So, again…what is the point of this sub-forum?
I've often wondered that myself.
My guess is that discussion of unwelcome topics was perceived to be
fouling the more conventional "science" fora in the opinion of some of the moderators. So alternative fora were created to which offending posts could be banished so as to keep the science fora
pure and proper. The "fringe" fora were never about open-minded free-wheeling discussion of edgier topics, they were always about suppressing them and removing them from science discussion.
(Which leaves open the question of what the point of the science fora is. What should they ideally be, given that Sciforums is a laypeople's discussion board populated by few if any trained and practicing scientists. It's certainly not a professional's shop-talk forum.)
We all know that random UFO sightings, eyewitness reports and grainy/blurry footage aren’t going to serve as “evidence,”
I'm not prepared to concede that. They
are evidence, just not evidence of the quality that some (including me) might desire.
So to loop back to NASA's panel considering how best to study UAPs, priority #1 might be to improve the quality of the evidence available. What would various specialists like to see in order to conduct their investigations? Physical evidence, sure. But absent that, multiple observers? Multiple detection modes? (radar, multspectrum photographic, high speed cameras etc.) Clearer visual photographic images? Air to air intercepts if possible? Good data on flight performance, velocities and accelerations etc.?
(I expect that they already have lots of that, but security classification keeps most of it locked up and outside the hands of the scientific community.)
Part of the problem is that most of this data collection up until now seems to have been entirely ad-hoc, happening in a context in which military personnel knew that their superiors were "skeptics" and that even reporting what was seen might damage their careers and reputations. So procedures have to be put in place to collect this information, to protect those providing it, and to bring as many sensors to bear as quickly as possible.
so why have this sub-forum except to discuss the possibilities that could exist?
Right. About all that we are in a position to do here is to discuss the range of hypotheses about what these things might possibly be.
Space aliens is certainly one of them, regardless of how viciously those who might want to discuss it are attacked by our movement "skeptics". (Open-minded thoughtfulness has never been their strength.) Secret earthly R&D vehicles is another possibility that I've discussed several times in the course of this never ending (but strangely interesting) thread. The "skeptics" favored misidentified familiar objects remains on the table too. I've even been attacked for echoing the 'UAP Preliminary Assessment' by saying that
Something was physically there and I don't know what it was, mainly because I also expressed reluctance to immediately default to 'misidentified familiar objects'.
You know Wegs, I'm struck by how similar this argument is to the atheist vs theist battles. Our "skeptics" are analogous to our atheists (and often the very same people in fact). Their arguments are much the same. Where I differ from them is that in both cases,
I'm happy saying that I don't know, assuming an agnostic position with regards to both the ultimate metaphysical questions and the possibility of extraordinary phenomena oberved in this world.
I've even been attacked here for using the word 'extraordinary'. Which kind of illustrates what one of the basic points at issue might be.
I’m not suggesting to accept that space aliens exist for example, without tangible proof, but we should be able to discuss why others believe them to exist.
Right. Addressing the perceived strengths and weaknesses of various hypotheses would be much more productive than incessant personality battles and
ad hominem attacks.
Not every UFO claimant is “crazy,” or seeking attention.
And in the interests of fairness, not every self-styled "skeptic" is a bullying closed-minded asshole. (Which is how I often perceive them, probably unfairly. But it explains my hostility to them.) It works both ways.
I’m glad NASA doesn’t think so
I emphatically agree.
and it’s willing to invest its energy into creating a study team to explore “what we don’t know” related to UAP’s.
I think that the initial issue is what kind of data is necessary in order for investigators to reach intelligent conclusions about what these things are (and aren't), and then how to best acquire that data.
A valuable question might be to determine first off, what kind of investigators are most needed and appropriate. Most of the sciences wouldn't seem to be directly applicable. I'd be inclined to invite experienced photographers over optical physicists, since the former are probably more familiar with real life photographic issues as opposed to theory. Experienced jet pilots if part of the data is air to air. Radar specialists. Engineers as opposed to theorists. The theorists might be more appropriate at a later stage perhaps, after hypotheses have been generated.
(It's like James Randi said about Uri Geller. The most useful people in investigating his claims would be magicians, not physicists.)
If this site’s section exists, it was for the purpose of discussion. Science doesn’t yet answer the question of UAP’s so should we shut down this sub-forum?
I like this subforum. But I agree with you that it could use more mature participants. The point here shouldn't be to insult board members that we disagree with into silence.
The bottom line is that we need to stop expecting everyone to agree with us and stop taking it as a personal afront if they don't. We need to develop greater tolerance for disagreement, which seems to be an inevitable part of the human condition.
