Pentagon Confirms New UFO Video

[dlof]

31 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@dlof If your aim is to have these sorts of phenomena taken seriously enough to be studied further, it would be advantageous to separate the few more credible claims (such as David Fravor) from the field of 'UFO-ology'.

The phenomena is being taken seriously enough to be studied further, it has been for at least 60 years. 

 

Quote

The reason why the scientifically minded people don't take abduction stories seriously (aside from just a general lack of evidence) is that the whole field reeks of what I'll call magical thinking, akin to ghost hunting and the search for bigfoot.

 

In the legal system, the credibility of character of witnesses and the absence of alterior motive can mean the difference between someone being let off or sentenced to death in some cases. If all of this was presented in a court of law, it would be conclusive that aliens are visiting the earth. 
 

 

[DocWatts]

11 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Yes I agree. It's not a big deal for me either. Leo can believe in whatever he wants about aliens it won't make his future metaphysical content any less good. But this is because I no longer see Leo as a role model, just as a messenger. I wouldn't mind listening to anybody about any subject, the author doesn't define the quality of the content

But for more vulnerable people they kinda have to judge who they can trust in terms of self-help and generally people will use all types of ways to judge people. If you are the guy who claims to be infinitely open minded, who claims to dive into epistemology and be "the best" at knowing what Truth is, then what the heck is this?  At the end of the day it's really none of my business. I just think this explains the frustration perceived in this thread much better than some sort of clinging to there not being aliens.

Yeah so long as my disagreements with Leo aren't because of anything I find ethically problematic, arriving at different conclusions for esoteric topics isn't unexpected or even undesirable.

[dlof]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

Seeing a phenomenon you don't understand and saying "It's aliens!" is similar to seeing electricity in the 1200s and saying "it's magic!". There are a lot of things we don't understand about the universe and so far truth has always been more intricate than a catch-all explanation like aliens (or magic).

 

Except there are a multitude of cases where people actually see what's piloting the crafts and it turns out they're aliens. 

So we've got Navy pilots seeing UFO's defy the laws of physics, military personnel saying these craft have come up to missile silos, shot lasers at them and deactivated the missiles... people giving reports about being taken onboard the craft and seeing aliens including groups of people all seeing the same thing and passing lie detector tests, ranking ex-military saying that the government is aware it's aliens.

Thinking it's anything other than aliens at this point is pretty out there, and it would be more like seeing electricity in 1200s and saying it's water. Because you know water, always have known water... so it must be water, can't be anything else... despite it behaving completely differently to water and the fact that it's most definitely not water.

[4201]

8 minutes ago, dlof said:

 

Except there are a multitude of cases where people actually see what's piloting the crafts and it turns out they're aliens. 

So we've got Navy pilots seeing UFO's defy the laws of physics, military personnel saying these craft have come up to missile silos, shot lasers at them and deactivated the missiles... people giving reports about being taken onboard the craft and seeing aliens including groups of people all seeing the same thing and passing lie detector tests, ranking ex-military saying that the government is aware it's aliens.

Thinking it's anything other than aliens at this point is pretty out there, and it would be more like seeing electricity in 1200s and saying it's water. Because you know water, always have known water... so it must be water, can't be anything else... despite it behaving completely differently to water and the fact that it's most definitely not water.

Nothing is confirmed, it's all speculation from people outside of the scientific community.

Electricity "defied" the laws of physics at the time, our understanding of physics didn't include electro magnetic fields. We discovered a new phenomenon and it wasn't what some people would have thought it was : magic.

What are those flying objects? They can be of various sources. "They move in unexpected ways" and "They are spaceships of living things" are very different points. If you want to get from the first one to the second you need solid evidence. Some people can offer an illusion of evidence through lengthy pseudo scientific rants but this isn't actual evidence.

No matter what your reason is to believe those dots are spaceships driven by living things, it's just belief. There is no evidence that speaks for itself on that, only people who likes to speaks way to much about inconclusive evidence.

[Blackhawk]

16 hours ago, Tim Ho said:

Can you give me a link?

Btw, do you watch news?  There are new developments that came out just matter of days.   

Also watch "Close Encounter of the Fifth Kind: Contact has Begun" just came out.

 

[dlof]

2 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Nothing is confirmed, it's all speculation from people outside of the scientific community.

You don't need the scientific community to tell you what it is. Well maybe you do at the moment, but you can grow out of that. Scientists are very specialised in compartmentalised areas of science and in those specialised narrow subjects they are very knowledgeable. But they won't help you with gauging character testimony or piecing multitudes of accounts together and fitting that together with evidence such as video footage. They're not  going to help you understand what's going on with UFO's... I mean, what could you be waiting for from the scientific community on the subject anyway?

If my sister came home in tears telling me she was attacked by a dog and she was bleeding with bite marks on her. I wouldn't need to wait for the scientific community to tell me she was bitten by a dog.  

 

Quote

What are those flying objects? They can be of various sources.

Like what? Haven't heard much from the priesthood scientific community about this, any leads?

[4201]

14 minutes ago, dlof said:

You don't need the scientific community to tell you what it is. Well maybe you do at the moment, but you can grow out of that. Scientists are very specialised in compartmentalised areas of science and in those specialised narrow subjects they are very knowledgeable. But they won't help you with gauging character testimony or piecing multitudes of accounts together and fitting that together with evidence such as video footage. They're not  going to help you understand what's going on with UFO's... I mean, what could you be waiting for from the scientific community on the subject anyway?

If my sister came home in tears telling me she was attacked by a dog and she was bleeding with bite marks on her. I wouldn't need to wait for the scientific community to tell me she was bitten by a dog.  

Yes because your sister being attacked by a dog isn't global scale phenomena that would interest thousands of experts in astronomy.

What's the point of academia and the scientific community? Peer review. In Academia and famous scientific journals you cannot claim shit out of your ass just like you can in the flat earth forums or whatever other forum people use to spread their beliefs. Whatever you claim in a scientific paper will be tested by a 3rd party so you cannot just make shit up. This is the value of the scientific community. If you want believe it's "religious" or a conspiracy, I won't go there with you. There are way too much people lost in conspiracy theories for me to argue with each of them one on one.

20 minutes ago, dlof said:

Like what? Haven't heard much from the priesthood scientific community about this, any leads?

This has already been posted in this thread. I feel like we are running circles. I'm here for the meta argument about not being able to accept we don't know, not about the lack of evidence itself.

[Blackhawk]

1 hour ago, 4201 said:

For many Leo is a role model and it's a bit like discovering your role model is a flat earther. The dude you've been listening to videos for ages, the dude who got you into meditation and changed your life. Yes the same dude looks at blurry pentagon footage and is already 100% convinced those are evidence of aliens, refuses to provide further proof and calls anyone who disagree with him "dense".

I think this is a factor but also the frustration of people being naive and buying into theories so fast. 

At the end of the day nobody would cry if those UFOs were actually confirmed to be aliens. Nobody would "suffer a shattered worldview". I don't think anyone actually cares about defending that no-alien worldview it's much more about the meta-POV of "Do I believe cheap stories? Am I able to admit I don't know?".

Yeah I'm disappointed at Leo.

Why wouldn't he be like this in other areas too?

But no damage has happened for me, because I have never been blindly believing in Leo or anyone else anyway. But still, after this my respect for Leo has dropped more.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Blackhawk

[DocWatts]

Even if it does turn out to be the case that aliens spacecraft are visiting us, we're still a long way from having conclusive evidence available to the public which demonstrates that in an unambiguous way.

Claiming off handedly that the 'US military has known about UFOs for years' isn't very conclusive without an official statement backed up by some hard evidence, or a whistleblower akin to an Edward Snowden who achieves something to that same effect.

Low quality video footage that's highly ambiguous and interpretable as to its phenomenological cause is not hard evidence. Someone like David Fravor relating an experience that's corroborated by the accounts of a handful of other highly trained professionals saw is a lot better, and is enough to give the hypothesis some legs, but it still doesn't tell us what the phenomenological cause is of whatever these things are.

And even if you believe that beyond a shadow of doubt that alien craft are visiting us, categorizing them as alien in origin still doesn't explain what these things are, what they're doing here, etc. About as useful saying something is human in origin; helpful in some ways, but there's still so much that it doesn't tell you.

Are these types of phenomena worth studying further? Absolutely; the fact that there's a non negligible chance that some of these may be aliens warrants that. But it's just too early to say anything definitive about them for the time being.

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by DocWatts

[Consilience]

2 hours ago, 4201 said:

At the end of the day nobody would cry if those UFOs were actually confirmed to be aliens. Nobody would "suffer a shattered worldview". I don't think anyone actually cares about defending that no-alien worldview it's much more about the meta-POV of "Do I believe cheap stories? Am I able to admit I don't know?".

Disagree. The mainstream scientific materialist paradigm would be deeply shattered if this was indeed some sort of extraterrestrial technology. Their entire paradigm of reality would come under question. Don't forget the depth of how far an ego or collective ego will go to keep its survival strategy and orientation alive. This type of shattering would be a form of psychological death, something the ego is very much in the game of preventing. 

Moreover, the most meta-POV on this topic would be to admit you don't know both ways. You don't know whether they're aliens, or whether they're not. We'll just see what happens as more information comes out over time. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Consilience

[dlof]

28 minutes ago, 4201 said:

Yes because your sister being attacked by a dog isn't global scale phenomena that would interest thousands of experts in astronomy.

My point is that witness testimony is valid, and like I posted before it can mean the difference between a life-sentence and getting off in the court of law. In the legal system, you look at things like credibility of character, ulterior motive etc. And when you have a bunch of people of good character saying the same thing, pieces start to fit together. You compare that with other evidence and you build a picture. Autists in the scientific community can't do this for you, though they are very useful for certain very specific things.

 

Quote

This has already been posted in this thread. I feel like we are running circles. I'm here for the meta argument about not being able to accept we don't know, not about the lack of evidence itself.

No, I meant like the objects in the Nimitz encounters etc. where nobody has a clue what they are since they show up on radar and they got visual sighting on them. Have you looked into that? Most UFO sightings are easily explainable... but I mean if I saw a 20 foot disk shaped UFO land in my backyard and start shooting lasers everywhere and in response you linked me a video of a plastic bag floating in the air it doesn't really explain anything since we're trying to figure out what the laser shooting disk is. 

 

 

 

[DocWatts]

4 minutes ago, Consilience said:

Disagree. The mainstream scientific materialist paradigm would be deeply shattered if this was indeed some sort of extraterrestrial technology. Their entire paradigm of reality would come under question. Don't forget the depth of how far an ego or collective ego will go to keep its survival strategy and orientation alive. This type of shattering would be a form of psychological death, something the ego is very much in the game of preventing. 

How so? It's my understanding that the Materialist Reductionism paradigm allows for the possiblity both of interstellar travel and intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. How does the existence of aliens overturn the underlying assumption that Matter/Energy is all that exists of Reality?

[4201]

@dlof My bad for even linking that video. I'm not a UFO debunker nor am I going to dive deep into any individual case. The author of the video is one though and if you have a video request for him, hit him up.

That being said, the idea that "it can't be anything else than aliens" implies that the only phenomenon that is unknown to man is aliens. You equate aliens to unknown but the area of unknown things is infinite. You asked me to provide examples of what unknown things are (you said "Like what?") but this is a bait, the unknown is not known I cannot send you unknown things.

In the 1200 hundreds though, electricity was not known and thus there was motivation to attribute the phenomena to magic. What else could it be? We already eliminated everything else, it must be magic. 

There are infinitely many things we don't know. UFO footages could be produced by tons of different things that we don't know and of course I cannot provide explanations for things we don't know. But just claiming it's aliens doesn't change anything, it doesn't lead to further explanations nor it makes you know it any better.

 

[Consilience]

1 minute ago, DocWatts said:

How so? It's my understanding that the Materialist Reductionism paradigm allows for the possiblity both of interstellar travel and intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. How does the existence of aliens overturn the underlying assumption that Matter/Energy is all that exists of Reality?

Because if Aliens were actually visiting Earth, it would mean they're able to travel faster than the speed of light. There are more mainstream assumptions in science besides the idea that matter and energy are all that exist. Yet taking this single example, faster than light speed travel - there is no room in our current paradigm of spacetime that would allow an object of significant mass to travel beyond the speed of light. In other words, if Aliens were indeed visiting, these UFO's would necessarily need to be using a technology that takes advantage of forces, laws, or discoveries that are outside of our current paradigm of reality. And even if not strictly outside of our paradigm, something that is beyond our conception of our paradigm that would more likely fall into "woo woo" territory by most rationalists, atheists, and scientists. Also consider the fact that even if an object of significant mass were to travel at the speed of light, this is still absurdly slow for traveling across the cosmos. A quick google search shows that the nearest star system, the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, is around 25,000 light years away. The NEAREST. If there are legitimate Aliens, they are using technology that is taking advantage of discoveries we currently have no conception of. 

There could also be potential facets to UFO technology besides the fact that they would need to have faster than light speed travel that challenge our mainstream view of reality though. Wouldn't know for sure unless we had access to said craft. 

[DocWatts]

@Consilience I'm far from a diehard defender of the Materialist paradigm, but a number of very prominent scientists from that community have posited methods for skirting the edge of known physics to travel faster than light (including Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, etc). 

There's no reason to believe why Faster than Light travel would shatter the underlying assumptions of Materialism any more than the discovery of Quantum Mechanics did. Materialism might have its limitations, but not like its completely unable to adapt to new discoveries. Virtually every Materialist has come to accept the reality of quantum mechanics (even if they don't fully accept all of its implications).

Quantum Mechanics ended up being folded in to the Materialist paradigm, and I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't happen with the discovery of aliens who can break the light speed barrier.

I would think that as far things which would toss Materialist Reductionism on to the rubbish heap, discoveries as to the nature of consciousness (say if Consciousness were scientifically proven to be as fundamental to reality as gravity or electromagnetism) would be far more likely to achieve this than having to revise concepts about the speed of light.

Edited June 2, 2021 by DocWatts

[dlof]

@4201 

If you could take the following as real based mainly on credible witness testimony, sometimes with evidence like with the Nimitz encounters: 

1. Things are flying around defying the laws of physics

2. These objects exhibit intelligence, i.e. they sometimes disable missile silos with laser beams or react differently when tracked by fighter jets

3. Inside these objects are sentient beings which aren't human (Travis Walton case etc.)

You could infer that the object was created by something because the universe tends towards entropy and doesn't just build technology out of thin air, except for life / DNA. This is pretty obvious of course.

So something definitely created these things. You could infer that they are some kind of craft since they have occupants and they carry the occupants over distance like we use cars, planes etc. You could infer that it's not man made because it's technology far above what we are capable of. You could argue that it's somehow secret government projects with technology hundreds of years ahead of it's time, but then you have point 3) which is people are reporting seeing the occupants as non-human.

If you take 1,2,3 as real, then imo Occam's razor suggests aliens and imo anything other than aliens seems far-fetched and woo to me. 
 

[4201]

15 minutes ago, dlof said:

@4201 

If you could take the following as real based mainly on credible witness testimony, sometimes with evidence like with the Nimitz encounters: 

1. Things are flying around defying the laws of physics

2. These objects exhibit intelligence, i.e. they sometimes disable missile silos with laser beams or react differently when tracked by fighter jets

3. Inside these objects are sentient beings which aren't human (Travis Walton case etc.)

You could infer that the object was created by something because the universe tends towards entropy and doesn't just build technology out of thin air, except for life / DNA. This is pretty obvious of course.

So something definitely created these things. You could infer that they are some kind of craft since they have occupants and they carry the occupants over distance like we use cars, planes etc. You could infer that it's not man made because it's technology far above what we are capable of. You could argue that it's somehow secret government projects with technology hundreds of years ahead of it's time, but then you have point 3) which is people are reporting seeing the occupants as non-human.

If you take 1,2,3 as real, then imo Occam's razor suggests aliens and imo anything other than aliens seems far-fetched and woo to me. 
 

None of this is evidence though. If you have extra evidence that UFOs are aliens feel free to post it in this thread. All of the blabla that comes with it has no value, either the evidence speaks for itself or not.

[Consilience]

1 hour ago, DocWatts said:

Quantum Mechanics ended up being folded in to the Materialist paradigm, and I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't happen with the discovery of aliens who can break the light speed barrier.

Yes the same thing would definitely happen eventually. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there will be a biased against any major contradictions or new discoveries because of the way survival works at the individual and collective level. People's biases right now will be that these UFO's don't contradict any of our current paradigms of science or technology and therefore, it would be shattering if we were to discover something like an object of significant mass can suddenly travel well beyond the speed of light. We already know objects can travel beyond the speed of light from QM - quantum entanglement has shown this long ago. The hard part would be accepting an object of significant mass can.

Don't forget that even Einstein had trouble accepting the implications of quantum mechanics. "God does not play with dice." He wrote to one of the fathers of QM, Max Born. 

[DocWatts]

24 minutes ago, Consilience said:

Yes the same thing would definitely happen eventually. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that there will be a biased against any major contradictions or new discoveries because of the way survival works at the individual and collective level. People's biases right now will be that these UFO's don't contradict any of our current paradigms of science or technology and therefore, it would be shattering if we were to discover something like an object of significant mass can suddenly travel well beyond the speed of light. We already know objects can travel beyond the speed of light from QM - quantum entanglement has shown this long ago. The hard part would be accepting an object of significant mass can.

Don't forget that even Einstein had trouble accepting the implications of quantum mechanics. "God does not play with dice." He wrote to one of the fathers of QM, Max Born. 

I suspect that this is correct, and it's a very good point.

As an aside, I find it endlessly Interesting how one of the visionary scientists whose discoveries paved the way for quantum mechanics (namely the photoelectric effect and brownian motion) could never come to fully accept the eventual implications of his discoveries.

The additional irony being that Einstein's Relativity Theory was itself built upon the work of previous scientists (such as Max Planck) who themselves wouldn't or couldn't accept the implications of their own discoveries.

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by DocWatts

[Gregp]

40 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

The additional irony being that Einstein's Relativity Theory was itself built upon the work of previous scientists (such as Max Planck) who themselves wouldn't or couldn't accept the implications of their own discoveries.

@DocWatts The problem for me is not that my worldview would change so massively. The thing is there just isn't good proof. Those spots on a radar which works with AI are not convincing.