I have posted a link. I would like to know what the explanation is from those here. They need to say what they think or default.
Belief in alien visits to Earth is spiraling out of control – here's why that's so dangerous
Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
- Status
I personally would not say that the videos are sufficient evidence for conviction but would just like to hear your opinion on the Government videos and the narrative.
Pentagon UFO videos - Wikipedia
OK, I read the Wikipedia article and watched the videos.
Without knowing anything about the instrumentation used to capture the "tic tac" type videos, there is no way I can think through how those could be real or artefacts of the technology or spoofing by enemies. One video seems to have effects towards the left side that look like the object is shooting short vertical dashed white lines toward the left. It looks much like a video game. I would be interested in how that was interpreted by people who understand the sensors used to record that video.
The "middle east" video showing the white blob moving over the desert community looks like a real physical object, especially with the shadow effect on it seeming consistent with the shadows on the objects on the ground. But, for all I could tell in the video, it could be a balloon blowing with the wind, or maybe a helicopter rotor seen from above without being able to resolve the blades.
The UAPs that have a combination of visual sightings and sensor recordings would be the most useful to investigate, and I assume that was done by the government(s). I am sure the government wants to know what is causing military pilots to be unable to recognize and understand what they see. But, they seem to have not been able to explain these particular sightings.
So, the issue is only whether lack of explanation is "proof" of extraterrestrial presence.
Some people believe that it is, others do not. It is OK with me if you call the people who do not believe that this is conclusive evidence of extraterrestrials "non-believers". But, it is an insult to call them "deniers".
So long as I am not ruling out the possibility of extraterrestrials being here, I am not denying the possibility. But I do deny that what has been provided is even close to adequate proof that extraterrestrials are responsible for any of the UAP sightings. Believers in extraterrestrials who cannot accommodate others whose minds are open are not being scientific.
Without knowing anything about the instrumentation used to capture the "tic tac" type videos, there is no way I can think through how those could be real or artefacts of the technology or spoofing by enemies. One video seems to have effects towards the left side that look like the object is shooting short vertical dashed white lines toward the left. It looks much like a video game. I would be interested in how that was interpreted by people who understand the sensors used to record that video.
The "middle east" video showing the white blob moving over the desert community looks like a real physical object, especially with the shadow effect on it seeming consistent with the shadows on the objects on the ground. But, for all I could tell in the video, it could be a balloon blowing with the wind, or maybe a helicopter rotor seen from above without being able to resolve the blades.
The UAPs that have a combination of visual sightings and sensor recordings would be the most useful to investigate, and I assume that was done by the government(s). I am sure the government wants to know what is causing military pilots to be unable to recognize and understand what they see. But, they seem to have not been able to explain these particular sightings.
So, the issue is only whether lack of explanation is "proof" of extraterrestrial presence.
Some people believe that it is, others do not. It is OK with me if you call the people who do not believe that this is conclusive evidence of extraterrestrials "non-believers". But, it is an insult to call them "deniers".
So long as I am not ruling out the possibility of extraterrestrials being here, I am not denying the possibility. But I do deny that what has been provided is even close to adequate proof that extraterrestrials are responsible for any of the UAP sightings. Believers in extraterrestrials who cannot accommodate others whose minds are open are not being scientific.
That seems fair to me. I think the video with lines is just a mock up of what the pilot described, perhaps the white tic tac one also. However even if so I see no reason to challenge the pilots interpretation of what they saw, especially as it appears 'Official'.
Thanks for your thoughts
the Government appears to believe them.
There are a lot of "interpretations" involved with what is "seen", including some in the software of what determines what is seen by the pilots on their instrument screens. Most vision is effectively only 2-dimensional at the distances these things are observed, so there is a lot of potential for errors in distance estimates to cause errors in interpretations of velocity and altitude.
One of the videos included an exchange by what I guess are pilots of one or two different aircraft. They initially called it a drone, then an "L&S" whatever that is, and made references to its "FLIRs", whatever that is. Nobody said, "Oh, its the aliens."
Another video I watched before appears to show something traveling above the surface of the ocean that seems to go underwater and reappear again above the surface. Interestingly, I did not see any disturbance in the surface of the water or see a report of water surface disturbance.
It would be interesting to be on a technical committees assigned to investigate the UAPs, with enough security clearance to see everything we do know.
Some of my focus would be on sightings that involved multiple observation mechanisms, such as radar, thermal and visual imaging, especially from multiple vantage points.
One of the videos included an exchange by what I guess are pilots of one or two different aircraft. They initially called it a drone, then an "L&S" whatever that is, and made references to its "FLIRs", whatever that is. Nobody said, "Oh, its the aliens."
Another video I watched before appears to show something traveling above the surface of the ocean that seems to go underwater and reappear again above the surface. Interestingly, I did not see any disturbance in the surface of the water or see a report of water surface disturbance.
It would be interesting to be on a technical committees assigned to investigate the UAPs, with enough security clearance to see everything we do know.
Some of my focus would be on sightings that involved multiple observation mechanisms, such as radar, thermal and visual imaging, especially from multiple vantage points.
OK, here's an example of how this gets distorted. This is one of thousands of examples, it may be viewed as anecdotal, but you be the judge> (sources - BBC, NPR)
Issued by the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)
"... the report noted that public opinion has been swayed by pop culture. A "particularly persistent narrative", the researchers said, is that the government has recovered spacecraft and alien remains and conspired to keep its alien research activities secret."
"A Pentagon spokesperson said that officials had approached the report in an open-minded way, but had simply found no evidence of extra-terrestrial visitors."
"More than half of the UFO reports investigated at the time were determined to be US reconnaissance flights, according to an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency.
etc.
OK
"A number of secret research projects involved the development of aircraft that looked circular or saucer-shaped - matching the image of alien spacecraft in popular imagination - such as the Canadian VZ-9AV Avrocar fighter-bomber, which was designed to take off and land vertically."
Here's the true fact exposed:
The Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar was a VTOL aircraft developed by Avro Canada as part of a secret U.S. military project carried out in the early years of the Cold War. Wikipedia
Manufacturer: Avro Canada
Top speed: 35 mph <---------------------------------------------
Introduced: 1958
First flight: November 12, 1959
Last flight: 1961 <-------------------------
Range: 78.9 mi <-----------
Designer: John Frost
35 mph...
If you'll read carefully, you'll catch their syntactical manipulations, generalizations, conclusions made without specifics, and so on. It is easy for any "official" source to slough off serious scientific inquiry, in a self-satisfying explanation of ill-fitting alternate explanations.
Keep in mind that no amount of bad reporting, incorrect visual identification, offered logical explanation can have any effect on the reality of the actual alien activities that are left. They are eager to explain away this and that, yet they turn around and dismiss the rest with some general negative terminology.
Or, worse, they doubt the word and veracity of good, intelligent, highly trained and trusted individuals. The very people we trust to protect our lives and property and domestic tranquility are among the best first person sources. You take their word for things in court, in Congress, in international affairs, but when they report a UFO, suddenly they are "suspect" or other insulting descriptions.
40k feet to 2000' in a second, stop and enter the water, and then emerge and accelerate away, no heat signature, no aerodynamic surfaces, no means of propulsion, ... "Swamp gas from Mars" perhaps? No. Alien technology.
Issued by the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)
"... the report noted that public opinion has been swayed by pop culture. A "particularly persistent narrative", the researchers said, is that the government has recovered spacecraft and alien remains and conspired to keep its alien research activities secret."
"A Pentagon spokesperson said that officials had approached the report in an open-minded way, but had simply found no evidence of extra-terrestrial visitors."
"More than half of the UFO reports investigated at the time were determined to be US reconnaissance flights, according to an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency.
etc.
OK
"A number of secret research projects involved the development of aircraft that looked circular or saucer-shaped - matching the image of alien spacecraft in popular imagination - such as the Canadian VZ-9AV Avrocar fighter-bomber, which was designed to take off and land vertically."
Here's the true fact exposed:
The Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar was a VTOL aircraft developed by Avro Canada as part of a secret U.S. military project carried out in the early years of the Cold War. Wikipedia
Manufacturer: Avro Canada
Top speed: 35 mph <---------------------------------------------
Introduced: 1958
First flight: November 12, 1959
Last flight: 1961 <-------------------------
Range: 78.9 mi <-----------
Designer: John Frost
35 mph...
If you'll read carefully, you'll catch their syntactical manipulations, generalizations, conclusions made without specifics, and so on. It is easy for any "official" source to slough off serious scientific inquiry, in a self-satisfying explanation of ill-fitting alternate explanations.
Keep in mind that no amount of bad reporting, incorrect visual identification, offered logical explanation can have any effect on the reality of the actual alien activities that are left. They are eager to explain away this and that, yet they turn around and dismiss the rest with some general negative terminology.
Or, worse, they doubt the word and veracity of good, intelligent, highly trained and trusted individuals. The very people we trust to protect our lives and property and domestic tranquility are among the best first person sources. You take their word for things in court, in Congress, in international affairs, but when they report a UFO, suddenly they are "suspect" or other insulting descriptions.
40k feet to 2000' in a second, stop and enter the water, and then emerge and accelerate away, no heat signature, no aerodynamic surfaces, no means of propulsion, ... "Swamp gas from Mars" perhaps? No. Alien technology.
What is clear is that UFOs are real. What they are is unknown simply because we have not examined one.
Certainly not proof of alien technology. To me, it suggests refractory/reflection phenomena in the atmosphere, not dissimilar to my own experience. It was especially interesting that one report about altitude changes of the aircraft were "mirrored" by the UAP, rising as the pilot descended. That does suggest a reflective layer in the atmosphere and the pilot reacting to his reflection.
It is actually funny that you denigrate other people's attempts to figure out how this could happen and generalize on how one explanation for one thing cannot explain everything, but then also denigrate them for not believing your favored interpretation that it must be aliens. You are exhibiting a very large bias against anybody who does not support your belief. And, that undermines your credibility.
You ask if I believe the observers who are military personnel, and I do believe they are telling the truth about their observations. But, I do not know of any who claim to have actually met an alien. Which is something that has been claimed by many other people, but usually discredited by investigation. So, "UFO are aliens" believers have much more damaging debunking than non-believers to contend with when trying to sway public opinion.
I've been having fun reading a number of books to build my knowledge of just how the BBT got its birth. The astronomy, actually the astronomers, that one reads about reveal a lot of interesting history in their struggle to discover what was the proper convincing evidence that was capable of countering the prior evidence and the strong bias against new ideas.
One of the great battels, which gave us the so-called "Great Debate", was between Heber Curtis and Harlow Shapley regarding the idea that spiral nebulae were star systems and not just star-forming nebulae. Telescopes were still too small to make the call in the early 1920s.
Curtis had a nice set of evidence that made a very strong case against the nebulae view. He must have grown tired of those opposing him, at least enough to give us a cool quote:
Curtis stated, “The mean of five measures each of which is not worth a damn, has a maximum value of five damns.”
One of the great battels, which gave us the so-called "Great Debate", was between Heber Curtis and Harlow Shapley regarding the idea that spiral nebulae were star systems and not just star-forming nebulae. Telescopes were still too small to make the call in the early 1920s.
Curtis had a nice set of evidence that made a very strong case against the nebulae view. He must have grown tired of those opposing him, at least enough to give us a cool quote:
Curtis stated, “The mean of five measures each of which is not worth a damn, has a maximum value of five damns.”
"It is actually funny that you denigrate other people's attempts to figure out how this could happen and generalize on how one explanation for one thing cannot explain everything"
I did not denigrate people; I did not generalize. I gave a specific example, which you avoided. Likewise, I am against science dismissing and refusing to apply the same rigor to these phenomena as they do to bosons.
"You are exhibiting a very large bias against anybody who does not support your belief. And, that undermines your credibility."
You may have misread me; I do not accept the ideas of people who seem to infer a less than scientific conclusion. They say that just because we can't identify them, they are not aliens. I say they are aliens because they can't explain it any other way. Aliens explains it all.
One last point; the level of secrecy in the global military/political/industrial complex is well documented. Unrevealed contact/knowledge of aliens has, in America certainly, been a taboo secret even for presidents since the 40s. Of course, there is a mountain of evidence for this, but you're not going to go over it, I know.
However, when a scientist tells me that nanobots exist, I believe them, because they paid good money to study that, and they're with a university, or part of a larger research, and they are Scientists. When a police officer tells me I was speeding, it is a fact, according to the courts and the law. Yet when they see alien phenomena, they are assigned a desk. The "TicTac" alone is cross-documented with much more than released - of course! They will also have multiple high definition photos, and film, and video, and radar records, and eyewitness audio exchanges, and I'm sure a boatload [get it?] of paperwork. They may have had a satellite hires photo opportunity; they have their own drones, on and on. The pilots did not say "alien" - is that what it takes? A pilot saying alien?
Well, there's an audio of just that, a career, experienced commercial aircraft pilot notifying the tower of an "alien craft"; but there were no scientists aboard at the time I am assuming. The radar confirmed it, but you know, it's just anecdotal... (the alien craft dwarfed the intercontinental jet). There are others as well.
The proof is definitely out there.
I've seen it. Thanks.
I did not denigrate people; I did not generalize. I gave a specific example, which you avoided. Likewise, I am against science dismissing and refusing to apply the same rigor to these phenomena as they do to bosons.
"You are exhibiting a very large bias against anybody who does not support your belief. And, that undermines your credibility."
You may have misread me; I do not accept the ideas of people who seem to infer a less than scientific conclusion. They say that just because we can't identify them, they are not aliens. I say they are aliens because they can't explain it any other way. Aliens explains it all.
One last point; the level of secrecy in the global military/political/industrial complex is well documented. Unrevealed contact/knowledge of aliens has, in America certainly, been a taboo secret even for presidents since the 40s. Of course, there is a mountain of evidence for this, but you're not going to go over it, I know.
However, when a scientist tells me that nanobots exist, I believe them, because they paid good money to study that, and they're with a university, or part of a larger research, and they are Scientists. When a police officer tells me I was speeding, it is a fact, according to the courts and the law. Yet when they see alien phenomena, they are assigned a desk. The "TicTac" alone is cross-documented with much more than released - of course! They will also have multiple high definition photos, and film, and video, and radar records, and eyewitness audio exchanges, and I'm sure a boatload [get it?] of paperwork. They may have had a satellite hires photo opportunity; they have their own drones, on and on. The pilots did not say "alien" - is that what it takes? A pilot saying alien?
Well, there's an audio of just that, a career, experienced commercial aircraft pilot notifying the tower of an "alien craft"; but there were no scientists aboard at the time I am assuming. The radar confirmed it, but you know, it's just anecdotal... (the alien craft dwarfed the intercontinental jet). There are others as well.
The proof is definitely out there.
I've seen it. Thanks.
It may, I say may, be easier to travel universes by wormhole than to travel interstellar distances. An infinity of life, only a small portion of which will always be advanced, in the infinity of horizon universes is easily canceled and reduced to a quantum discrete quanta by all those other infinities vying with it by the numbers. It is the nature of life to infinitize life where, when, and how possible. According to the natural laws we know of, if it doesn't go for it, it marks itself for extinction (the nature of life marks it for extinction).
Last edited:
Promytius,
I did not "avoid" any example that you posted a link to.
And, yes, calling people who do not agree with you "deniers" is definitely denigration.
I gave you a chance to post a link to video you think proves that there must be aliens here. Others posted UAP links - you did not. So, accusing me of "avoiding" what you did not provide is also an insult.
I think I have proven my point that your mind is closed while mine is not. I am done with you, at least until you post a video of a UAP for me to watch.
I did not "avoid" any example that you posted a link to.
And, yes, calling people who do not agree with you "deniers" is definitely denigration.
I gave you a chance to post a link to video you think proves that there must be aliens here. Others posted UAP links - you did not. So, accusing me of "avoiding" what you did not provide is also an insult.
I think I have proven my point that your mind is closed while mine is not. I am done with you, at least until you post a video of a UAP for me to watch.
There is an obvious issue here. How can it be that intelligent level-headed people can be so assertive and positive about the reality of UFOs. And, how can it be that intelligent open-minded people can be so resistant to the idea?
At the extreme we have almost religious UFO believers and otherwise mega-resistive fearful deniers: this category needs to be put aside and ignored.
Also, we often argue about the wrong thing. That UFOs exist cannot be challenged by anyone sane. The question is "What are they?" Surely common sense says we should take this step by step (some already have). The question of degree (number of anomalies) cannot be denied. Confining ourselves to 'sightings' genuinely verified by more than one competent person are legion, thousands at least (guessing).
At the age of about 12, I frequented a library (more than 65 years ago) and borrowed three types of reference books
: Astronomy, UFOs and sex (the latter were blocks of wood to exchange at the counter for the book). My point is that over long periods 'sightings' and 'What are they" questions have existed so the frequency of such events is overwhelming.
The technique (not necessarily conscious) used by those who are reluctant to face facts is to jump from a sighting (video say) directly to Aliens. Aliens are of course from 'the unknown' with big teeth and a green colour (subconscious) and to be feared. We would rather not consider our relegation to just another species with no special attributes that compete.
When faced with the inexplicable in science everyone gets really excited. Science actively seeks out the unexplained. It provides an opportunity to learn and advance with new theories. There are always those for and those that resist. That's the way it works. In the case of UFOs though the phenomenon is so outlandish emotionally challenging and counter to ingrained beliefs including those of residual religion that those who dare are mocked. That is, have been mocked in the past. Now it is catch-up time.
PS 1) Every million years or so an Alien (lol) planetary system passes our own (check) within a few light-years (the last star passed inside our Oort Cloud - less than 2000 AU).
2) It's a bit like Climate Change, the debate is behind the pace. We should be talking about defence and survival (the discovery that sea level rise is likely not a continuum but sudden surges (of metres))
At the extreme we have almost religious UFO believers and otherwise mega-resistive fearful deniers: this category needs to be put aside and ignored.
Also, we often argue about the wrong thing. That UFOs exist cannot be challenged by anyone sane. The question is "What are they?" Surely common sense says we should take this step by step (some already have). The question of degree (number of anomalies) cannot be denied. Confining ourselves to 'sightings' genuinely verified by more than one competent person are legion, thousands at least (guessing).
At the age of about 12, I frequented a library (more than 65 years ago) and borrowed three types of reference books
: Astronomy, UFOs and sex (the latter were blocks of wood to exchange at the counter for the book). My point is that over long periods 'sightings' and 'What are they" questions have existed so the frequency of such events is overwhelming.
The technique (not necessarily conscious) used by those who are reluctant to face facts is to jump from a sighting (video say) directly to Aliens. Aliens are of course from 'the unknown' with big teeth and a green colour (subconscious) and to be feared. We would rather not consider our relegation to just another species with no special attributes that compete.
When faced with the inexplicable in science everyone gets really excited. Science actively seeks out the unexplained. It provides an opportunity to learn and advance with new theories. There are always those for and those that resist. That's the way it works. In the case of UFOs though the phenomenon is so outlandish emotionally challenging and counter to ingrained beliefs including those of residual religion that those who dare are mocked. That is, have been mocked in the past. Now it is catch-up time.
PS 1) Every million years or so an Alien (lol) planetary system passes our own (check) within a few light-years (the last star passed inside our Oort Cloud - less than 2000 AU).
2) It's a bit like Climate Change, the debate is behind the pace. We should be talking about defence and survival (the discovery that sea level rise is likely not a continuum but sudden surges (of metres))
Getting back to the point in the article about how this is playing into distrust of government and official statement credibility, we need to recognize that the U.S. public is to some extent being "played" by foreign entities that are using social media to try to destabilize our political system. Those entities, such as Russia, China and Iran, are less susceptible to similar counterattacks because they so tightly control information flow within their own countries. But, they are pretty much free to open accounts and make posts designed to drive divisive dialog in the U.S.
The process is quite simple, really. Just open 2 or more accounts and post what seems to others to be arguments between 2 U.S. citizens. Insert as much misinformation and nasty rhetoric as the moderators will not block, and have each of the fake accounts argue opposite sides of a divisive issue with any other posters who will participate, probably unknowingly.
That is why I sometimes wonder if some of the posters here actually believe what they are posting, themselves. But, the moderators here do a reasonably good job of keeping things civil and more or less logical. Compared to other forums that allow political rhetoric, this forum is a calm spot is a violent storm of disagreements on the Internet.
Just to forestall responses that I am paranoid about intentional divisiveness, here are a couple of recent articles related to foreign government meddling with U.S. culture:
Right-wing US influencers say they were victims of alleged Russian plot
Several commentators said that, if the allegations proved true, they were "deceived" by the Russian government front.
www.bbc.com
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigati...ump-campaign-likely-still-underway-rcna170003
The UFO/UAP issue should be an attractive opening for divisive meddling, because it can be used to undermine government credibility and honesty, as well as to pressure for release of information about U.S. military sensor capabilities (and maybe flaws).
So, at least here on Space.com forums, I am leery of posters who insist that there is proof that aliens are here, or that aliens could not possibly be here. I suggest we just stick to presenting and discussing evidence for consideration.
Unclear, I've had teachers with a similar attitude; didn't learn much from them either.
A "denier" can be someone who irrationally refuses to accept all the data surrounding them, based on my not posting a video (available at sites around the world, with maybe over 4 million views), when others have provided multiple examples. A denier is someone who sets up ridiculous conditions, doesn't apply their own rigorous investigation to the subject of UFOs, and simply declares it "dangerous". That's part of what a denier is, and I could go on, but you are just not listening.
For instance: "I gave you a chance to post a link to [a] video you think proves that there must be aliens here. Others posted UAP links - you did not. So, accusing me of "avoiding" what you did not provide is also an insult."
I like the way your mind works. You argue like a second-grader. The onus is on you, not me, I have looked at the data, added my own experiences, and that of other sane humans, and I conclude there is no other rational explanation for the immense, historical, persistent presence of aliens. To say because others did their due diligence and posted the video, I am therefore somehow suspect? There is no logic in your words, sir. You're not making sense.
I'm trying to wake you up, trying to get everyone to take a closer look at these realities that have no other explanation, or rather that, by investigating and analyzing the data, they and hopefully you will come to accept the existence of aliens, and here on Earth, and in the Milky Way, at least.
"I think I have proven my point that your mind is closed, while mine is not. I am done with you, at least until you post a video of a UAP for me to watch."
My mind has never been more open in my life. This so-called alien controversy is just one of numerous subjects that I pursue; I have always been skeptical of data, always asked why how and on, I take on subjects that interest me, that challenge our understandings, and things that are useful to know. I have seen and experienced phenomenon that you could not explain, nor can I, other than adding each instance to the volume of evidence; but evidence is how we conclude. I conclude, given overwhelming evidence, that aliens are here. You are the one with the closed mind, the conditions of your acceptance and others are fluid and vague and uninformed. I say to you sir, you are ignorant when it comes to UFOs. You deny it, by not studying it with the same commitment and focus you have applied in other areas of your pursuits. You don't know what you are talking about.
To bring this back to the subject, "Belief in alien visits to Earth is spiraling out of control"
See! This is what I have to put up with. There's no spiral, nothing is out of control, and what is truly dangerous to Earth is ignorant headlines such as this one.
So, we see the problem is actually the Deniers!
There, I've solved this.
Next issue please?
A "denier" can be someone who irrationally refuses to accept all the data surrounding them, based on my not posting a video (available at sites around the world, with maybe over 4 million views), when others have provided multiple examples. A denier is someone who sets up ridiculous conditions, doesn't apply their own rigorous investigation to the subject of UFOs, and simply declares it "dangerous". That's part of what a denier is, and I could go on, but you are just not listening.
For instance: "I gave you a chance to post a link to [a] video you think proves that there must be aliens here. Others posted UAP links - you did not. So, accusing me of "avoiding" what you did not provide is also an insult."
I like the way your mind works. You argue like a second-grader. The onus is on you, not me, I have looked at the data, added my own experiences, and that of other sane humans, and I conclude there is no other rational explanation for the immense, historical, persistent presence of aliens. To say because others did their due diligence and posted the video, I am therefore somehow suspect? There is no logic in your words, sir. You're not making sense.
I'm trying to wake you up, trying to get everyone to take a closer look at these realities that have no other explanation, or rather that, by investigating and analyzing the data, they and hopefully you will come to accept the existence of aliens, and here on Earth, and in the Milky Way, at least.
"I think I have proven my point that your mind is closed, while mine is not. I am done with you, at least until you post a video of a UAP for me to watch."
My mind has never been more open in my life. This so-called alien controversy is just one of numerous subjects that I pursue; I have always been skeptical of data, always asked why how and on, I take on subjects that interest me, that challenge our understandings, and things that are useful to know. I have seen and experienced phenomenon that you could not explain, nor can I, other than adding each instance to the volume of evidence; but evidence is how we conclude. I conclude, given overwhelming evidence, that aliens are here. You are the one with the closed mind, the conditions of your acceptance and others are fluid and vague and uninformed. I say to you sir, you are ignorant when it comes to UFOs. You deny it, by not studying it with the same commitment and focus you have applied in other areas of your pursuits. You don't know what you are talking about.
To bring this back to the subject, "Belief in alien visits to Earth is spiraling out of control"
See! This is what I have to put up with. There's no spiral, nothing is out of control, and what is truly dangerous to Earth is ignorant headlines such as this one.
So, we see the problem is actually the Deniers!
There, I've solved this.
Next issue please?
Seems like Mr. Promytius is wiling to provide a good example of what I suspect. Thank you for the insults and example of backwards logic - it illustrates my point about intentional divisiveness.
And it also provides an example of the rhetorical tactic of claiming expertise without actually demonstrating any of it. Remember, Promytius is just a stage name for who knows what, and the picture may be of someone else. On the Internet, anybody can claim anything about themselves anonymously, with little fear of being checked. So, posting lists of credentials and accomplishments isn't particularly assuring, because we don't really know if any of it is true.
To have credibility, you need to post evidence and make sense. Intelligent people are not going to just take the word of some anonymous poster just because he claims expertise and to have looked at all of the evidence.
But, I think the real targets for such posters are the gullible, not the intelligent. And that is what makes them dangerous. Gullible people can vote, and even riot if adequately incited.
And it also provides an example of the rhetorical tactic of claiming expertise without actually demonstrating any of it. Remember, Promytius is just a stage name for who knows what, and the picture may be of someone else. On the Internet, anybody can claim anything about themselves anonymously, with little fear of being checked. So, posting lists of credentials and accomplishments isn't particularly assuring, because we don't really know if any of it is true.
To have credibility, you need to post evidence and make sense. Intelligent people are not going to just take the word of some anonymous poster just because he claims expertise and to have looked at all of the evidence.
But, I think the real targets for such posters are the gullible, not the intelligent. And that is what makes them dangerous. Gullible people can vote, and even riot if adequately incited.
Suggesting that Promytius might qualify as a poster as in the above paragraph is unfair and without foundation. I agree that he is forceful and passionate about the subject but is not targeting gullible people; rather the reverse; trying to wake up intelligent people.
I think, for what it is worth, Promytius's conclusions are correct but for one thing. The UFOs are not necessarily Alien although the evidence suggests they are (that could be deliberate misdirection).
I am surprised that Unclear Engineer is the only person prepared to answer the question of their opinion re the videos ( and the associated dialogue, so credit for that. However, the article that started this conversation is quite ridiculous and divisive. In no way does it help rational thought.
Promytuis is definitely using derisive language and divisive tactics. So he definitely qualifies for the "troubling" aspect of the subject article. Whether he is an imposter or not is not the point.
As for needing to "wake up intelligent people", I think that there are plenty of intelligent people in the various governments on Earth who are spending substantial effort to understand all sorts of UFO/UAP sightings.
And, the governments have already said publicly that they are not ruling out the possibility that some things they cannot explain could have extraterrestrial involvements. But, they have all of the evidence and have said that none of it proves that there is extraterrestrial involvement.
So, what is the point of trying to "wake up" the intelligent people who are not involved in studying the phenomena?
It seems that these "wake-up" efforts for the general public are counterproductive with respect to getting additional objective observations without stigma from not just the public, but also from professionals who do not want to be suspected of being crazy.
The problem is that there are people who are insisting that there is conclusive evidence that there are extraterrestrials here and the governments are hiding that information from the public.
So, the conversation here and elsewhere becomes disconnected from any actual scientific discussion and gets turned into a conspiracy theory for political campaign fodder and degenerates into nasty rhetoric.
(I'll try to get to your latest 2 links later this evening.)
As for needing to "wake up intelligent people", I think that there are plenty of intelligent people in the various governments on Earth who are spending substantial effort to understand all sorts of UFO/UAP sightings.
And, the governments have already said publicly that they are not ruling out the possibility that some things they cannot explain could have extraterrestrial involvements. But, they have all of the evidence and have said that none of it proves that there is extraterrestrial involvement.
So, what is the point of trying to "wake up" the intelligent people who are not involved in studying the phenomena?
It seems that these "wake-up" efforts for the general public are counterproductive with respect to getting additional objective observations without stigma from not just the public, but also from professionals who do not want to be suspected of being crazy.
The problem is that there are people who are insisting that there is conclusive evidence that there are extraterrestrials here and the governments are hiding that information from the public.
So, the conversation here and elsewhere becomes disconnected from any actual scientific discussion and gets turned into a conspiracy theory for political campaign fodder and degenerates into nasty rhetoric.
(I'll try to get to your latest 2 links later this evening.)
Psychology abhors uncertainty.
On both sides.
The starting premise of real science is "I don't know."
Yet the 'authoritative edifice' of 'science' is all absolutes, certainties and closure.
Psychologically it is uncomfortable & disempowering to drift in the realm of not knowing.
But that is where the foundation of actual science has to exist.
Biologically/psychologically need closure and a the solidity of 'knowing',
Intellectually to extend & expand our comprehension we have to explore the unknown.
Martha Graham's "Errand into the Maze" comes to mind.
OK, I watched the link to the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast about UAPs. I had actually watched that when it first aired. Several thoughts, not all leading in the same direction:
1. First, CBS and especially "60 Minutes" is not really a reliably objective source of info. Clearly, this piece is constructed to get the attention that will help their ratings. But, remember their interview with the head of the National Rifle Association where they edited-in a long pause between a question and an answer and then were stupid enough to put that as their lead about how long it took for the NRA to think up an answer. Katie Couric lost her job when that was revealed. So, I have to wonder what was "left on the cutting room floor" by CBS when they compiled those interviews into their broadcast story. I would put more trust in a printed government report than in a CBS broadcast. And, I am aware of misinformation in government reports, too.
2. The ex-government official who states that he was in a position to "know everything and its not us" also seemed a bit overdone. But, first, if he actually "knows everything" then presumably "everything" would include knowledge about any extraterrestrials or their gear that is in the possession of the government. But, frankly, I doubt there is anybody in the government that knows or has access to everything. Security is too compartmentalized for that, especially military infrastructure security. However, he may think he knows everything. Or, his misgivings about limits in his knowledge might still be on the CBS "cutting room floor". Can't tell by watching CBS.
3. I have no reason to suspect dishonesty or stupidity on the parts of the military personnel interviewed. But, the parts of their experiences aired by CBS are probably configured by CBS to sound as mysterious as CBS could make them. If I were doing the interviews, I would be asking a lot more questions about details of where the limits of actual knowledge were and what was speculation beyond that. In particular, I would want to know what sorts of instruments were being used for what parts of the observations and what the limitations and vulnerabilities are for those instruments. I expect experts have already done that.
4. Getting to some of the actual UAPs, the one involving the 2 jets with a total of 4 crew off the California coast seems somewhat different from the "tic tac on a scope" type sightings, so I spent some time thinking about that one.
a. First, the broadcasts says that "new advanced radar" on an escort ship was, for a week, detecting multiple anomalous aerial vehicles "over the horizon" descending 80,000 feet in less than a second". That would be a vertical speed of about 54,500 mph, well above escape velocity from Earth's gravity and even faster than any meteors I have ever heard of. Did CBS state that correctly? More importantly, how is this "new advanced radar" able to see "over the horizon" and would that have some potential signal distortion effects that make it appear that there are objects with vertical motion highly exaggerated? How many in that week? How far away? All at the same velocity, or was there some difference from sighting to sighting?
b. When the 2 planes went to investigate, they found an area of roiling water in otherwise calm seas. And. they detected a "tic tac" low and seemingly moving above the disturbed water. One plane descended and its pilot says that the object ascended, mirroring his descent. He states that it was aware of his presence - but that seems like an unverifiable assumption - he is inferring that from its motion correlating with his plane's motion. And the tic tac disappeared when it and the plane reached the same altitude. To me, that strongly suggests a reflection phenomenon that ends when the plane gets to the reflective layer. The interview did not provide the info about what the types of observations were that provided which details - about size, surface details, heat signature, etc. But, I expect that the military does have those details.
c. After the plane and the object get to the same altitude and the UAP "vanishes", there is another tic tac identified "seconds later, 60 miles away" by the same ship over the horizon - and it is assumed that the first UAP sped away too fast to see and that the UAP 60 miles away is the same physical object. Those are clearly assumptions being made by people trying to make sense of something they are seeing but do not understand. Another plane's crew was able to briefly lock on to the second(?) UAP before it "slips away" according to CBS, but the video shows it getting out of the camera's view at a visible speed.
So, what to make of all of that. A couple of things come to my mind. They are focused on the area of roiled water. Could that have been caused by a submersible craft? Could it have been releasing multiple drones? Or, could it have been intentionally conducting some sort of electronic spoofing operations against our Navy training exercise? On the other hand, if the roiling water was from some natural cause, for instance, methane gas release from the sea bed, would that have created reflective layers, unanticipated refraction, electrical phenomena such as lightning. Could electrical phenomena have cause the over-the-horizon signals that seemed to travel 80,000 feet in a second? That sounds a bit like cloud-to-ground lightning. But, usually lightning that high is cloud-to-cloud. Are we sure of the altitude for over-the-horizon sightings by the "new advanced radar"? And, maybe the roiled water was just whales feeding on schools of fish and only coincidental with the UAPs. Strange that this was not followed up immediately with more naval planes and ships if there was some concern that it was an enemy action.
5. The "daily UAP sightings for years" off the Virginia coast also seem strangely acceptable to the Navy. If people thought it was a thread to national security to have such things going on frequently for training exercises on both coasts, it seems really strange that there was not a lot more effort put into identify or at least testing and researching the phenomena. So, that leads me to wonder if there weren't actually testing being conducted by our own NSA or DARPA to develop spoofing techniques for us to use against our enemies if necessary. Which takes me back to whether there really is a person in the government who "knows everything" that those agencies are doing. Telling politicians military secrets is not a prudent policy.
But, finally, getting to the assertions by those outside of government that these UAP phenomena are clear evidence of extraterrestrials, why is that the only possible conclusion? Why not some of the many other Hollywood fantasy scenarios? For instance, how about a sub-species of humans with supernatural powers - we would see them as magicians, perhaps, or sorcerers and witches. Perhaps a few of them would have some fun playing tricks on the militaries of the world. Or, how about a non-human terrestrial species made entirely of "dark matter" who have evolved wonderous technology in their home habitat in the deep oceans of the world, seeing with "dark photons" we cannot detect and powering their technology with the "dark energy" that we cannot understand? Why does it have to be a fantasy involving interstellar travel? I think the answer to that lies in the desire by so many to believe that interstellar travel is possible, preferably at speeds faster than light. So, there seems to be a bias in the choice of fantasy explanations that leads to a desired belief.
Just my 2 cents worth of head scratching. Nothing to conclude here. I am pretty experienced at suspending judgement so as to consider possibilities in an objective manner, instead of picking one and then defending my choice to protect my ego.
1. First, CBS and especially "60 Minutes" is not really a reliably objective source of info. Clearly, this piece is constructed to get the attention that will help their ratings. But, remember their interview with the head of the National Rifle Association where they edited-in a long pause between a question and an answer and then were stupid enough to put that as their lead about how long it took for the NRA to think up an answer. Katie Couric lost her job when that was revealed. So, I have to wonder what was "left on the cutting room floor" by CBS when they compiled those interviews into their broadcast story. I would put more trust in a printed government report than in a CBS broadcast. And, I am aware of misinformation in government reports, too.
2. The ex-government official who states that he was in a position to "know everything and its not us" also seemed a bit overdone. But, first, if he actually "knows everything" then presumably "everything" would include knowledge about any extraterrestrials or their gear that is in the possession of the government. But, frankly, I doubt there is anybody in the government that knows or has access to everything. Security is too compartmentalized for that, especially military infrastructure security. However, he may think he knows everything. Or, his misgivings about limits in his knowledge might still be on the CBS "cutting room floor". Can't tell by watching CBS.
3. I have no reason to suspect dishonesty or stupidity on the parts of the military personnel interviewed. But, the parts of their experiences aired by CBS are probably configured by CBS to sound as mysterious as CBS could make them. If I were doing the interviews, I would be asking a lot more questions about details of where the limits of actual knowledge were and what was speculation beyond that. In particular, I would want to know what sorts of instruments were being used for what parts of the observations and what the limitations and vulnerabilities are for those instruments. I expect experts have already done that.
4. Getting to some of the actual UAPs, the one involving the 2 jets with a total of 4 crew off the California coast seems somewhat different from the "tic tac on a scope" type sightings, so I spent some time thinking about that one.
a. First, the broadcasts says that "new advanced radar" on an escort ship was, for a week, detecting multiple anomalous aerial vehicles "over the horizon" descending 80,000 feet in less than a second". That would be a vertical speed of about 54,500 mph, well above escape velocity from Earth's gravity and even faster than any meteors I have ever heard of. Did CBS state that correctly? More importantly, how is this "new advanced radar" able to see "over the horizon" and would that have some potential signal distortion effects that make it appear that there are objects with vertical motion highly exaggerated? How many in that week? How far away? All at the same velocity, or was there some difference from sighting to sighting?
b. When the 2 planes went to investigate, they found an area of roiling water in otherwise calm seas. And. they detected a "tic tac" low and seemingly moving above the disturbed water. One plane descended and its pilot says that the object ascended, mirroring his descent. He states that it was aware of his presence - but that seems like an unverifiable assumption - he is inferring that from its motion correlating with his plane's motion. And the tic tac disappeared when it and the plane reached the same altitude. To me, that strongly suggests a reflection phenomenon that ends when the plane gets to the reflective layer. The interview did not provide the info about what the types of observations were that provided which details - about size, surface details, heat signature, etc. But, I expect that the military does have those details.
c. After the plane and the object get to the same altitude and the UAP "vanishes", there is another tic tac identified "seconds later, 60 miles away" by the same ship over the horizon - and it is assumed that the first UAP sped away too fast to see and that the UAP 60 miles away is the same physical object. Those are clearly assumptions being made by people trying to make sense of something they are seeing but do not understand. Another plane's crew was able to briefly lock on to the second(?) UAP before it "slips away" according to CBS, but the video shows it getting out of the camera's view at a visible speed.
So, what to make of all of that. A couple of things come to my mind. They are focused on the area of roiled water. Could that have been caused by a submersible craft? Could it have been releasing multiple drones? Or, could it have been intentionally conducting some sort of electronic spoofing operations against our Navy training exercise? On the other hand, if the roiling water was from some natural cause, for instance, methane gas release from the sea bed, would that have created reflective layers, unanticipated refraction, electrical phenomena such as lightning. Could electrical phenomena have cause the over-the-horizon signals that seemed to travel 80,000 feet in a second? That sounds a bit like cloud-to-ground lightning. But, usually lightning that high is cloud-to-cloud. Are we sure of the altitude for over-the-horizon sightings by the "new advanced radar"? And, maybe the roiled water was just whales feeding on schools of fish and only coincidental with the UAPs. Strange that this was not followed up immediately with more naval planes and ships if there was some concern that it was an enemy action.
5. The "daily UAP sightings for years" off the Virginia coast also seem strangely acceptable to the Navy. If people thought it was a thread to national security to have such things going on frequently for training exercises on both coasts, it seems really strange that there was not a lot more effort put into identify or at least testing and researching the phenomena. So, that leads me to wonder if there weren't actually testing being conducted by our own NSA or DARPA to develop spoofing techniques for us to use against our enemies if necessary. Which takes me back to whether there really is a person in the government who "knows everything" that those agencies are doing. Telling politicians military secrets is not a prudent policy.
But, finally, getting to the assertions by those outside of government that these UAP phenomena are clear evidence of extraterrestrials, why is that the only possible conclusion? Why not some of the many other Hollywood fantasy scenarios? For instance, how about a sub-species of humans with supernatural powers - we would see them as magicians, perhaps, or sorcerers and witches. Perhaps a few of them would have some fun playing tricks on the militaries of the world. Or, how about a non-human terrestrial species made entirely of "dark matter" who have evolved wonderous technology in their home habitat in the deep oceans of the world, seeing with "dark photons" we cannot detect and powering their technology with the "dark energy" that we cannot understand? Why does it have to be a fantasy involving interstellar travel? I think the answer to that lies in the desire by so many to believe that interstellar travel is possible, preferably at speeds faster than light. So, there seems to be a bias in the choice of fantasy explanations that leads to a desired belief.
Just my 2 cents worth of head scratching. Nothing to conclude here. I am pretty experienced at suspending judgement so as to consider possibilities in an objective manner, instead of picking one and then defending my choice to protect my ego.
Last edited:
The impact of information and/or disinformation concerning unidentified objects is a difficult thing to define and examine. I regard this subject as important, but not a first level issue, and nowhere near a spiraling crisis. My education in these things, and specifically in UFOs, has been fashioned by science, science fiction, and real life experiences.
Until the proliferation of the Internet, the paths to data were fairly limited to books and film, and TV and radio, to a lesser degree. Everything there went through a production process, and every step had parameters, and schedules, and reviews of everything - that's the way work works. Currently, the Internet turns anyone into a video producer/director/actor/writer, etc., all rolled into one, as a totally unregulated, unreviewed, unsubstantiated "alternate source", making the quest for the truth ever more difficult. While the recorded facts and data and books and films and all are still out there, they are buried under a tsunami of one-click bits, with way more pop and coolness than dull facts.
Misinformation is the real threat.
Where you should be focusing is the real danger of international espionage and efforts to confound and undermine democratic processes the world over, and degrade the confidence in information by not being truthful and by being cleverly deceptive.
Not aliens.
Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iraq - it's a long list.
That's what's spiraling out of control.
The UFO's, real or unreal, are of no concern to society's safety or sanity - that's the present US government's official position.
Please focus on Misinformation.
Until the proliferation of the Internet, the paths to data were fairly limited to books and film, and TV and radio, to a lesser degree. Everything there went through a production process, and every step had parameters, and schedules, and reviews of everything - that's the way work works. Currently, the Internet turns anyone into a video producer/director/actor/writer, etc., all rolled into one, as a totally unregulated, unreviewed, unsubstantiated "alternate source", making the quest for the truth ever more difficult. While the recorded facts and data and books and films and all are still out there, they are buried under a tsunami of one-click bits, with way more pop and coolness than dull facts.
Misinformation is the real threat.
Where you should be focusing is the real danger of international espionage and efforts to confound and undermine democratic processes the world over, and degrade the confidence in information by not being truthful and by being cleverly deceptive.
Not aliens.
Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iraq - it's a long list.
That's what's spiraling out of control.
The UFO's, real or unreal, are of no concern to society's safety or sanity - that's the present US government's official position.
Please focus on Misinformation.
We are done here, folks. All of these positions can be found via searching for previous conversations on the UAP/UFO topic.
As a reminder, politics is off limits. Civility and respect is required by all.
Thank you.
As a reminder, politics is off limits. Civility and respect is required by all.
Thank you.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram