The Why Files The Dark Side of the Moon

Not one of the best W.F.s IMO but a few interesting thoughts nevertheless. Skip to 3:58 to miss Ad.

The far side of the moon has been a mystery since the dawn of the space age. But is it just a barren, crater-filled wasteland? Shocking claims from astronauts, whistleblowers, and classified documents suggest there's more to the story. Eerie sounds, inexplicable sightings, and covert missions point to something astounding hidden from public view. We examine the evidence, from Apollo-era transcripts to modern military insiders. The implications are staggering, hinting at a secret history beyond our world. --- PS... Harvard released a paper today called "The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a concealed earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena." The Why Files is cited as a source (pg 14, pg 39) But the paper has suddenly disappeared... ...though we saved you a copy: https://(link tracking not allowed)/4b1xk11

youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky

FWIW they did pull the link it was on ResearchGate but it no longer is there

a reply to: 727Sky

Location of secret Nazi base ..........??

a reply to: 727Sky

i thought it was a pretty good episode.
I love the moon and mars stories.

a reply to: 727Sky

I'm suspicious of the Why Files. It gives the impression of being nothing more than a little show with one talking human and a ridiculous goldfish sidekick. It seems to be carefully styled for the lower, general public. Yes, it can be entertaining, but what seems apparent is a well-oiled program that can quickly put together a program of information and relative video material every week with a very small staff. --Maybe bunches of busy, little alien greys running around in the background doing the leg work? I joke, of course...almost.

a reply to: CosmicFocus

I became more suspicious about videos from supposed "alternative" channels when one of those channels made a complaint against a video I posted on YouTube, saying it was taken from one of DVDs they had published.
Then they presented the company and people behind that complaint, and one of the company's top people persons was once a top person at Sony Entertainment, so they were, in fact, far from "alternative", they were just after the money.

PS: the video I posted was from NASA.

originally posted by: putnam6
a reply to: 727Sky

FWIW they did pull the link it was on ResearchGate but it no longer is there

It's there.

The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a concealed earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: putnam6
a reply to: 727Sky

FWIW they did pull the link it was on ResearchGate but it no longer is there

It's there.

The cryptoterrestrial hypothesis: A case for scientific openness to a concealed earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena

That's the first paper I've read that starts out like this:

"We would also like to emphasize that we believe this hypothesis to be in all likelihood false, but nevertheless believe it still merits scientific investigation."

They literally talk abut bigfoot, among other things. While I agree with their point that just because we haven't confirmed the existence of bigfoot yet doesn't prove it doesn't exist, I have to remind the authors as well as everybody that the scientific method is about science which has to be falsifiable. So it doesn't seem all that scientific to be talking about things which are not falsifiable. I'm not saying don't talk about them...all I'm saying is talk about them in some context other than science, if it's not falsifiable as science requires. I just don't see how we can falsify the existence of bigfoot. Proving it doesn't exist seems impossible, but proving it does exist by capturing one seems possible, at least hypothetically. That extends to all the other mythology they ramble on about in that paper.

They also don't seem to give enough consideration to "concealed" human explanations for UAP which seems to me is likely for sightings like David Fravor's. If you're going to be open-minded about "concealed earthly explanations", why not consider that David Fravor does not know about all the secret compartmentalized projects going on in skunk works, area 51 or wherever, and thus we should discount his claim that we don't have technology on earth that can do what he saw. So to not consider this option of human secret projects for "concealed earthly explanation for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena" at least as much as the mythology seems like a huge omission in that paper. But maybe it's a subject they can't talk about, not only for reasons of national security, but also because if the programs are really that "secret" or "concealed", they won't know anything about them and can't discuss them intelligently.

I was also surprised to see the paper cite The Why Files as a source! I wonder if the authors have some connection and if so what it is, or is one or more of them just a fan of the show?

"The Why Files. (2022, July 7). Operation Highjump | Mission: Find and destroy the secret Nazi UFO base In
Antarctica. The Why Files. www.youtube.com..."

It seems odd to give a link to skip the first 2 seconds of the video. However I like 727sky's suggestion to skip the first 4 minutes of the video in the OP to avoid the advertising. Why skip the first 2 seconds of the operation highjump video though? That hardly seems to make sense.

Anyway I just never expected to see an episode of The Why Files cited as a reference in a scientific paper, since the Why Files seems pretty far removed from science. But maybe they couldn't find a better source by a scientist because no scientist ever took the far-out claims seriously enough to debunk them? They say the Why Files debunked at least some of the claims:

"although certain aspects of these rumours have been debunked – as for instance explained on an episode of The Why Files (2022) – other parts are nevertheless potentially credible".

I'm not sure why the two authors are affiliated with American universities but are not using the American spelling of "rumor", maybe one of them is from the UK?

a reply to: 727Sky
It looks the tonights (27th) WF starts an hour early. Probably to avoid the debates.