Weird Stuff (tinfoil hat wearing goons only, please) - The Bear and Badger

[Deleted User]

dynamiteReady wrote:

~~Plus, "I wanna' believe."~~

I know you’ve scored it out, but I do wonder about this need.

Kow

The possibility that there are aliens buzzing around is certainly more interesting than the probability that there aren't. I can't fault that as a reason for being interested.

djchump

Andy wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

@Face - In the case of this pilot, not only is the memory particularly prominent, it sounds like he's been recalling the event repeatedly, for many years now, in some cases, daily.

That doesn’t help its accuracy. Stories develop. One day he introduces a description of something he knows from other flights, and before we know it, it’s something he specifically remembers happening that day.

Aye, “recalling” something over and over for years is exactly how memories get embellished and falsified.

dynamiteReady

Well, that's true. But then isn't also reasonable to view every historical fact you've ever been presented through the exact same filter?

Because judging history solely on the assumption that human memory can become 'embellished and falsified' is just as harmful as blindly believing possible truths based on uncorroborated information/evidence.

Edit - Excuse all the edits. Was a bit confusing to jot down this idea.

Kow

A lot of history is verifiable incidents with measurable effects, viewed and recorded at the time. Not a memory. There are plenty of unreliable historians too. And plenty of doubtful events recorded, which are just as debated as UFOs.

djchump

dynamiteReady wrote:

Well, that's true. But then isn't also reasonable to view every historical fact you've ever been presented through the exact same filter?

Of course, that's why historians value first-hand accounts written at the time, rather than years later. Did you do any history at school? This is fairly basic stuff.

http://www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability

e.g: how would you assess conflicting reports about events at the Battle of the Somme, where you have one account written by a soldier in the trenches at the time of the events in his diary, and another account written years later by someone who wasn't there who only heard about it from other people telling them things? You'd quite naturally only place trust in the contemporary first-hand account.

[edit] Hell, even first-hand accounts can be extremely unreliable, as Andy has pointed out. I remember all the early reports about Menezes that hit the news in the days following the shooting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Disputed_facts_and_events

I distinctly remember witnesses claiming that he was wearing a "winter coat", "bulky jacket" and that one saw a "belt with wires sticking out" and that Menezes had vaulted the barrier while being chased by police. None of these were true.

dynamiteReady wrote:

Because judging history solely on the assumption that human memory can become 'embellished and falsified' is just as harmful as blindly believing possible truths based on uncorroborated information/evidence. Edit - Excuse all the edits. Was a bit confusing to jot down this idea.

No, it isn't. It's the only sensible way to assess individual sources. Again, what do you think historians do all day?

And having skepticism towards the provenance and reliability of an account is "just as harmful as blindly believing" anything you're told based on "uncorroborated information"?! You should have a serious think about what you just wrote there.

[Edit] PS, I'll just leave these here: http://theconversation.com/are-memories-reliable-expert-explains-how-they-change-more-than-we-realise-106461
One of the many links from that article: http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/12/4/361.short

Lord_Griff

I always imagine that when we are a space faring people, after investing trillions of pounds into technology and eventually decide to explore the extremes of our galaxy, no doubt engaging in multi generational travel. That we eventually find some inhabited rock, populated by a simple people and that all we do is top gun buzz them, fuck their simpletons and blow up live stock, just for jokes.

Kow

DR & Quinch!

dynamiteReady

Kow wrote:

A lot of history is verifiable incidents with measurable effects, viewed and recorded at the time. Not a memory. There are plenty of unreliable historians too. And plenty of doubtful events recorded, which are just as debated as UFOs.

Plenty of people question the history that we're taught.
Most of those disputes over what is and isn't documented are rooted in the idea that the text that we base our facts on, are primarily offered by the people who survive the longest and win wars.

Basing our knowledge on that premise could certainly be considered flawed, because those winners and survivors actually represent a very small percentage of all the information offered at any given time when you think about it.

But I'm sure that will be dismissed as an unreasonable idea.

@chump - Yes I thought about what I wrote. I also figured some people wouldn't like it. But I do think it's a reasonable point.

I myself do tend to trust most of the history offered to me, because of the weight of evidence (supporting accounts and docs... Museums, etc). But it is just as reasonable to be suspicious of info from the past, as it is to be suspicious of info from the present.

Reread the point I made. I'm saying that I think you're basically using this mnemonic fallacy idea, to overlook the parts of an eyewitness account that actually do warrant a bit more attention.

I see Fravor's account as a good starting point for an historical investigation, while you appear to see it as a reason for shutting down a whole line of inquiry, because human memory can be 'falsified and embellished'?

Disclaimer - The whole thing could still also be proven to be a hoax...

Kow

Most history we learn is about pretty much verifiable facts - wars, treaties, invasions, successions, etc. It can be verified through multiple sources, even though interpretations may be different. History which is based on just one writer is justifiably taken with a pinch of salt.

dynamiteReady

Kow wrote:

Most history we learn is about pretty much verifiable facts - wars, treaties, invasions, successions, etc. It can be verified through multiple sources, even though interpretations may be different. History which is based on just one writer is justifiably taken with a pinch of salt.

That I don't dispute. Again, what interests me about this Fravor's thing, is not just Fravor's solitary account. It's the concession that the Navy appears to have made.

And even after that, I'm still open to a number of different explanations for what's in those videos.

Yossarian

The navy’s concession could simply amount to “we know precisely what equipment glitch led to this video, but we aren’t willing to release that information to the public”.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

The navy’s concession could simply amount to “we know precisely what equipment glitch led to this video, but we aren’t willing to release that information to the public”.

Then you need evidence for that, right?

That's what this is all about.

Yossarian

My point is more that I would think twice about using this as evidence for anything else.

Kow

The Navy will always tell people about deficiencies in their equipment of course

Kara_Jane_Adams

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

The navy’s concession could simply amount to “we know precisely what equipment glitch led to this video, but we aren’t willing to release that information to the public”.

Then you need evidence for that, right? That's what this is all about.

Not really, evidence is usually split into primary, secondary and tertiary sources, it’s the marriage of how these sources stack up and corroborate each other that allows us to build a bigger picture, without verifiable evidence from any side it remains anecdotal and leaves us with no proof of anything.

Therefore any interpretation is as valid as another, until evidence to the contrary is introduced and that’s without getting into burden of proof or Occam’s razor.

dynamiteReady

Kara_Jane_Adams wrote:

Therefore any interpretation is as valid as another, until evidence to the contrary is introduced...

That's the way I see it. That's why I'm questioning any entrenched view.

But I also think it's fair to say that something has changed in the Navy, if the Navy itself updates it's policy to address an issue that's always attracted a great deal of speculation.

https://www.navytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2019/04/25/aliens-ahoy-navy-developing-guidelines-on-reporting-ufo-sightings/

I just wonder why it has done so.

This Fravor / Nimitz incident might not be the sole reason for it. In fact, from the sound of it, it sounds like a small part of what might be going on.

That said, how the fuck do I know what's going on?

But I do find Fravor's account interesting. And even accounting for 'mnemonic fallibility', he still appears to offer a lot of information that places the onus on expert detractors to disprove.

And I won't lie, I think the 'fallacy of memory' argument is not enough in this case.
Some of the arguments about glitches (not just purely technical either) though? I can buy those. But you have to offer those theories with more information.

That's only fair.

Kow

You can't offer that information without technical knowledge, in this on this case of equipment we have no working understanding of.

Yossarian

dynamiteReady wrote:

I just wonder why it has done so.

My money’s on concern that pilots are running into advanced terrestrial tech from other countries but are concerned about reporting it in case they get ridiculed by their colleagues.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

I just wonder why it has done so.

My money’s on concern that pilots are running into advanced terrestrial tech from other countries but are concerned about reporting it in case they get ridiculed by their colleagues.

You see, even that as a postulate is very provocative.
That's basically Fravor's thesis...

'I'm pretty sure what I've seen is real. If it's real, that's insane. If it is really is another country, then me sitting in this dumb ass F-18 is useless. Heck... Given all I know about flight and mechanics as an expert aviator, this will probably change the world if there's any kind of technology to harness here.'

That's pretty scary.

But I still can't rule out a glitch or hoax.

A software issue could be a thing. It could have also been part of the training exercise.

Heck... It could have even been an intelligence agency exercise to see if a senior fighter pilot can be fooled with a sophisticated enough fabrication.

Yossarian

I don’t think that the change in reporting procedure is linked to this specific case, in large part because the two things happened almost 15 years apart.

[Deleted User]

Kow wrote:

The possibility that there are aliens buzzing around is certainly more interesting than the probability that there aren't. I can't fault that as a reason for being interested.

If I could borrow (steal) from Tim Minchin: Isn't this enough? Just this world? Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable, natural world? How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?

Kow

It's not instead, just as well. Fantasy, myth, sci fi are all great. The possibility that there's other intelligent life out there is an enthralling idea. The universe is also our world, after all.

Kow

Also, if intelligent life comes visiting, I think we'll know all about it.

LivDiv

They are probably laughing at us.
We are just their version of You've Been Framed.

dynamiteReady

Kow wrote:

Also, if intelligent life comes visiting, I think we'll know all about it.

Perhaps they're just observing our collective reaction to the effect of an errant, narrowing, elliptical orbit, around an anomalously energetic sun...

Kow

This isn't Stellaris.

dynamiteReady

We can rule that one out anyway! ^_^

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/03/earth-is-drifting-away-from-the-sun-and-so-are-all-the-planets/

GooberTheHat

Well that proves global warming then.

dynamiteReady

Get the hooks out, gouge my gills, and call me a Bass...

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories