From: anthk@disroot.org   
      
   Source: https://arxiv.org/html/2411.02401v1   
      
   Abstract:Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) have   
   historically been stigmatized and regarded as pseudoscience   
   due to a general lack of robust evidence. Recently, however,   
   the subject has gained interest among astronomers and the   
   military. This review explores how astronomers can enhance   
   our understanding of these enigmatic phenomena by focusing   
   on empirical tests of specific hypotheses (e.g. the   
   hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitations) rather than   
   solely collecting and categorizing data. We compare the   
   investigation of UAP to the process of calibration and   
   interpretations of astronomical discoveries and propose a   
   toy model involving a network of neuro-interface   
   extraterrestrial probes to model exotic UAP. This model aids   
   in predicting probe signatures and behaviour, improving   
   detection methods, and addressing ethical concerns in UAP   
   research.   
      
       1. 1 Introduction   
       2. 2 What constitutes an observation?   
            1. 2.1 General comments   
            2. 2.2 Examples of an astronomer’s observations of unusual celestial   
               phenomena   
            3. 2.3 UFOs found by Operation Moonwatch observers   
                 1. 2.3.1 West Somerville, 1959   
                 2. 2.3.2 San Antonio, 1959   
                 3. 2.3.3 Adler Planetarium, 1960   
                 4. 2.3.4 New Mexico, 1960   
                 5. 2.3.5 Bedford, 1961   
                 6. 2.3.6 Eastern Airlines, 1966   
       3. 3 Arguments against searching for UAP in the atmosphere   
       4. 4 A possible physical phenomenon   
            1. 4.1 The Washington D.C. 1952 Flap   
       5. 5 Lost in the taxonomy forest   
       6. 6 What are the most urgent questions in UAP research?   
       7. 7 Setting the scientific method to practice   
            1. 7.1 Historical examples in astronomy   
            2. 7.2 Experimental design   
       8. 8 The neuro-interface probe as a toy model   
            1. 8.1 Arguments for a neuro-interface extraterrestrial probe   
            2. 8.2 Key predictions   
            3. 8.3 Methods of testing it   
       9. 9 Ethical considerations in UAP research   
      10. 10 Conclusions   
      11. 11 Acknowledgments   
      
                    A Civilian Astronomer’s Guide to UAP Research   
      
      Beatriz Villarroel Kevin Krisciunas   
      
           Abstract   
      
      Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) have historically been stigmatized   
      and regarded as pseudoscience due to a general lack of robust evidence.   
      Recently, however, the subject has gained interest among astronomers and   
      the military. This review explores how astronomers can enhance our   
      understanding of these enigmatic phenomena by focusing on empirical tests   
      of specific hypotheses (e.g. the hypothesis of extraterrestrial   
      visitations) rather than solely collecting and categorizing data. We   
      compare the investigation of UAP to the process of calibration and   
      interpretations of astronomical discoveries and propose a toy model   
      involving a network of neuro-interface extraterrestrial probes to model   
      exotic UAP. This model aids in predicting probe signatures and behaviour,   
      improving detection methods, and addressing ethical concerns in UAP   
      research.   
      
      Keywords: Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena, statistical significance,   
      Extraterrestrial probes, SETI, Observational techniques   
      
   1 Introduction   
      
      The study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, also known as Unidentified   
      Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) is a new multidisciplinary field of research,   
      originating from the topic of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). The UFO   
      field has historically been stigmatized [1], and the proposed rebranding   
      of the phenomenon was encouraged as a means of encouraging a scientific   
      approach to the mystery, not least by the United States Department of   
      Defense [2, 3]. The topic has further been discussed openly in the US   
      Congress see e.g. news item by Romo & Chapell (2023) [4] due to its   
      importance for airspace safety, national security, and recently also in a   
      meeting at the European Parliament see e.g. news item by Fleischer (2024)   
      [5]. But before “UAP” and “UFO”, the phenomenon was dubbed “flying   
      saucers” in the media, referring to pilot Kenneth Arnold’s observations   
   of   
      flat saucer-shaped disks in the air in 1947 [6, 7]. In this way, the   
      description of the phenomenon changed from an airborne phenomenon with   
      distinct artificial features that were seen by eyewitnesses on multiple   
      occasions and sometimes even photographed, to become a category of all   
      objects in the air, space, or water that do not match known human-made or   
      natural phenomena. Some of them appear to show transmedium capabilities   
      [8], inconsistent with any known human objects.   
      
      The change of nomenclature from “flying saucer” to “UAP” is   
   intended to   
      reduce the stigma and ridicule related to the topic of “little green   
   men”   
      [1]. However, as a side effect, it transformed a phenomenon with clear   
      observational signatures into a “junk drawer” of objects with no defined   
      signatures other than that their properties match no known natural or   
      human-made objects, see Section 5.   
      
      Due to the same stigma, the topic has been poorly researched in academic   
      environments until recent years. As the US Navy released some videos of   
      UAP in 2020 [9] and the Pentagon further published a UAP report in 2021   
      [10], the trend shifted, resulting in an increase of academic interest.   
      See for example the Galileo   
      project^1^11https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo/home [11, 12].   
      
      The stigma can be seen as a societal effect fueled by a number of factors,   
      some within our control and some related to national security interests   
      [see e.g. news item by 13]. Among scientists, one of the dominant factors   
      has been the poor data quality of observations; many UFO observations have   
      been based on fuzzy images. Those based on sharp images of flying saucers   
      are often accused of being fakes, see e.g. the Swedish newspaper article   
      by Svahn (2024) [14]. Additionally, there is a deeply rooted fear of   
      sensational performances and potential consequences. This dates back to   
      1938 when a radio play “The War of the Worlds” was broadcast by Orson   
      Welles. It was mistaken by some as a real alien invasion. In contradiction   
      to the legend, there was no mass panic [15]. Nevertheless, the legend   
      about the mass panic enhanced the stigma even further.   
      
      The stigma is particularly strong regarding the hypothesis that UAP might   
      be artificial objects from other civilizations. This contrasts with   
      ongoing searches for technosignatures at interstellar distances, such as   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)