Pentagon Confirms New UFO Video

[Jake Johnson]

On 4/17/2021 at 9:42 PM, Pateedm said:

If they were dangerous, we would already be fucked. 

And It's not like this one video is the sole arbiter. Can't just dismiss all of the witness reports over the years.

 

 

If they do exist and had in mind exterminating us and taking over earth it stands to reason that they would have done so when we were in the bow and arrow days. They certainly wouldn't wait till we have intercontinental ballistic missles armed with nuclear warheads.

On 4/17/2021 at 4:03 AM, Thought Art said:

Can't make out what it is

That is why it is called a UFO: unidentified flying object, meaning it isn't known what it is. It could be anything. Much uneccessary hyperbole occurs because anytime someone says they saw a UFO everyone takes it to mean alien spacecraft when all they are saying is they don't know what it was ie., unidentified.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Jake Johnson
Typos

[abundance]

Assuming these aren't man made, is there is any speculation of what they might be?

Aliens?

Time travelers? 

On a side note one of the most compelling eye witness accounts has to be the Ariel School Sighting in Zimbabwe. I remember hearing these kids experiences as a kid myself in the 90s and it always freaked me out. 

This video is only viewable on YouTube but its pretty compelling. 

 

 

Below is an interview with Salma Siddick. She was a student at the time of the incident and here she gives a detailed account of her experience.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by abundance

[Heraclitus]

If aliens exist, wich is very likely, they will be also very likely stage turquoise beings, and maybe beyond that. They will see us as them, and will be benevolent.

The reported sightings are part of the acclimation period. If there is no acclimation period before clearly revealing their existence, this will have a negative impact on humanity, and they may be met with fear, and hostility which is not really the goal.

When humanity reaches a stage that will make their existence being known without a doubt a positive thing, then it will happen, but it will be happen gradually

[Jodistrict]

1 hour ago, Heraclitus said:

If aliens exist, wich is very likely, they will be also very likely stage turquoise beings, and maybe beyond that. They will see us as them, and will be benevolent.

The reported sightings are part of the acclimation period. If there is no acclimation period before clearly revealing their existence, this will have a negative impact on humanity, and they may be met with fear, and hostility which is not really the goal.

When humanity reaches a stage that will make their existence being known without a doubt a positive thing, then it will happen, but it will be happen gradually

The one thing I liked about “The Outer Limits” series is that the aliens could be evil.   But those were the days when people were more in touch with reality and knew there was a dark side.

[SolarWarden]

On 2021-04-28 at 10:31 PM, Display_Name said:

Very cool!

Thanks. 

I was so certain that this would be everywhere on the news the next day. It happened close to the center of my city.

The first days went, then weeks, then months. Nothing happened. Very disappointing.

[SoonHei]

 

all you need <3

[Evil Raccoon]

Plot twist: aliens actually came to kidnap Leo and are looking for him.

[Leo Gura]

Plot twist: Leo actually came to kidnap aliens.

[AtheisticNonduality]

Leo is an alien.

[Scholar]

Listen to the latest JRE with Christopher Mellon, for the skeptics.

[Scholar]

 

Look at the close-mindedness and ability to use skepticism to basically confirm your own biases. When Joe brings up the Fravor case, Neil proceeds to use his skepticism to dismiss every data point. 

"What about the radar sensor data?" -> "It could be a malfunction or miscalibration!"

"What about the eye witness accounts?" -> "Humans are flawed, you know this!"

See, you can be skeptical of each singular data-point, but the data does become compelling not because of the individuals points of data, but because of the fact that there are multiple data-points that give you the same picture.

Sure, a human is flawed and as an eye witness cannot be trusted. But is this true when we talk about 4 fighter jet pilots who claim to have observed the same thing? Maybe even that could be dismissed, but let's add radar data, optical data and several others data points. You could dismiss each of them individually, but the problem is that you cannot dismiss them all together. And this is precisely the sneaky game the skeptic is playing here.

This has nothing to do with testing something with scientific rigour, but everything to do with defending a present dogma in the community.

 

 

The same is true for video footage of UFO's, you can pretty much dismiss each individual data point, cast doubt on it by claiming that what has been observed was actually X phenomena rather than Y, and then after you do that you exclaim "See, so with all the video footage we have, none of them ever recorded aliens!".

How could you possibly know this? And how could you make such a statement and literally a minute after that proceed to explain how we only go so far as to understand the sensory data rather than what might have caused this. How do you know that every single video ever recorded that claims to have recorded a UFO, actually was something that could be explained away by any other phenomena, like weather baloons.

Just because something can be explained naturally, does not mean that it is actually that natural phenomena. You have to be equally uncertain of whether or not some of these things are UFO, as you are that they indeed were UFOs. And if you are uncertain you cannot claim that "No UFO was ever recorded!".

 

These are such basic scientific and epistemic blunders it should be embarrassing and it should disqualify Neil from being a scientist. That this is not the case shows you the standard we have for our scientists. The irony that Neil then proceeds to explain to everyone how rigorous the scientific community is, is blissful.

Edited May 26, 2021 by Scholar

[DocWatts]

You'd think the threshold of evidence to confirm a new paradigm so world changing in its implications (that aliens not only exist but are regularly visiting our planet), would be higher than the threshold a jury would use to convict someone of vandalism to public property (the evidence consisting of hard to decipher low quality security footage, and eyewitness testimony from people too far away to make out distinguishable features beyond just a silhouette, etc).

Also: what kind of sense does it make that beings which possess the unfathomable level of technology needed to cross the gulf between stars somehow doesn't have the ability to mask thier crafts from detection?

Sure someone might retort that "we have no idea what they're technologically capable of", which is true to some extent, but also misses the obvious point that we can make at least draw some general inferences. It's not unreasonable to assume that a civilization that has mastered interstellar travel would also be knowledgeable about how to hide themselves from detection from a much less technologically sophisticated society. 

While I posit that agnosticism isn't an unreasonable supposition, I see lots of confirmation bias for people who want aliens to exist... Hell, I want aliens to exist, but I do recognize that the more likely path of discovering microbes or indirect radio spectrometry evidence isn't nearly as exciting for most people as exciting as Intelligent beings that have taken a direct interest in our planet.

Edited May 27, 2021 by DocWatts

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

You'd think the threshold of evidence to confirm a new paradigm so world changing in its implications (that aliens not only exist but are regularly visiting our planet), would be higher than the threshold a jury would use to convict someone of vandalism to public property (the evidence consisting of hard to decipher low quality security footage, and eyewitness testimony from people too far away to make out distinguishable features beyond just a silhouette, etc).

That's not how any of this works. The goal of the court is not to determine truth, but to establish justice to the highest possible degree. The entire point of the court system is to create a binary determination, guilty or not guilty. This is not how science works. We aren't trying to establish the motivations of the aliens, or what exactly they were doing, or whether or not the aliens sitting in the proposed craft were a particular alien. We have data and eye witness reports that show behaviours that cannot be explained by conventional means. You don't need to see anything beyond a silhouette to see that an object is moving is physically unintiutive ways, or that it disappears or flies away at a speed equally unintuitive.

 

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

Also: what kind of sense does it make that beings which possess the unfathomable level of technology needed to cross the gulf between stars somehow doesn't have the ability to mask thier crafts from detection?

You don't know anything about a potential alien civilization. Why would it be the case that they would have the ability to mask their crafts? Just because you assume that is possible? And furthermore, what would even be the motivation for conceilment? Why would they believe that your way of conceilment is more appropriate than another? How do you know they are even familiar with the way other beings would detect an object? There are so many ungrounded assumptions it's utterly silly.

 

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

Sure someone might retort that "we have no idea what they're technologically capable of", which is true to some extent, but also misses the obvious point that we can make at least draw some general inferences. It's not unreasonable to assume that a civilization that has mastered interstellar travel would also be knowledgeable about how to hide themselves from detection from a much less technologically sophisticated society. 

Okay, provide some arguments for this. You are just assering that it is not unreasonable to assume X. Why would they be motivated to hide themselves, how do you know whether or not in their eyes, whatever conceilment they use, is not effective for whatever they are trying to accomplish? How do you know what kind of technologies they would have and be interested in? What about any of this is reasonable? All you do is trying to project your silly sci-fi ideas onto the real world.

 

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

While I posit that agnosticism isn't an unreasonable supposition, I see lots of confirmation bias for people who want aliens to exist... Hell, I want aliens to exist, but I do recognize that the more likely path of discovering microbes or indirect radio spectrometry evidence isn't nearly as exciting for most people as exciting as Intelligent beings that have taken a direct interest in our planet.

But this doesn't actually contend with any of the data there is. There are people who want aliens to exist as much as people who are dogmatically opposed to it. You don't recognize anything, you are simply asserting something that you have no way to justify. How the hell do you know what is most likely? You don't know anything, and you seem to not even be willing to contend or even look at the data that is already present.

[DocWatts]

@Scholar Not sure if you've ever been on a Jury, but considerations of which account of events being presented is the most truthful is a huge part of what Jurors are asked to do in court cases (in addition to considering things like responsibility for blame in light of extenuating circumstances, of course). The one criminal case that I was a Jury member for revolved entirely around determining whether an ex-convict was in possession of a firearm or not (ie weighing the merits of conflicting factual Truth claims).

And for the record while I do posit that aliens visiting Earth is at least possible, it's not a claim I'm inclined to take seriously from the types of evidence presented so far (generally consisting of people elucidating remembered perceptions of strange phenomena, and low quality, hard to decipher video footage). If something more substantial comes to light, I'll reevaluate my opinion.

A problem I see with the 'aliens visiting Earth' hypothesis in this thread is that people defending the claim handwave away any Inferences at all that could be made about potential Aliens with a retort that basically boils down to 'nothing at all can be inferred,  because reality is infinite and anything is possible'.

Which if your metaphysical ontology rests upon the assumption that all of Reality is a creation of Consciousness (which is in assumption, by the way, just as much as Materialism is an assumption) I guess that follows, and is at least internally consistent.

But as a way to defend a hypothesis it seems intellectually lazy, and just as inadequate as a skeptic trying to refute said claim on the basis of Materialist Reductionism (ie the Speed of Light cant by bypassed, ergo no interstellar travel). 

If you're in position of having to use metaphysical axiomatic assumptions to back up your claim, it doesn't make for a very convincing argument for people outside of that particular Paradigm.

Edited May 27, 2021 by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

The claim is not metaphysical. The claim is tens of thousands of people have seen UFOs and the reports are too credible and numerous to dismiss at this point. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore all the reports.

These reports are not made by fools. They are made by serious professionals like Navy and commerical pilots. These people are not just making shit up for fame, and they are not crackpots or lunatics. And what they report is alien technology, not weather balloons or swamp gas or giant birds.

Sometimes if it looks like an alien and it flies like an alien, it's an alien.

The evidence pattern is precisely what you would expect from alien spacecraft who didn't wish to land and make a big welcome party.

Science is irrelevant to this matter. If an alien flies over your head, you don't need science to tell you so. And no amount logical deduction can be used to judge the probabilty of it. If an alien flies over your head the probablity is 100%.

Another example of horrible misuse of "science". The science is: you see a fucking alien in the sky, and you say aliens exist. It makes zero difference how many sicentists agree or disagree. It matters not a damn what Neil Degrass Tyson thinks. His thoughts are worth less that a plastic fork in this matter.

Be ware your misuse of skepticism. There is nothing scientific about it. In fact, it gives science a bad name.

[Value]

@Leo Gura It is disgusting to see the closedmindedness and dogma among reputable scientists regarding this matter. I'm even saving some debunk and skepticism footage for future reference, as a coming showcase in how resistance to new scientific paradigms manifests.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Value

[IAmReallyImportant]

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The claim is not metaphysical. The claim is tens of thousands of people have seen UFOs and the reports are too credible and numerous to dismiss at this point. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore all the reports.

These reports are not made by fools. They are made by serious professionals like Navy and commerical pilots. These people are not just making shit up for fame, and they are not crackpots or lunatics. And what they report is alien technology, not weather balloons or swamp gas or giant birds.

Sometimes if it looks like an alien and it flies like an alien, it's an alien.

The evidence pattern is precisely what you would expect from alien spacecraft who didn't wish to land and make a big welcome party.

Science is irrelevant to this matter. If an alien flies over your head, you don't need science to tell you so. And no amount logical deduction can be used to judge the probabilty of it. If an alien flies over your head the probablity is 100%.

Another example of horrible misuse of "science". The science is: you see a fucking alien in the sky, and you say aliens exist. It makes zero difference how many sicentists agree or disagree. It matters not a damn what Neil Degrass Tyson thinks. His thoughts are worth less that a plastic fork in this matter.

Be ware your misuse of skepticism. There is nothing scientific about it. In fact, it gives science a bad name.

It is still about UFO's and not extraterrestrial life.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Value said:

@Leo Gura It is disgusting to see the closedmindedness and dogma among reputable scientists regarding this matter.

Nothing new. This has been science since day 0.

Visionary scientists are 1 in a 100,000 and they are usually not appreciated until after they're long dead.

10 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

It is still about UFO's and not extraterrestrial life.

Don't get all cute. UFO means alien spaceship. We are not talking about anything else here.

[IAmReallyImportant]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Nothing new. This has been science since day 0.

Visonary scientists are 1 in a 100,000.

Don't get all cute. UFO means alien spaceship. We are not talking about anything else here.

Nope

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

There is no evidence at all that this is about extraterrestrial life.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

There is no evidence at all that this is about extraterrestrial life.

And there is no evidence at all you got a dick.