A Possible Link Between ‘Oumuamua and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena(scientificamerican.com) |
A Possible Link Between ‘Oumuamua and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena(scientificamerican.com) |
There, saved you a click.
Huh??? How is that 'reasonable' to conclude.
>This leaves two possibilities: either UAP are natural terrestrial phenomena or they are extraterrestrial in origin.
Or a third option: Something else we aren't clever enough to think of. Maybe it's a sensor issue coupled with active human imagination. Or... something else entirely.
This is sound reasoning, but is based upon the beginning assumptions which are not yet fully determined to be true, and if determined to be true would not rule out non-human, natural origins.
'Real' as in those are 'real' videos (i.e. not created in photoshop or after effects). Not 'real' as in 'advanced technology like nothing else on Earth'.
>then it is likely they are not human in origin, because if they could possibly be adversaries, this would not be being disclosed.
No. If you see some phenom and it's not X, not Y, not Z, you can't say THEREFORE it must be 'Aliens'.
The default position is 'I don't know', not 'aliens'.
I agree with that part.
However, I think it's more reasonable to assume it belongs to the US Government, which would perfectly explain why they don't really view it as a threat.
You can't just conclude this. It could be other things like a sensor glitches. Or sensor confusion (e.g. tracking a bird heading in the opposite direction, or out of focus commercial plane). Or it could be something else entirely you aren't creative enough to think of.
The default position is "I don't know", not "Aliens" or "US Government" or "Unicorns"
There is always the possibility that we only observed a very, very rare event. Just by enough very rare events being possible, it is bound to happen that we observe one of them one day. All in all it just reminds me a bit of p-hacking/data fishing.
And there it is. Shame on the Scientific American
"It involves fresh scientific evidence that we are not be the only intelligent species in the cosmo."
If they can't even proofread their article, I'm not going to bother reading it.
So, you didn't miss the link, because there isn't one.
Yeah. Right.
EDIT: hitting the back button brought me to the article
Firefox Focus.
The "if" is "if the US claims they are real", as in, the military claims specifically the most plausible explanation of the evidence to them is that these objects are physical, solid objects, not illusions or artifacts.
Something real in this sense but unexplainable and not originating from humans does not mean space aliens. Just like it doesn't mean leprechauns or unicorns. Where'd "aliens" come from? The answer "I don't know, but we can rule out humans" is an insane possibility, but is one which seems both increasingly likely to be the truth and also much less insane than "it's aliens."
Saying humans didn't create it is a lot different than saying anything about where it came from.