All About UFO's

[Mart68]

Well, it was a ‘lightning round’ so I was expecting a yes/no. What were you expecting?

So of course he said: ‘uh they’re real and and uh but I haven’t seen ‘em mmm and and they’re not being held in, uh what is it—’ ‘Area 51?’ ‘ —uh Area 51, uh there’s no underground facility, unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they they hid it from the president of the United States.’

And then his ‘first question’ was ‘umm where are the aliens?’

And you (and Terry apparently) heard ‘just yes’. A word he didn’t actually utter.

Talk about biases colouring what we think we hear. And we do that here—talk about biases. I’ll put you both down as unreliable narrators.

Well whatever. He makes a two- word statement 'They're real.'

Now we can make of that what we will but he's not unclear in his response.

 

[terryforsythe]

Well whatever. He makes a two- word statement 'They're real.'

Now we can make of that what we will but he's not unclear in his response.

I didn't even state what I heard. But I also heard "They're real", as well as he has not seen them, that they are not being kept at area 51 and there is no underground base there, which is clear to anyone who watched the video. How that is interpreted as we being biased is beyond me. That is an example of why I have the ignore setting set for that dude, and have for quite some time.

 

[Mart68]

How that is interpreted as we being biased is beyond me.

Pretty standard distraction technique.

 

[Axo1989]

Well whatever. He makes a two- word statement 'They're real.'

That's better. Why lead with words he didn't say? As a quote. It's clear you're happy to post 'whatever' on this subject.

Now we can make of that what we will but he's not unclear in his response.

He led with those words, demurred about not actually seeing anything, then they both turned it into a joke. Your bias interprets the exchange as an unequivocal statement, my bias interprets it as throw-away humour.

 

[Axo1989]

I didn't even state what I heard.

Yes, that's a fair criticism of the parenthetical text I posted. Which should have read 'and Terry apparently agrees' but my error letting the original text stand. You'd agree that an acknowledgement is better than a 'whatever' response I assume, were you to ever read it?

But I also heard "They're real" ...

Of course you did, because ... wait for it ... he actually uttered those words. So why 'like' Mart68's post misquoting Obama, then respond with a post agreeing with same, without clarifying the actual wording?

... How that is interpreted as we being biased is beyond me. ...

Exactly as described above.

 

[voodooless]

And there we have it:

A major nothing burger!

 

[terryforsythe]

So why 'like' Mart68's post misquoting Obama

Here are the posts by Mart68, which were made after I posted the video, that I 'liked':

Well whatever. He makes a two- word statement 'They're real.'

Now we can make of that what we will but he's not unclear in his response.

Actually, Obama did say that, as you even conceded. Gramatically, he probably should have written it as 'Uh, they're real...' if you want to be grammar police. (The ellipse means that more words follow in case you do not know). Nonetheless, I 'liked' that after I clicked 'Show ignored content' and saw the riduculous ad hominem remarks you posted, not only calling out him, but also calling out me. Ad hominem is a well known fallacy, and only makes weaker any arguments with which they are presented.

Moreover, in the video the host asks "are aliens real?" Obama responded in the affirmative with 'Uh, they're real...' Indisputably, that is equivalent to saying 'yes' to the question. Thus, Mart68 had a clear basis for the statement upon which you based your fallacious post.

Pretty standard distraction technique.

No quote there.

I posted this:

I didn't even state what I heard. But I also heard "They're real", as well as he has not seen them, that they are not being kept at area 51 and there is no underground base there, which is clear to anyone who watched the video. How that is interpreted as we being biased is beyond me.

You responded:

Of course you did, because ... wait for it ... he actually uttered those words. So why 'like' Mart68's post misquoting Obama, then respond with a post agreeing with same, without clarifying the actual wording?

The sentence in my post "But I also heard 'They're real', as well as he has not seen them, that they are not being kept at area 51 and there is no underground base there" is adequately clarifying for any rational person. To argue otherwise simply is nonsensical.

In sum, your arguments are based on fallacy, specifically the fallacy of ad hominem, and nonsense. That seems to be par for the course for you in this thread, which is why I have my settings set to ignore your posts. The only reason I am responding now is that you specifically called me out in one post with a baseless accusation, and then responded directly to me. But, I am done.

 

[sam_adams]

"Well whatever. He makes a two- word statement 'They're real.'"

He made no misstatement. The guy's got himself a time machine. Where do think he got that from? Walmart?

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

they’re real and and uh but I haven’t seen ‘em mmm and and they’re not being held in, uh what is it—’ ‘Area 51?’ ‘

The obvious next question for the believers is “well if they aren’t in Area 51, where are they…”

 

[terryforsythe]

The obvious next question for the believers is “well if they aren’t in Area 51, where are they…”

"... in a galaxy far, far away....”

 

[Axo1989]

... A major nothing burger!

Hey, but major. That's what counts.

 

[kemmler3D]

Like Obama casually announces aliens (in that sense) are real on some random podcast for no particular reason, ha

 

[Axo1989]

Here are the posts by Mart68, which were made after I posted the video, that I 'liked':

Actually, Obama did say that, as you even conceded. Gramatically, he probably should have written it as 'Uh, they're real...' if you want to be grammar police. (The ellipse means that more words follow in case you do not know). Nonetheless, I 'liked' that after I clicked 'Show ignored content' and saw the riduculous ad hominem remarks you posted, not only calling out him, but also calling out me. Ad hominem is a well known fallacy, and only makes weaker any arguments with which they are presented.

Moreover, in the video the host asks "are aliens real?" Obama responded in the affirmative with 'Uh, they're real...' Indisputably, that is equivalent to saying 'yes' to the question. Thus, Mart68 had a clear basis for the statement upon which you based your fallacious post.

No quote there.

I posted this:

You responded:

The sentence in my post "But I also heard 'They're real', as well as he has not seen them, that they are not being kept at area 51 and there is no underground base there" is adequately clarifying for any rational person. To argue otherwise simply is nonsensical.

In sum, your arguments are based on fallacy, specifically the fallacy of ad hominem, and nonsense. That seems to be par for the course for you in this thread, which is why I have my settings set to ignore your posts. The only reason I am responding now is that you specifically called me out in one post with a baseless accusation, and then responded directly to me. But, I am done.

Ha! Ad hominem really isn't what you think it is. But the unfortunate fact that you both missed (or mis-represented) the ex-president's joke is probably why you block my posts: an inadequate sense of humour.

 

[Taiga]

All I know is that Avi Loeb is 0 for 3 on the nature of extra-solar visitors to our neighborhood. The box that he was “thinking outside” of has been cut up, placed in the recycle bin, and removed from the curb by sanitation workers who know nothing of his work but enjoy watching Skinwalker Ranch. Ahh, the circle of life and it’s conspiracies.

 

[kemmler3D]

All I know is that Avi Loeb is 0 for 3 on the nature of extra-solar visitors to our neighborhood. The box that he was “thinking outside” of has been cut up, placed in the recycle bin, and removed from the curb by sanitation workers who know nothing of his work but enjoy watching Skinwalker Ranch. Ahh, the circle of life and it’s conspiracies.

I like to think of Loeb as a sci-fi author who happens to publish his stories in any convenient medium, including scientific papers...

 

[Mart68]

And there we have it:

A major nothing burger!

Not surprising that he'd backtrack on that.

Says it was a quick answer to the quick-fire round but then he did follow up by saying they don't have any aliens at Area 51 when he could instead have qualified his remark by saying 'Because the universe is big and there's bound to be aliens somewhere.'

Instead he's quick to deny, unprompted, that they're holding any captive. A bit like the Vietnamese government denying it was still holding American POW.

 

[voodooless]

Not surprising that he'd backtrack on that.

From my point of view, he didn't. It just shows that you can read into this whatever you want..

 

[Mort]

That seems to be par for the course for you in this thread, which is why I have my settings set to ignore your posts.

What a coincidence. I'm ignoring you now. You are conducting useless fights in multiple threads.

 

[PierreV]

The "latent" scientific consensus is that simple life should be fairly frequent in the Universe, at least in environments similar to our Solar System.
Partial evidence (not definite proof) for that has been accumulating for decades. One of the recent results here (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02472-9). We are finding more "bricks of life as we know it" in a semi-random asteroid sample than Urey and Miller managed to create. On Mars, we have a handful of ambiguous cases (one recent example here: https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-says-mars-rover-discovered-potential-biosignature-last-year/) starting from the Viking Lander experiments (https://www.leonarddavid.com/time-to-revisit-the-viking-mars-lander-search-for-life-results/). On the whole, evidence has been building up.

The consensus remains "latent" because we don't have any definite, unambiguous and undisputable proof where we can say "this is or was simple life". But "aliens are most probably there somewhere" is not a particularly controversial statemement, depending somewhat of what you mean by aliens, objectively based on what we know. It is also extremely different from "aliens are here and flying around"

Now, one thing that should be obvious, looking at the Nature paper for example, is how hard and methodical real science is. How it relies on advances in technology (Urey and Miller did create more than they detected), how the measurement errors are considered and quantified, etc... Pause a minute to compare the process to the one that leads to a youtube video analyzing an image taken by a random clown using a smartphone he can't focus... Or compare it to the ridiculous high school level math used on Avi Loeb's blog (intentionally misleading and meant to be "understood" by its audience). We've now had at least three convoluted explanations of why tail "anomalies" could be some kind of propulsion devices, each time losing sight of the basic observed fact that there was no sign of anomalous acceleration and, when that absence of anomalous behavior became impossible to ignore, we ended up with something like "a sufficiently advanced civilization would know how to perfectly mimic a natural object to camouflage its probes".

How stupid can people be? (rethorical question)

Going shopping now... but rest assure that I will keep an "open mind" and keep watching for anomalies that could reveal that my car is a perfectly camouflaged alien probe studying my shopping habits. And, if I notice one, I will certainly ask ChatGPT what it thinks of it.

 

[Mart68]

From my point of view, he didn't. It just shows that you can read into this whatever you want..

Yes but you are in the 'It's impossible, it's all nonsense and I'm not even going to entertain it' camp.

The opposite camp is the 'OMG it's all real and there's a big cover up'

I'm somewhere in between. I think it's highly unlikely but not impossible, and there are, currently, unanswered questions.