All About UFO's

[Axo1989]

Curious why skeptics don't investigate physics, since they are assertive and know everything unequivocally

If your second proposition was true it would answer your first. It isn’t so it doesn’t. But why the tautology?

 

[terryforsythe]

It looks like the UAP Disclosure Act overcame a major hurdle, being adopted by the House of Representatives:

House Adopts Burlison Amendment Establishing UAP Disclosure Framework

The House today adopted Congressman Eric Burlison's (MO-07) Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Disclosure Act as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

burlison.house.gov

For context, the UAP Disclosure Act was a bipartisan Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) first introduced in, and overwhelmingly passed by, the Senate in 2023. When that bill moved to the House it was held up by the House Intelligence Committee at the behest its then chairman, who happens to receive significant campaign contributions from the Defense and Aerospace industry. In committee the UAP Disclosure Act was significantly watered down, removing major statutory transparency mechanisms, before the NDAA went to the House floor for vote.

Last year that chairman who held up the UAP Disclosure Act in 2023 was ousted from the House Intelligence Committee, clearing the way for the full statutory transparency mechanisms removed from the 2023 UAP Disclosure Act to go into the 2027 NDAA by way of the 2027 UAP Disclosure Act. The House passed the NDAA on Wednesday, with the UAP Disclosure Act intact, and now it will move to the Senate. Given the overwhelming support the original UAP Disclosure Act had in the Senate, I don't expect much, if any, opposition to the Act this year, and expect it to go into law in this year's NDAA.

 

[Axo1989]

Current chair Crawford signed the amicus brief for the Texas v Pennsylvania lawsuit challenging the 2020 US presidential election result, whereas previous chair Turner didn't. Belief in things that didn't happen is a likely prerequisite for the chair of the HIC these days.

 

[Audiofire]

UK defense concluded the photo (not the thumbnail) is real and tried to hide from pesky journalists, but disbelievers can say it was a mockup like with Billy Meier

Thoughty2 examines the mysterious 1990 Calvine incident, where hikers captured a diamond-shaped object in the Scottish sky. The investigation explores the military's decades-long suppression of the evidence, the disappearance of the witnesses, and whether this widely debated image depicts advanced secret technology or something truly unexplainable.

 

[Axo1989]

UK defense concluded the photo (not the thumbnail) is real and tried to hide from pesky journalists, but disbelievers can say it was a mockup like with Billy Meier

FFS, this one has been explained quite adequately, just check upthread. Our narrator has clearly taken too many of his sponsor's Magic Mind shots.

 

[sam_adams]

⟵

UK defense concluded the photo (not the thumbnail) is real and tried to hide from pesky journalists, but disbelievers can say it was a mockup like with Billy Meier

This has been discussed here earlier:

All About UFO's

Is that a theory about the shape of his heart? Or the goldenness of the fields? :p I think it was something wrapped around his finger.

www.audiosciencereview.com

What really happened in Calvine? The mystery behind the best UFO picture ever seen

In August 1990, two hikers sent photos of a strange diamond-shaped aircraft to the press – but the story never appeared. Was it a prank, a hoax, an optical illusion or something else entirely?

www.theguardian.com

UFO enigma cracked as infamous UK case 'finally solved'

The "Calvine UFO" was snapped in the Scottish area of the same name by two hikers on August 4, 1990 - and now an expert believes they have finally cracked the case

www.irishstar.com

All About UFO's

That is not good enough, otherwise flat earth would be a “theory”. A theory should be unfalsified, e.g; proven to be correct and valid within the constraints the theory describes. I'll defer to Karl Popper on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Also I don't see how...

www.audiosciencereview.com

All About UFO's

That is not good enough, otherwise flat earth would be a “theory”. A theory should be unfalsified, e.g; proven to be correct and valid within the constraints the theory describes. I'll defer to Karl Popper on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability Also I don't see how...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Calvine UFO photograph - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The constant rehashing of old and discredited information is the the single greatest reason that no one takes any of this seriously.

 

[Axo1989]

... The constant rehashing of old and discredited information is the the single greatest reason that no one takes any of this seriously.

The infotainment economy won't churn unless those sponsor ads have an appealing and constantly refreshed wrapper.

 

[Audiofire]

No one posted this video, interesting

 

[solderdude]

The main problem with a single picture or movie is this....

Ever seen a sci-fi movie and how real did that look to you yet none of it is real.

What is needed as proof is something being photographed or filmed by various people/camera's with high enough resolution under different angles and publicly seen (many witnesses).
For some reason this has not happened yet.

 

[Mart68]

The main problem with a single picture or movie is this....

Ever seen a sci-fi movie and how real did that look to you yet none of it is real.

What is needed as proof is something being photographed or filmed by various people/camera's with high enough resolution under different angles and publicly seen (many witnesses).
For some reason this has not happened yet.

Well it can be argued there's legitimate reasons for that:

1) Prior to smartphones only professional photographers and serious amateurs carried a camera with them as a matter of course. In other words, practically nobody had a camera to hand.
2) Many encounters take place at night so only lights show up, which could be anything
3) Even in daytime, encounters are mostly at a distance so the photo just shows a light in the sky - which could be anything
4) In the rare case of encounters where the UAP is very close, people report that their smartphones are disabled or are drained of charge when they attempt to take photos.

 

[sam_adams]

No one posted this video, interesting . . .

Not posted because it's not interesting. The image used in the video is a fake. This:

is the only extant photo of the "Calvine UFO". Judged as most likely a reflection of distant terrain in the water of a calm lake.

 

[WillBrink]

UK defense concluded the photo (not the thumbnail) is real and tried to hide from pesky journalists, but disbelievers can say it was a mockup like with Billy Meier

Always an interesting story and compelling picture, but it ends there for me. It's interesting to note there is specific testimony from eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the craft pursued by the jet, but they are lowest level eyewitnesses. The info from Nick Pope who worked for the Ministry Of Defense on that event and others keeps it interesting as he experiences the active suppression of UFO info, which again, makes the "there's nothing to see here" response difficult to accept.

 

[Audiofire]

The image used in the video is a fake.

Well, the real photo is analyzed in the video near the end. The "fake" can also be called a reconstruction.

 

[Mart68]

Not posted because it's not interesting. The image used in the video is a fake. This:

View attachment 547692

is the only extant photo of the "Calvine UFO". Judged as most likely a reflection of distant terrain in the water of a calm lake.

There's no lake there. The UFO is just the mountain top above the clouds. The location isn't a mystery, it's been on TV many times.

 

[Axo1989]

No one posted this video, interesting

That explanation was covered upthread, whether or not by that specific video. What is interesting consequently is to think about all the documentation, analysis and postscript activity. It’s all about nothing, but there appear to be reams of it, and enough to support stitching together narratives about coverups and so on. Again, hilariously about nothing.

Now take that thought over to the little disclosure frenzies swirling recently. Reams of material, testimonies and other faffing about. And all generated via countless similar scenarios.

 

[xanalog]

I cannot attest to the accuracy:

Consider the source[?]

Mysterious object in NASA Mars photo ignites theories of extraterrestrial life on the Red Planet
From <https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-16011455/nasa-mars-mysterious-object-curiosity.html>

Should I start worrying... yet?

 

[Axo1989]

I cannot attest to the accuracy:
View attachment 547819
Consider the source[?]

Should I start worrying... yet?

The source? I think the veracity of the Daily Mail has been discussed upthread also. Below that headline is another item about translucent beings and biblical prophecy. Perhaps you should subscribe? Otoh some of the missile story's comments made me laugh.

 

[xanalog]

Perhaps you should subscribe?

You are too kind, Sir!
I had stopped reading the caption when I got to the word 'alien missile'.
I think it would have been a better story if another country was accused... only because aliens would not be THAT stupid!
Pareidolia

 

[Axo1989]

You are too kind, Sir!
I had stopped reading the caption when I got to the word 'alien missile'.
I think it would have been a better story if another country was accused... only because aliens would not be THAT stupid!
Pareidolia

Haha, I suggest in jest, of course.

I did have that same thought, surely we can work eg Iran/Russia/North Korea/China into the narrative?

 

[xanalog]

...
I did have that same thought, surely we can work eg Iran/Russia/North Korea/China into the narrative?

What is the opposite of "It's mind over matter"?

Pareidolia

{Q} >> Pareidolia?

{CLAUDE} Resolved to deliver straightforward definition concisely
*Pareidolia is the tendency of the human brain to perceive familiar patterns — especially faces, figures, or recognizable objects — in random or ambiguous visual (or auditory) stimuli that don't actually contain them. It's not a malfunction; it's a byproduct of how visual processing works. Your brain is constantly running pattern-matching against templates it already knows (faces, animals, tools), and it's tuned to favor false positives over false negatives — evolutionarily, mistaking a rock for a predator costs you nothing, but missing an actual predator can kill you. So the system errs toward "match found" on thin evidence.
*Classic examples: the "man in the moon," faces in electrical outlets or wood grain, Jesus in a piece of toast, the "face on Mars" (Cydonia region, 1976 Viking image — later high-res imaging showed it's just a mesa/eroded landform). It's the same mechanism behind the "Mars rat," the "alien woman," and the "missile" — an irregular rock silhouette gets pattern-matched to something the viewer already has a mental template for, and once that match fires, it can be hard to consciously unsee it even after you know it's just rock.
*It's the direct mechanism underneath the conjecture-stacking problem you described — pareidolia supplies the "it looks like X" step, and everything after that (intent, origin, backstory) gets layered on with zero additional evidence.

I am a borne-again skeptic but I do brake for unicorns!