The crux of the matter isn't deciding what we accept as evidence - the crux is "what do we do when two pieces of evidence contradict each other...?". How do we resolve that issue?
Sure, how about when a UAP witness says 'I checked an ISS tracking app and the ISS
wasn't overhead at the time of my sighting', but an experienced investigator says 'I checked an ISS tracking app for the location date & time of your sighting and the ISS
*was* overhead at the time and here's a screenshot to prove it'. How do we work out who, if either, is right?
And further to my last, let me give you another thought. If you were a Intel analyst and your job was to resolve these cases for safety of flight for your mission and the fighter pilot said it wasn’t the ISS, the ISS was up, but it was also visible when the UAP was visible, I think that this object may have been a Russian secret jet, and you resolved it as the ISS, because the pilot and or sensors they were using were wrong, then where do we stand? Is that a good analyst. Not everything that isn’t a star or a satellite or a planet is a UAP in the non-human sense, it could be a secret Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or even allied forces secret tech being tested. A surveillance craft or surveillance balloon etc. just saying the ISS was up so resolved, next, isn’t scientific or even thorough. So when I personally see some of these sites like Metabunk resolving things with the first easy solution (because yes the ISS was nearby at the time) it makes me wonder what value those amateur investigations hold? Final example, back when the stealth bomber was still secret. It zooms around in the path of the ISS, between the fighter get and the ISS. Resolved as ISS. And we move on. Right now significant resources are being put in to arial assets and R&D for all major countries, space as well.
I 100% agree with you here James. whenever there are two objects in the sky - the ISS and a UAP -my first thoughts are for the safety of the crew on the ISS. we should absolutely try and work out what it is, whether it is an advanced Russian technology or extra-terrestrial tech (although I'm not sure why Russian tech would be a threat to the ISS because they're part of the ISS program). But I think you'll agree, with reference to my original question, having two objects seen and confirmed in the sky isn't contradictory. What's contradictory is when there's one object observed and there are two contradictory explanations - one prosaic, and one extra-ordinary. From what you're saying it appears that you think we should just take the one that is more difficult to stomach. It is en entirely possible that the astronomy software or websites have been compromised by those behind the coverup, and that the witness was able to fully configure and understand the ISS tracking app that they downloaded moments after they didn't see it.
What we really need are people who are able to stomach the idea of extraordinary phenomena, and extra terrestrial craft who are able to stomach the idea of finding something novel and previously undiscovered, but at the same time are brave enough to correct witnesses when it becomes apparent that the UAP they initially thought was unidentifiable is actually something prosaic. Wouldn't it be great if we could find someone like that?
Ah I see, well that’s a difficult one to resolve, because you have to know exactly where the pilot was when they used their app. In many cases the ISS will be in the sky, but perhaps at their 11 o’clock and the UAP at their 1 o’clock. In order to resolve it at as the ISS one would have to assume the witness was either lying or the eyeballs and software/hardware wasn’t working. And those with the intention of resolving it as ISS, because it’s easier to stomach (or as this article tackles, because the unknown isn’t possible) than that this may be truly unknown, will opt for the latter.
no, we don't have to assume anything. all we need to do is ask the witness where they were when they saw the UAP, and if the UAP was in the same position as the ISS. We don't need to assume the witness was lying at all. it can be very difficult to work out where things are in the sky and witnesses should be given the utmost respect and fair treatment when it comes to these sightings. it's a shame that some do have the intent to resolve all these sightings as prosaic. I think we both agree that everyone should all just want to fully identify these sightings, whether they turn out to be prosaic or otherwise.
The crux of the matter isn't deciding what we accept as evidence - the crux is "what do we do when two pieces of evidence contradict each other...?". How do we resolve that issue?
Thanks for your comment. That’s an interesting point. Can you provide an example?
Sure, how about when a UAP witness says 'I checked an ISS tracking app and the ISS
wasn't overhead at the time of my sighting', but an experienced investigator says 'I checked an ISS tracking app for the location date & time of your sighting and the ISS
*was* overhead at the time and here's a screenshot to prove it'. How do we work out who, if either, is right?
And further to my last, let me give you another thought. If you were a Intel analyst and your job was to resolve these cases for safety of flight for your mission and the fighter pilot said it wasn’t the ISS, the ISS was up, but it was also visible when the UAP was visible, I think that this object may have been a Russian secret jet, and you resolved it as the ISS, because the pilot and or sensors they were using were wrong, then where do we stand? Is that a good analyst. Not everything that isn’t a star or a satellite or a planet is a UAP in the non-human sense, it could be a secret Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or even allied forces secret tech being tested. A surveillance craft or surveillance balloon etc. just saying the ISS was up so resolved, next, isn’t scientific or even thorough. So when I personally see some of these sites like Metabunk resolving things with the first easy solution (because yes the ISS was nearby at the time) it makes me wonder what value those amateur investigations hold? Final example, back when the stealth bomber was still secret. It zooms around in the path of the ISS, between the fighter get and the ISS. Resolved as ISS. And we move on. Right now significant resources are being put in to arial assets and R&D for all major countries, space as well.
I 100% agree with you here James. whenever there are two objects in the sky - the ISS and a UAP -my first thoughts are for the safety of the crew on the ISS. we should absolutely try and work out what it is, whether it is an advanced Russian technology or extra-terrestrial tech (although I'm not sure why Russian tech would be a threat to the ISS because they're part of the ISS program). But I think you'll agree, with reference to my original question, having two objects seen and confirmed in the sky isn't contradictory. What's contradictory is when there's one object observed and there are two contradictory explanations - one prosaic, and one extra-ordinary. From what you're saying it appears that you think we should just take the one that is more difficult to stomach. It is en entirely possible that the astronomy software or websites have been compromised by those behind the coverup, and that the witness was able to fully configure and understand the ISS tracking app that they downloaded moments after they didn't see it.
What we really need are people who are able to stomach the idea of extraordinary phenomena, and extra terrestrial craft who are able to stomach the idea of finding something novel and previously undiscovered, but at the same time are brave enough to correct witnesses when it becomes apparent that the UAP they initially thought was unidentifiable is actually something prosaic. Wouldn't it be great if we could find someone like that?
*waves*.
Ah I see, well that’s a difficult one to resolve, because you have to know exactly where the pilot was when they used their app. In many cases the ISS will be in the sky, but perhaps at their 11 o’clock and the UAP at their 1 o’clock. In order to resolve it at as the ISS one would have to assume the witness was either lying or the eyeballs and software/hardware wasn’t working. And those with the intention of resolving it as ISS, because it’s easier to stomach (or as this article tackles, because the unknown isn’t possible) than that this may be truly unknown, will opt for the latter.
no, we don't have to assume anything. all we need to do is ask the witness where they were when they saw the UAP, and if the UAP was in the same position as the ISS. We don't need to assume the witness was lying at all. it can be very difficult to work out where things are in the sky and witnesses should be given the utmost respect and fair treatment when it comes to these sightings. it's a shame that some do have the intent to resolve all these sightings as prosaic. I think we both agree that everyone should all just want to fully identify these sightings, whether they turn out to be prosaic or otherwise.