All About UFO's

[sonitus mirus]

How much actual time and effort have you taken to see and understand what exists for evidence? To repeat, the most ardent supporters of UFU/UAP/NHI agree more evidence is needed, and all they want is for more serious scientific inquiry to take place.

I've seen more than enough evidence to suggest we don't need to waste any more money chasing these leads until something more concrete is provided.

What exists is more than sufficient to support the need for less stigma and more research, etc

Blurry footage or declassified reports just won’t cut it. While I understand the call for more research, the majority of UAP events have had mundane explanations, making it difficult to see why the unexplained ones would be fundamentally different. If anything, we might discover the military is keeping secrets, but that would hardly be a revelation.

 

[mhardy6647]

Chances are you will still be saying the same thing 10 years from now.

sounds like practical nuclear fusion.
Perhaps not coincidentally.

 

[kemmler3D]

You're shifting goal posts. I don't know what his motives are, it's unrelated to other wealthy people and or their motives, only that it's very unlikely Mellon's motive for doing that program is the fee, if any, he receives for being on the that program. His motives could be exactly as he and co claim it is, or something else. "Only the Shadow knows..." what motives are found in the hearts of men.

My goal post has always been "some kind of hard evidence"... my point was just that him being rich doesn't make him credible, it doesn't even mean he isn't seeking attention / money / "clout" from this. In other words, it doesn't increase my expectation that he has access to hard evidence at all.

My broader point is that our reasoning about their motives or lack or motives to lie or assert things without hard evidence isn't meaningful either way.

Either we get the evidence or we don't. Until then I assume it's all hot air, because until then, that's all it is.

 

[WillBrink]

Chances are you will still be saying the same thing 10 years from now.

That's very possible of course. It feels to me like the momentum to disclosure has shifted hard in favor of it, but that could fizzle out too for any number of reasons.

 

[WillBrink]

I've seen more than enough evidence to suggest we don't need to waste any more money chasing these leads until something more concrete is provided.

You probably don't even see the irony of that statement.

Blurry footage or declassified reports just won’t cut it. While I understand the call for more research, the majority of UAP events have had mundane explanations, making it difficult to see why the unexplained ones would be fundamentally different. If anything, we might discover the military is keeping secrets, but that would hardly be a revelation.

Majority of reports do have mundane explanations, but some don't and can't be explained away no matter how much they try, and that's been going on for at least 80 years. Hence, the push for disclosure by those who have first hand knowledge and or experiences, corroborated by the best tech we have, etc. The good news is top level people in science and gov are now convinced it's worth investigating and getting the answers we need. I'm just happy the head in sand approach you et el favor has finally being replaced with more rational approaches.

 

[WillBrink]

My goal post has always been "some kind of hard evidence"... my point was just that him being rich doesn't make him credible, it doesn't even mean he isn't seeking attention / money / "clout" from this. In other words, it doesn't increase my expectation that he has access to hard evidence at all.

My broader point is that our reasoning about their motives or lack or motives to lie or assert things without hard evidence isn't meaningful either way.

Either we get the evidence or we don't. Until then I assume it's all hot air, because until then, that's all it is.

Hence why the push for disclosure and or research so there's less BS and more evidence as to what's been zipping around in our airspace and apparently oceans that makes our supposed best tech look slow and has been studied by orgs in our and other gubments. That's all they seem to be requesting so far. The rational and reasonable people involved/following the issue all want the same thing.

 

[Petrushka]

You probably don't even see the irony of that statement.

Majority of reports do have mundane explanations, but some don't and can't be explained away no matter how much they try, and that's been going on for at least 80 years. Hence, the push for disclosure by those who have first hand knowledge and or experiences, corroborated by the best tech we have, etc. The good news is top level people in science and gov are now convinced it's worth investigating and getting the answers we need. I'm just happy the head in sand approach you et el favor has finally being replaced with more rational approaches.

The 80 year thing suggests that either there is nothing to be found, or that aliens only wish to reveal themselves to belligerent nations that have nuclear weapons and aerial weapons.

Hastening the great filter, no doubt.

 

[Petrushka]

On the other hand, full disclosure might involve admitting that many unidentifieds are military projects, and aliens provide just the right amount of FUD to make denials plausible.

 

[kemmler3D]

Hence why the push for disclosure and or research so there's less BS and more evidence as to what's been zipping around in our airspace and apparently oceans that makes our supposed best tech look slow and has been studied by orgs in our and other gubments. That's all they seem to be requesting so far. The rational and reasonable people involved/following the issue all want the same thing.

Sure, agree as far as that goes. I just don't buy the vague assertions about having seen aliens or alien craft, or the whole "where there's smoke there's fire" line of reasoning about all this government activity/secrecy being meaningful in that sense.

 

[WillBrink]

Sure, agree as far as that goes. I just don't buy the vague assertions about having seen aliens or alien craft, or the whole "where there's smoke there's fire" line of reasoning about all this government activity/secrecy being meaningful in that sense.

The claims/assertions are very specific, it's the hard physical evidence that's lacking, and according those making the assertions - some of whom are highly qualified on various levels - that's intentional and why we are now having congressional hearings etc about it. I'm agnostic about what they are, but that they exist is indisputable at this point.

 

[kemmler3D]

I'm agnostic about what they are, but that they exist is indisputable at this point.

The claims to have seen NHI stuff are definitely real. We members of the public cannot say whether any of the supposedly extant NHI stuff itself is real.

Also, Michio Kaku saying the burden of proof is to disprove an as-of-yet unsubstantiated claim is him abdicating his role as a scientist even more than usual. Sad. That is simply not how the burden of proof works.

 

[mhardy6647]

On the other hand, full disclosure might involve admitting that many unidentifieds are military projects, and aliens provide just the right amount of FUD to make denials plausible.

That seems like the Occam's Razor-approved answer to me.

 

[Axo1989]

On the other hand, full disclosure might involve admitting that many unidentifieds are military projects, and aliens provide just the right amount of FUD to make denials plausible.

Yes. Not sure I'd say "plausible" though. I'd say it gives said denials a certain buoyancy.

 

[Axo1989]

... Michio Kaku saying the burden of proof is to disprove an as-of-yet unsubstantiated claim is him abdicating his role as a scientist even more than usual. Sad. That is simply not how the burden of proof works.

Yes, that's utterly egregious. And apparently Rogan can't (or prefers not to) critique competently. Exposure to these "credentialed" and "top-tier" people and their conveyed arguments (via this thread) has been ... interesting. It's like watching a self-punching soufflé.

 

[Sokel]

Theories are just models that describe how parts of our world work. As long as that description works, they are valid.

Newton's theory of gravitation isn't suddenly invalid because Einstein had a better one. We've just learned to comprehend the constraints much better. In many cases, it's still a very valuable theory.

I think you misunderstood my post.
Is was not about Newton's validity about physics.It was about his obsession with alchemy and biblical stuff like the apocalypse and occult in general which IS the larger volume of his work.
Does this makes makes his theories less?Of course not.But as in everything else it seems that people are easier on intentions than results.

 

[voodooless]

I think you misunderstood my post.

No I didn’t, I didn’t even quote you. My comment was more of a general one, I therefore referenced no single post. The fact that I also used Newton as an example is purely coincidental

 

[JSmith]

You have no way of knowing that, various high level people say otherwise. Hence, this discussion...

I defer to Russell's teapot;

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

JSmith

 

[sam_adams]

Given that the below is an article from the Star, it now confirms that ETs, NHIs, UFOs, and insects do not exist.

Ex-military officer 'abducted by aliens had conversation with 7ft mantis being'

Whistleblower Lt Col John Blitch spoke to News Nation's Ross Coulthart in an exclusive interview where he claimed that he was abducted by aliens, and described a 7ft mantis being

www.dailystar.co.uk

 

[Axo1989]

Given that the below is an article from the Star, it now confirms that ETs, NHIs, UFOs, and insects do not exist.

Ex-military officer 'abducted by aliens had conversation with 7ft mantis being'

Whistleblower Lt Col John Blitch spoke to News Nation's Ross Coulthart in an exclusive interview where he claimed that he was abducted by aliens, and described a 7ft mantis being

www.dailystar.co.uk

That, and Coulthart.

Also, the military have all the best experimental drugs.

 

[Petrushka]

That, and Coulthart.

Also, the military have all the best experimental drugs.

It’s not really done until Bat Boy chimes in.