All About UFO's

[mhardy6647]

So, I've been thinking about the whole Gestalt of the current state of the UFOs are real craze. The prevailing mindset is: there's all kinds of really weird, extraterrestrial stuff. "We" know all about it, but "we" won't officially talk about it. But it is such a big deal for all of humankind that, despite fear of retribution or ridicule, some insiders take great personal and professional risk to pull back the curtain a little bit in hopes of lifting the veil on the whole enterprise. It feels like classic conspiracy theory paranoia.

Is this any different than the still-swirling (??) "theories" about the Rothschilds, or the Knights Templar, or (with a nod to the few of us who are Thomas Pynchon junkies) the Tristero? The Grassy Knoll? Pizzagate? It all looks and feels of one kind to me. So...

You know what I'd like to see? An honest, objective journalistic assessment of the issue from all addressable angles. I say journalistic rather than scholarly with trepidation but a sense of pragmatism. I am not interested in more breathless, tantalizing YT videos. I would take a well written article in The Atlantic, or The Economist, or, heck, even The New Yorker (at the least, you know it'd be well-written and riveting) -- something along those lines.

 

[Audiofire]

I found the chapter is "Das elektrische Raumschiff" published in 1929 as Wege Zur Raumschiffahrt. I found there is a PDF for this book online. Tesla also worked on a flying machine without wings around this time. Of course just another looney tunes coincidence to skeptics, no secret electric flying machines.

https://medium.com/@VertroseX/nikola-teslas-flying-saucer-2cc9d9eed0a0

 

[Taiga]

So, I've been thinking about the whole Gestalt of the current state of the UFOs are real craze. The prevailing mindset is: there's all kinds of really weird, extraterrestrial stuff. "We" know all about it, but "we" won't officially talk about it. But it is such a big deal for all of humankind that, despite fear of retribution or ridicule, some insiders take great personal and professional risk to pull back the curtain a little bit in hopes of lifting the veil on the whole enterprise. It feels like classic conspiracy theory paranoia.

Is this any different than the still-swirling (??) "theories" about the Rothschilds, or the Knights Templar, or (with a nod to the few of us who are Thomas Pynchon junkies) the Tristero? The Grassy Knoll? Pizzagate? It all looks and feels of one kind to me. So...

You know what I'd like to see? An honest, objective journalistic assessment of the issue from all addressable angles. I say journalistic rather than scholarly with trepidation but a sense of pragmatism. I am not interested in more breathless, tantalizing YT videos. I would take a well written article in The Atlantic, or The Economist, or, heck, even The New Yorker (at the least, you know it'd be well-written and riveting) -- something along those lines.

Not sure if this is behind a pay wall:
OpinionI’ve reported on UFO sightings for decades — and come to this conclusion

 

[mhardy6647]

Not sure if this is behind a pay wall:
OpinionI’ve reported on UFO sightings for decades — and come to this conclusion

We (still ) have a subscription to WaPo, so either way's OK! (NYT, New Yorker, and WaPo, FWIW)
Thanks... now I am wondering whether I've read it. Still probably not the scope I'm thinking of/looking for, as an op-ed.

EDIT: Short & to the point; again, like to see some meat on the bones, but I thoroughly agree with his provisional conclusion.
Indeed, I stopped just short of mentioning, earlier, that the notions of "physics beyond our comprehension" providing for deus ex machina solutions to the world's problems versus the notions of an ominpotent, noncreated entity (God) running the whole show with same endgame in mind are essentially superimposable.

Interestingly, the deity hypothesis requires no alternative physics, if one is willing to accede to the postulate that a sentient, omnipotent creator created physics (and chemistry and biology and mathematics, and maybe even statistics), too.

EDIT: Oh, speaking of biology -- and speaking as a biologist (which is what the Johns Hopkins University called me in the degrees they conferred), I am puzzled to the point of merriment at the notion that the molecular underpinnings of all biology in all of the Universe would be fundamentally the same. I vividly remember Prof. Saul Roseman opining loudly (as usual) that one of the problems with biology compared to the other "hard" sciences is "that there's no 'theoretical biology'" because there's no way to expand the biology we know to generality -- the biology of earth, to date, remains the only game in town, tantalizing spectroscopic data (e.g.) notwithstanding.

 

[terryforsythe]

Is this any different than the still-swirling (??) "theories" about the Rothschilds, or the Knights Templar, or (with a nod to the few of us who are Thomas Pynchon junkies) the Tristero? The Grassy Knoll? Pizzagate? It all looks and feels of one kind to me.

I think the difference is due to who is swirling the theory. I don't know whether you watched "Age of Disclosure" or any of the congressional hearings, but those doing the most significant swirling involve numerous people with high security clearances who supposedly were in positions with access to the pertinent information. Perhaps it is more similar to Russia Gate or the laptop conspiracy, but those conspiracies revolved around an election, so probably are not too similar.

But, still I am not convinced. As interesting as I find the subject, I am waiting to see indisputable evidence. I tend to doubt it actually exists, but try to avoid taking a position based on bias. Besides, I enjoy contemplating the "what if".

 

[voodooless]

Interestingly, quotes from Wernher von Braun ...
"There are extraterrestrial forces whose origin is still unknown to us, but they are much stronger than previously assumed. I cannot say more about this. However, in a few months, we will be able to clarify things further. We are currently working on establishing closer contact with these extraterrestrial forces."

This is not at all surprising. The man’s only goals in life was basically to build a rocket and fly off to the stars. He didn’t care who built it, he just wanted to get it done. He famously said, after first V2 hit London, that the only issue was that the rocket landed on the wrong planet.

The man was all kinds of nuts… fun fact: in his book The Mars Project, he writes about the colonization of Mars. Guess what the leader was called… “Elon” .

 

[antcollinet]

not just the skeptics comfortable in their confirmation bias.

Skepticism isn't confirmation bias - it is the {scientific} way.

Show me with some real evidence (not just quotes of people living or dead - that they may, or may not have said, not blurry photographs someone has interpreted as ET to suit *their own* confirmation bias or political motivations, not wild speculation - actual evidence) and you'll be able to watch my skepticism evaporate.

Though I must admit - with all the decades of fakery and nonsense from the conspiracy theory brigade, real incontrovertible evidence might have to reach the level of an actual little green man booping me on the nose.

 

[voodooless]

Skepticism isn't confirmation bias - it is the {scientific} way.

Well, sort of... Skepticism isn't immune to bias, obviously. The scientific way is to remove the biases as best as possible.

 

[antcollinet]

Well, sort of... Skepticism isn't immune to bias, obviously. The scientific way is to remove the biases as best as possible.

Well part of the scientific way then. View claims skeptically until supported by reproducible evidence.

 

[WillBrink]

I will repeat a quote from post #5082. In the mean time, we are all waiting for a scintilla of evidence.


“Suppose he's telling the truth, that fella?”

“He's telling the truth. The truth for him. He wasn't making it up.

“Was it the truth for us?”

“I don't know.”

— Grapes of Wrath

There's no lack of evidence if you look, much of which has been discussed here page after page. I will not repost it or rehash it. Believe as you will. The Q remains, is evidence of what? That is open to debate.

 

[Audiofire]

I would like to check out a flying saucer too!

 

[voodooless]

There's no lack of evidence if you look, much of which has been discussed here page after page. I will not repost it or rehash it. Believe as you will. The Q remains, is evidence of what? That is open to debate.

Information only counts as evidence if it clearly indicates something about a specific claim. If it’s “open to debate what it indicates,” then it's just information, not evidence.

 

[WillBrink]

Information only counts as evidence if it clearly indicates something about a specific claim. If it’s “open to debate what it indicates,” then it's just information, not evidence.

You have strung words together that add up to nothing of value in the discussion. Dr Kaku is (still) correct, you et al, still wrong:

 

[Audiofire]

And obviously if they got help from aliens, the secret government does not have to wait hundreds of years to get the technology

 

[WillBrink]

And obviously if they got help from aliens, the secret government does not have to wait hundreds of years to get the technology

Help or reverse engineering via crash retrieval programs they all claim exist? Is it all just a psy op to cover black projects? Are the people claiming they have craft to reverse engineer part of the psyop or pawns for it? For every obvious answer there is, Qs arise that don't hold up, and it's back to square one.

 

[Audiofire]

I like science, I come in peace! I wish we had the Sagan standard "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but classified, secret stuff is a special case.

The problem is something like to claim an extraordinary number of people are lying, you have to be extraordinarily cynical.

 

[voodooless]

You have strung words together that add up to nothing of value in the discussion. Dr Kaku is (still) correct, you et al, still wrong:

Dismissing that as a “technicality” is the real problem here. If you treat “evidence” as something separate from the claim it’s supposed to support, then any observation can be waved around as evidence for anything. That’s exactly how the argument goes off the rails.

The video you posted doesn’t change that. Kaku is talking about observations that are currently unexplained and listing possible explanations. That doesn’t contradict what I said; it just acknowledges that we don’t yet know what those observations indicate.

Listing several hypotheses isn’t the same as presenting evidence for them.

 

[mhardy6647]

Speaking of aliens and technology. One of the old canards, of course, is that we got the transistor from the aliens (not sure how Schockley and his team felt about that!). And the transistor begat the IC and... well, here we are.
So that got me thinking about A. I. (not Al, short for Alan). What do the faithful think of AI? Alien technology? Part of the resistance? Noise? Another psyop or false flag to throw the believers off of the scent/trail?
Facetious language, but a serious question.

 

[kemmler3D]

Help or reverse engineering via crash retrieval programs they all claim exist? Is it all just a psy op to cover black projects? Are the people claiming they have craft to reverse engineer part of the psyop or pawns for it? For every obvious answer there is, Qs arise that don't hold up, and it's back to square one.

Claims that evidence exists aren't evidence... An alien crash retrieval program can be real without retrieving anything non human. And these people never claim anything very specific. The whole narrative boils down to "government employees say they've seen stuff we can't explain" but "can't' is doing heavy lifting in that sentence.

It's more likely these "credible" "witnesses" just want attention than they actually have knowledge of NHI. Occam's razor...?

 

[WillBrink]

Dismissing that as a “technicality” is the real problem here. If you treat “evidence” as something separate from the claim it’s supposed to support, then any observation can be waved around as evidence for anything. That’s exactly how the argument goes off the rails.

Evidence, or lack there of, is not treated separately. That's simply an accusation you are creating not accurate. There is however far more evidence than you et al seem to realize or appreciate.

The video you posted doesn’t change that. Kaku is talking about observations that are currently unexplained and listing possible explanations. That doesn’t contradict what I said; it just acknowledges that we don’t yet know what those observations indicate.

You have been in this thread too long to not know where this goes and my position is. We do not know what the observations indicate other than, there's something flying around our airspace etc that is not birds, balloons, modern typical drones, etc. The evidence is such, per his comments, overwhelming they exist. What "they" are is the Q and can no longer be denied. The Occam's razor answer is it's advanced human technology. But when we really examine the evidence for that, it's very difficult to conclude that level of performance was created by humans, and if we did, we have had it for at least 80 years. That also seems highly improbable. Again, I don't know what they are, we have listed the possibilities before, so will not again. I'm more than satisfied, as are the fighter pilots who chased them and others, they exist. I think that man below is highly credible, highly qualified, and triangulates with the pilots who saw them, tracked them on radar, and FLR, and as far as I'm concerned, it happened as he said it did: