The Phenomenon: What is it?

[Dissonance]

@Lumpy

ETA: It would be fascinating, although much of it is probably still classified to this day, to look at World War Two intelligence gathering compared with post-war analysis once there was access to the enemy archives to see how well and how poorly observers’ best attempts to obtain knowledge of what was going on faired.

There’s not a whole lot that’s left classified to this day, and sorting claims vs what actually occurred began, publicly, as soon as the war was over. For example, The Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee: Japanese Naval and Merchant Shipping Losses During World War II by All Causes published in 1947 which reconciled claims of sinkings during the war with Japanese records. The upshot: pilots in particular were very likely so claim to have sunk ships they hadn’t even damaged, and were very poor at identifying ship types, even when trained in ship identification.

Pilots kill claims of aircraft shot down were also notoriously unreliable. There’s a whole wiki article on it - Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II - Wikipedia. One of the most often cited examples is the Battle of Britain, between July and September 1940 the Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down 3,198 RAF aircraft. Actual RAF losses were 915. During the same period the RAF claimed to have shot down 2,698 Luftwaffe aircraft, while actual Luftwaffe losses were 1,733. These figures were cited both by Winston Churchill in his 1949 volume of The Second World War (book series) and the preface to J..C. Fuller’s 1949 The Second World War, 1939-45: A Strategical And Tactical History.

And in relation to the topic at hand, these were claims made by trained military personal.

[Lumpy]

I’m thinking that the ratio of reported or suspected Axis spies to actual Axis spies was even worse.

[Miller]

@Czarcasm

How can the earth be hollow If it is also flat?

It’s the Pop-Tart model of Earth.

[Lumpy]

@Czarcasm

How can the earth be hollow If it is also flat?

The anti-gravity world clinging to the underside of the disk?

[Ryan_Liam]

@Irishman

@Voyager

Just another thing I haven’t understood for the 60 years I’ve been reading about UFOs. How to you explain that they want to stay hidden (don’t land on the White House lawn) and yet buzz military planes? It is not to observe - we can do that from orbit already and their capabilities must be much better than ours.

My question: how come the best the aliens can do at any time is indistinguishable from hoaxes? How come the best evidence from lower technology periods now look blindingly obvious fakes? How come the best evidence from an improvement in detection and recording is later found to be silly when the technology improves again?

Wasn’t there a few years ago some wild claims about some light vortex opening in the skies of Tennessee, only to find out later it was all publicity for one of the Spiderman movies? I vaguely recall a similar incident from a dozen or more years ago about weird hovering aircraft with strange writing that preceded IIRC another aliens visit Earth movie?

Ok, that one might be hard to validate given I’m not giving specifics. Partially because my time sense is fuzzy, so it could be 10 yrs or 20 yrs. Probably not 30.

But the point still stands. When the best recording we had was eyewitness testimony, we got objects skipping around the sky like skipping saucers across a pond. When still cameras took off, we got fuzzy or poorly composed images or else photos of lantern tops and hubcaps.

When moving cameras became accessible, we got moving blurry images.

Now we have high Def, infrared, and radar signals that supposedly are simultaneously capturing the same items, except we aren’t given any actual examples.

Weird floating infrared images from a dozen years ago now have all the characteristics of paper lanterns that amazingly started to proliferate during the same time frame.

While the same type of flawed arguments are used to justify that this time there must be something to it.

Like it’s significant that the best current evidence comes from the military when:

1. the military has the best tech of the time;
2. the military has reason to be gathering all the surveillance that gives us these events;
3. the military is concerned about security, so are highly motivated to stretch the data to it’s limits and try to interpret from that stretch;
4. the military is primed to look for threats, and bound to interpret any anomalies from that perspective;
5. the military has motive to lie about witnessed events and leaked images to cover up their own covert activities.

We KNOW the US government has used UFO rumors to hide classified projects before.

And we know human psychology is flawed exactly in ways the would create these type of events - either the claim of the event or the interpretation of what happened.

But yeah, maybe this time fairies are real.

Totally fair critique. Here’s the short answer:

The phenomenon stays just ahead of our detection tech like it adapts.

Military leaks? Could be psyops, but too many consistent patterns for all to be fake. The best evidence always sits in the uncanny valley: not clear enough to prove, not weak enough to dismiss, also, maybe it’s not about contactmaybe it’s about managing attention,
Or maybe it’s us, misreading something real through cultural lenses.

Bottom line: it’s weird, persistent, and doesn’t fit clean answers.

[Ryan_Liam]

Right, but isn’t that what makes it more suspicious? If every case neatly collapses under scrutiny, yet the overall phenomenon never goes away, maybe we’re looking for the wrong kind of proof. What if it’s not about the events it’s about the pattern?

[crowmanyclouds]

@Ryan_Liam

maybe we’re looking for the wrong kind of proof.

Wrong kind of proof of what exactly? You don’t prove a hypothesis you falsify it. What’s the criteria of falsification and why isn’t it every case collapsing under scrutiny?

[Ryan_Liam]

The pattern itself hasn’t been falsified, just individual cases. If the anomaly keeps recurring despite that maybe we’re testing the wrong hypothesis.

[crowmanyclouds]

If every case has falsified the hypothesis then there IS NO PATTERN.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Lemme see if I understand the argument:

1 x 0 = 0.
But 1,000 x 0 = 1.

[crowmanyclouds]

Well, according to the greatest mind on the planet, Terrance Howard, everything we know (weird how familiar that sounds) about math is wrong and 1x1=2.

[Telemark]

@crowmanyclouds

If every case has falsified the hypothesis then there IS NO PATTERN.

They make it up in volume.

[Telemark]

@Ryan_Liam

The phenomenon stays just ahead of our detection tech like it adapts.

Yeah, this really sounds like a serious scientific hypothesis.

[TroutMan]

@Ryan_Liam

Right, but isn’t that what makes it more suspicious? If every case neatly collapses under scrutiny, yet the overall phenomenon never goes away, maybe we’re looking for the wrong kind of proof.

This is hilarious, thank you.

[74westy]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Lemme see if I understand the argument:

1 x 0 = 0.
But 1,000 x 0 = 1.

1,000 x 0 is clearly equal to 0 but the pattern still exists. In every case where you pick a specific number and multiply it by 0, the answer seems to be 0 but the pattern of people suspecting that some number times 0 = 1 is still a pattern that needs to be explained.

[Andy_L]

Every fossil we find just creates two more gaps in the fossil record!

[Mangetout]

@74westy

but the pattern of people suspecting that some number times 0 = 1 is still a pattern that needs to be explained.

Oh, I can explain that one.

[Czarcasm]

@Ryan_Liam

If every case neatly collapses under scrutiny, yet the overall phenomenon never goes away, maybe we’re looking for the wrong kind of proof.

Or that, to you, Ryan_Liam, the facts just don’t matter and there is absolutely no way whatsoever to disprove the existence of your “Phenomenon”…which makes what is going on the exact opposite of science.

[Andy_L]

Flagged just to straighten out who this is a reply to

[Czarcasm]

Thank you, did a little editing.