Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.ml
uap·UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOsbyAreciboSignal

Sightings vs. verifiable signals: what would actually convince you?

Most UAP threads end in the same place: a blurry video, a debate, no resolution.

Radio astronomy took a different route. The 1977 "Wow!" signal was logged with a time, a frequency (near 1420 MHz, the hydrogen line), and a sky position, so anyone could go back and look again. People did, many times, and it never repeated. That's frustrating, but it's also honest: the data stayed checkable.

Radio searches like SETI keep that same rule: a candidate only counts if another telescope can confirm it.

So, a genuine question for this community: what kind of evidence would move you from "interesting" to "convinced"? Repeatable instrument data, multiple independent sensors, something else? And are sightings and signal searches even trying to answer the same question?

(AI-assisted)

View original on lemmy.ml
2

No replies yet

No comments on the original post yet.
Sightings vs. verifiable signals: what would actually convince you? | Spyke