no?
I also accept the basic argument by scale, the possibility of far older and more advanced civilizations. I accept the copernican principle, more and more supported IMO with advances in astrobiology (chemicals and ingredients for Life are everywhere, let alone the processes).

What does any of this mean?
Nothing, we don't know.
It remains the ETHypothesis, indeed.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

While [my authors] may be astr / physicists you might not accept their notions of Inflation, Superstring, Mbrane, multiverse etc cosmologies...

[...]

I accept the "magical" nature of hypothetical ETi tech.

I do not. Your authors may be physicists in other capacities, but to ignore the hard, concrete problems of physics in order to chase after esoteric subjects and attempt to connect them to UFO sightings is not "our best physics."

Simply assuming that some unknown agent has exactly the properties you need in order to make some hypothesis true is quite clearly the antithesis of science. It may have a place in front of an audience accustomed to speculation. But it is not physics.

A couple hundred years ago going to the moon was quite the "magical" notion, no?

So was spinning straw into gold, which proposition remains impossible. Just because some such propositions have come true does not mean all will, or that any can.

Your authors simply assume that aliens must be able to visit Earth, therefore we should expect them and that we should consider visitation a possible explanation for otherwise unexplained phenomena. That's not science.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

So you "allow" for any concept as long as it confirms your preconceived notions concerning "visiting aliens"...this is not "news" to anyone here.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Really? What's the prediction, exactly?

Our best physics arguably predict that when you run electricity through a filament in a vacuum, the filament will emit light. It's a very specific, very detailed prediction, based entirely on phenomena we understand very well through extensive experimental observations.

In the case of predicting that aliens should/could have visited Earth by now, what are the extensive experimental observations? What are the phenomena we understand very well? What are the details of the prediction. What, specifically, is being predicted?

Incidentally, "our best physics"? A lot of the stuff you've listed under that heading in this thread seems to me to be more like "our most speculative and so far un-falsifiable physics, plus some conjectures about what might happen if we make a bunch of unsupported assumptions".

You do not accept the possibility of hypothetical ETi tech being more advanced than our own?
Absurd.
How do you rule it out, Jay?
I think that's all "my" authors are saying; the possibility should not be dismissed so easily.
Is the idea any less plausible than the current SETI assumptions, that ETi is only so advanced to be out there in their "goldilocks zone" leaking radio, sitcoms and beer commercials?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Are the size, age and composition of our inflationary universe unsupported assumptions?
Are the ingredients for Life as we know it not strewn throughout the cosmos? Are the processes not the same? Or are these unsupported assumptions? Is Copernican principle unsupported? Are Fermi's calculations of particles in a room randomly moving about until filling the room unsupported? Are diffusion models and such arguments by scale unsupported? Is travel at only 1/10 c theoretically unsupported? Are multiverse theories unsupported?

Indeed there are assumptions and conjecture at work in considering the ETH but "a bunch of unsupported" I think not.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Not that I think Jay needs my defence, but I seriously doubt that anybody on BAUT would misinterpret his words in this way.

There's a colossal difference between accepting the possibility that aliens might have overcome problems that seem insurmountable to us now, and assuming the aliens will have overcome them.


It's not a question of dismissing the possibility, it's a question of putting it in its place. It makes for good speculation. It makes for good science fiction. It might even be right! But there's nothing supporting the idea at this stage.

It's a working assumption. Suggest a more practicable one if you can.

__________________
Nothing beautiful was ever made from gravel.

Actually, I was referring to your constant invocations of m-brane theory and the unsupported assumption that aliens must somehow have solved certain problems in unspecified ways.

But how about the other part of my post, that you seem to have entirely ignored? The part of my post where I asked several direct questions about your claims? Could you please address those?

Regarding the claim that our best physics arguably predicts that aliens should/could have visited Earth:

• What are the experimental observations?
• What are the well-understood phenomena?
• What are the details of the prediction?
• What, specifically, is the prediction?

So far, as best I can tell, your answer in this thread has been, "according to some other guys, m-brane theory, gas diffusion principles, and ninja magic totally establish the possibility".

Can you put this into your own words, perhaps? Especially the "ninja magic" part?

You do not accept the possibility of hypothetical ETi tech being more advanced than our own?

Changing horses. "More advanced than our own" does not automatically mean, "Have solved the problem of traveling interstellar distances." You simply wave your hands and imply that all problems are equally tractable. If we can figure out powered heavier-than-air flight, we can also eventually figure out how to cheat relativity. No. Not buying it.

I think that's all "my" authors are saying; the possibility should not be dismissed so easily.

The current theoretical impossibility of doing what the authors so effortlessly suggest is being done, is what is being dismissed -- by your authors. They're the ones sweeping the facts under the carpet. No matter how differently you argue the "magic ET" hypothesis, it's still the "magic ET" hypothesis and its still as logically flawed each time you bring it up.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Actually it's just the opposite. Without some form of credible, convincing evidence for "alien visitors", the possibility should not be embraced as much as you think it should be.

"Think" what you wish...however without evidence it is "a bunch of unsupported".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Well said.

The proposition that some mode of interstellar travel is accessible to ETs is the premise of the rest of the authors' arguments. It amounts simply to wishing your argument into existence.

When dealing with possibility versus impossibility, the burden of proof is always upon possibility; impossibility is unprovable (at best, that no method yet has succeeded).

At best the article in question is speculation. To call it science is purely irresponsible. It is unscientifically supported and unscientifically reasoned.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

(Dr) David Brin, in a formal academic paper here
http://www.brin-l.com/downloads/silence.pdf
gives a nice overview of the many, many different possible reasons for the 'Great Silence'. I've found a few ones he's missed, but basically he's got most of 'em.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

I'm curious - which reasons do you think he missed?

__________________
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem.

I particularly like "fear of killer robot probes" as a reason for other civilizations to stay silent. Perhaps fear of killer robot probes is a universal attribute of all advanced civilizations, or at least those that develop movies.

That paper was quite a read. Has anyone written something similar more recently, given our confirmation of extra-solar planets, etc.?

__________________
See? Because of me, now there's a warning. -Homer Simpson

Just a question of curiosity: way back in this thread was the statement that (paraphrasing) Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information. Would not such a statement require the same kind of support and evidence that is being asked of the individual who started this thread? Who says Wikipedia isn't reliable or credible? Can examples be provided?

__________________
Life happens while you're busy making other plans. J. Lennon