Originally Posted by Butson
Are you suggesting that the US Navy ships that are tracking these things for days on their radar etc, extremely experienced fighter pilots, scientists in the Pentagon that have been looking at it....Electrical Weather?
Absolutely it should be _suggested_. Every hypothesis should be suggested. Then tested. Including a hypothesis of non-human species technology. Why not?
Rubbishing any hypothesis because it might seem "too obvious" would certainly be an error for the scientists and other people you list above. In fact in our past scientists have left themselves embarrassed at times because they did not consider the obvious simple explanations and only went looking for the complex ones.
On a general note however:
A warning light should go off for you however if you find yourself lending credibility to job titles. All the people you list above are people. And people err. Sometimes repeatedly - over long periods of time - and sometimes in groups too.
Scientists have engaged in errors in the past. And they have been duped quite often intentionally too. Go back and look into the time James Randi commissioned street magicians to dupe scientists into thinking they were psychic. The scientists fell for it despite the fact Randi gave them the order that if even _one_ scientist asked "Is this all a trick?" they were to come clean and admit it straight away
Simply no scientist asked. Rather all the scientists involved - instead of evaluating the data critically - evaluated it under the light of the bias of the conclusion they already wanted to reach.
Take the phrase "Experienced Fighter Pilot" for example. They are experienced yes. Which means they are _more_ used to the trials of high altitude high speed flight than you or I would be. But they are not impervious to them. They are less likely to black out - start to hallucinate - have visual discrepancies than you and I would be under that duress. But they are not immune.
Further it is very important also when evaluating any single testimony to work out whether you are speaking of direct human testimony - as in something seen with the actual eyes of the pilot or ship captain - or is the person giving the testimony actually recounting what their instruments saw rather than what they themselves saw. I find quite often people miss that difference at times.
Though either instrument biological or machine can err - it is worth pointing out that we have had quite a few embarrassments in the past due to bad equipment or bad interface between equipment and humans. Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells the story of how we used to think there was a Planet X for example based on data from our instruments. And after years of many people looking for it a man called Dr. E. Myles Standish Jr. decided to recheck some of the original data and found that two data points were off. One of the observatories in particular which produced some of the data had errors which were never challanged. And when Standish reworked the numbers using all the data _except_ the data from the faulty observatory - the evidence for Planet X pretty much disappeared. (Though Voyager 2 also helped here by giving us a new and more accurate measurement for the mass of Neptune).
I am saying all this without weighing in on any particular piece of data - or without giving what my own opinion on this stuff is - it is just a general statement about data as a concept rather than any specific data itself. Caution all the way is my approach.
I am generally with Tyson on this one. My General approach is:
New data is exciting. The quest to explain new data is even more exciting. Jumping to conclusions as to what the new data means - is boring as fuukk.