Michio Kaku says the burden of proof regarding UFOs has shifted

Courtesy of the Anomalist - here's a discussion thread from Metabunk discussing recent statements by Michio Kaku in which he said, among other things, "It used to be that believers had to prove that these objects were from an intelligent race in outer space. Now the burden of proof is on the government to prove they’re not from intelligent beings in outer space."
https://www.metabunk.org/why-michio-kaku...os.t10912/

Mick West says Kaku is wrong about that, because the three recently released films of UFOs don't show anything inconsistent with known technology.

Mick West says Kaku is wrong about that, because the three recently released films of UFOs don't show anything inconsistent with known technology.

lol

lol

I did look at some of the discussions about these films on Metabunk a while ago, and I was impressed by the quality of the arguments. I think they are certainly worth taking seriously.

I would definitely put them in a different category from some of the ill informed pseudo-sceptical criticisms of parapsychology.

Mick West says Kaku is wrong about that, because the three recently released films of UFOs don't show anything inconsistent with known technology.

From https://www.space.com/navy-ufo-videos-au...tification:

"In a statement delivered to the intelligence news website The Black Vault, Joseph Gradisher, a spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, announced that the Navy officially considers the craft in these three videos "unidentified aerial phenomena." That means that the eerie videos are authentic — and that the objects, which were detected in restricted military training airspaces in 2004 and 2015, were not supposed to be there. The objects still have not been successfully identified as any known type of aircraft."

I did look at some of the discussions about these films on Metabunk a while ago, and I was impressed by the quality of the arguments. I think they are certainly worth taking seriously.

I would definitely put them in a different category from some of the ill informed pseudo-sceptical criticisms of parapsychology.

You are right, I'm not being fair here.

I did look at some of the discussions about these films on Metabunk a while ago, and I was impressed by the quality of the arguments. I think they are certainly worth taking seriously.

I would definitely put them in a different category from some of the ill informed pseudo-sceptical criticisms of parapsychology.

The short video clips might be easier to work up a skeptical argument but what about the pilots and radar operators statements which have the objects accelerating to and decelerating from orbital velocities in a vertical direction in fractions of a second?

The short video clips might be easier to work up a skeptical argument but what about the pilots and radar operators statements which have the objects accelerating to and decelerating from orbital velocities in a vertical direction in fractions of a second?

I'm not all that familiar with these cases, but are there any contemporary audio recordings associated with those video clips? Or were the statements made in interviews some years after the events?

I'm not all that familiar with these cases, but are there any contemporary audio recordings associated with those video clips? Or were the statements made in interviews some years after the events?

The pilots in the original clips say as much, during the clip. It's not believable to me that these pilots who likely have hundreds of sorties would not understand their own video equipment well enough to recognize the difference between a bird and a UFO. Though this is merely an ethos argument as I lack the knowledge to really parse apart the technological claims, it's sufficient for me to retain doubt towards the referenced argument.

From the material I have looked at or read I think we can refine notions of doubt into two classes:
1. Doubt whether encounters with ET occur and,
2. Doubts about the nature of the encounters.

Obviously I don't have any issues with 1. Doubts about whether we have encounter phenomena described as UFOs is beyond contest, unless one is particularly OCD about what constitutes reasonable grounds to form a belief.

As to point 2, there are 4 possible explanations:
a. UFO is a nuts and bolts physical vehicle from elsewhere in the material cosmos.
b. UFO is a non-physical vehicle from elsewhere a multi-dimensional cosmos.
c. UFO is a human made contraption.
d. UFO is any combination of the above.

Given the central role of government in mediating the ET/UFO experience it is reasonable to put to government that it has no rightful role in denying truth to the community. Any such argument may have merit for the purpose of conventional defence security - but that does not apply here. Government is engaged in preserving power and privilege of those with power - and while that has been the intended purpose of government from the outset of modernity it does not constitute a valid argument in our contemporary culture.

So while we may argue that the burden of proof is upon government from our POV, we must understand that to those who actually control things there is neither a duty nor an imperative to satisfy the popular demand - from their perspective. 

There is a good reason why ET contacts people direct. From a certain level - in terms of relations between humans and ET, government is irrelevant. It is reasonable to imagine that nuts and bolts ET engaged in trade will do business with the powers that make such trade possible. But when it comes to existential and spiritual contact that has nothing to do with government - by its own account of its role.

From the material I have looked at or read I think we can refine notions of doubt into two classes:
1. Doubt whether encounters with ET occur and,
2. Doubts about the nature of the encounters.

Obviously I don't have any issues with 1. Doubts about whether we have encounter phenomena described as UFOs is beyond contest, unless one is particularly OCD about what constitutes reasonable grounds to form a belief.

As to point 2, there are 4 possible explanations:
a. UFO is a nuts and bolts physical vehicle from elsewhere in the material cosmos.
b. UFO is a non-physical vehicle from elsewhere a multi-dimensional cosmos.
c. UFO is a human made contraption.
d. UFO is any combination of the above.

I have to admit i cannot fathom a way the nuts & bolts people are correct if one accepts the odder cases as genuine. I know Eric Wargo has suggested that the weirder cases are actually experiments done by beings of advance technology but this also seems, to me, unlikely. IIRC he posits the experiments themselves might be run by A.I. that are randomizing the encounters for whatever reason...admittedly to me this all reads like someone who is in search of pushing an explanation.

Which, given Wargo's stubborn thinking re: Time Travel wouldn't surprise me in the least...