Because
1) Ruling _in_ aliens requires proof. Insisting that this specific scenario be ruled out is classic "shifting the burden of proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
The train of thought that "we don't know what we saw, so ... aliens!" is somewhere between wishful and nutty. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.
2) claiming that it's _definitely_ "technology and flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion" is itself a stretch. Given the supposed behaviour, a _very_ big stretch. More likely it's equipment failure, lens flare, sundog, bug-on-the-lens, etc.
3) the strong argument against this being real is how it is "perpetually liminal" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27354021
Or (Occam's razor time) it was never real readings to begin with.
And, I never assumed a single cause and neither should you, don't oversimplify.
Every sensor has limits. There will be noise and artefact at those limits. You can't change that fact, with or without a f'n Jira.
It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what I wrote was more like "The report does not contradict aliens. The findings of the report are consistent with what we might expect from alien technology. I am updating my beliefs to increase the likelihood that these UAP are explained by aliens."
Your line about extra-ordinary claims is a bit misguided. For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion.
2. The DNI report says "a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" and "Some UAP appeared to ... move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion" and "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." That doesn't sound like "bug-on-the-lens" type observations to me.
Obviously I can't know how good the DNI evidence is. They haven't shared much of it. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude from the report that people are getting confused with lens flares or equipment failures though.
3. That doesn't seem like an argument at all. Any thing which we have observed for a while but haven't explained would fit this description of being "perpetually liminal". UFOs fit the description worse than most things because they aren't very "perpetual". UFO sightings go back ~70 years. That's hardly perpetual. It's also not the case that we always know roughly the same amount. This report for example uses evidence to advance our understanding, arguing that they are physical objects, that they may emit RF energy, and that they have capabilities we do not.
> For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence.
Like this. No it isn't. It's terrible evidence, it actually isn't evidence at all.
My point is that the observations of the report make me update towards aliens. The observations are consistent with the theory that alien craft operate in our atmosphere. Advanced technology that we don't understand. Doesn't appear to be ours. Yesterday, I wouldn't have said that was true or that we had good reasons to think it was true. Today, I'm more inclined to think it's true.
If my arguments are fallacious or terrible I'd appreciate you explaining how. Multiple witnesses with multiple sensors multiple times across years seems pretty persuasive. You think it's not evidence at all. Why not? What evidence would you expect to see?
The reports are also consistent with angels - angels fly around, have capabilities beyond our technological understanding, and so on.
Your argument is fallacious because it's based on cherry picked, weak accounts that are inherently low-information, and said "it fits the theory".
I believe that 'aliens' exist. It just seems statistically likely, given the size of the universe. But I don't believe that there's other space-fairing life in our solar system, and the nearest celestial bodies are insanely far away. Trying to guess at what that sort of life would be like, how it would behave, or what evidence to expect, is again pointless - we have no information, it's totally baseless guessing.
The entire thing is nonsense. A theory that is based on a complete lack of information and evidence that itself lacks information.
Not compelling.
Personally, I think it's a combination of various perfectly terrestrial events:
1. People lying for attention (the vast majority)
2. Unmanned foreign vehicles that are actually spying on us
3. Equipment or natural aberration (weather events, smudges on lenses, equipment malfunction, lens glares, etc)
Note that unlike the alien theories...
The evidence for (1) and (3) is factual - repeatedly we have found this to be the case. (2) is the most fanciful, but requires far less of a leap of faith and fits within a context that we know does exist ie: technology we know publicly is under pursuit.
(1) Has been repeatedly the case
(2) Doesn't involve any insane advances in technology to explain some of these events, and we can understand the motivations as our own
(3) We know happens as well, as we have with (1)
The DNI report should update your beliefs about aliens in proportion to the extent which you think the report is more likely to be authored in RB relative to RA.
Of the three explanations you offer 1 and 3 have serious problems. The events in question are reported by multiple witnesses and sensors. It's not reasonable to suspect that sensors, in multiple modalities, malfunction in the same way that coincidentally coincides with the reports of human witnesses.
It's similarly not reasonable to think that human witnesses are lying for attention. They are faking the sensor reports? So they can get the attention of reporting something that might discredit or embarrass them? They collude with other human witnesses to do this? It just doesn't seem very reasonable.
Explanation 2 is more coherent. I don't think it is a good explanation because we have no reason to think that significantly more advanced flying technology is in the hands of our competitors. If it were, they would likely not both keep it secret from us, and repeatedly fly it in front of our airmen and sensors in broad daylight.
We should not consider merely those two options, if you're speculating then there are a vast number of "possible" options that "cannot be ruled out". You're cherry picking, exhibiting confirmation bias etc. This is why there is a burden of proof on the hypothesis being proposed.
Disagree strongly with your "not reasonable" about sensors and people. A mish-mash of vague noisy readings cannot really be said to "coincide" much.
If your radar reports some anomaly then the radar is probably malfunctioning. If the electro-optics report the same anomaly at the same time with the same characteristics, that's weird. If both these sensors, and others, agree on some strange data and you witness it with your own eyes and someone else does too... At some point you need to flip your conclusion from "sensor error" to "I'm observing something strange."
There's no basis that I'm aware of to refer to the observations as "A mish-mash of vague most readings".
> I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion.
Could also be angels.
Or IMHO, what I want it to be is visitors from a parallel Earth where the dinosaurs never died out and instead developed a hyper-advanced civilisation. They're now crossing the multiverse (temporarily, that's why they vanish again) and looking at us in complete bemusement, much as we would look at a world where humanity dies out in a nuclear war, and rats evolve and civilise roughly to the level of ancient Egypt or Sumer.
The problem with "you cant rule it out", and "the facts fit the conclusion" thinking about such nebulous phenomena is that there are a vast or infinite number of things that "you can't rule out" and also "fit". It's true but it's a far weaker claim than it seems. What "I want" is just wishful: Your chosen scenario is vanishingly unlikely among them, and assembled out of scraps of pop culture anyway. That's why previous generations say witches, demons, angel's etc. Apophenia describes the person's inner world, as much as the external one. Isn't it convenient that its still such a such a nebulous phenomena?
This is why the burden of proof falls squarely on ruling it _in_.
I think there is good reason to believe that aliens exist (size of the universe, number of planets) and traveling between star systems is consistent with what we know of physics. I also think observing advanced technology in the form of objects flying in our atmosphere is consistent with the "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation. A surprising observation that is consistent with a theory should add confidence to that theory.
"Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I am not saying "It was aliens." I am saying "There is no reason to think the report rules out aliens which the headline suggests, and, actually, the report is consistent with aliens and that's surprising."
I disagree entirely. It is key. You are discarding rationality here.
The "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation is basically ruled out by how it's always liminal observations, never progressing to solid evidence, always a good fit to the limits of the sensors.
It's also not correct to say that there's never solid evidence. The DNI report suggests there is compelling evidence. I've not seen anything to suggest that the observed phenomenon are at the limits of our sensors.
This report was an AP reading comprehension test.
Almost anything, really. But why not leap to the conclusion that you want it to be? I agree that it is a test of thought processes.
[0] https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....