181–190 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because you speak English and don’t engage in communities that aren’t in English.
I'm Greek and live in Greece, I don't know of anyone here having seen an alien spaceship or anything that looks like one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible that your bias against believing this means your interpretation is a lot of bizarre takes dressed up as the only possible conclusions. What I don't get is the arrogance of every side about this subject. We have no answers. We have no understanding. The government seems to be about to admit as much. But the true believers are sure, and the true debunkers, yourself included, are sure. To me, you're both j…
What’s the middle of “something definitely exists” and “nothing exists”? Seems like it would err on the side of “maybe something exists” which doesn’t quite feel like a middle ground. Replace UFOs with Sasquatch. “Sasquatch exists and here is the picture and Sasquatch tracks to prove it!” “You made that up. It’s a guy in a costume. Why can’t we find any single dead Sasquatch? Why are all the pictures and videos crapp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any phenomenon which decreases in rate proportional to our ability to measure it is very unlikely to exist. This reasoning applies to all historical mumbojumbo: ufos, bigfoot, ghosts, etc. These ideas are plausible insofar as they are constructed to be almost unmeasurable. The preponderance of camera phones today means we have 1bn+ people able to measure their environment at abitary frequencies, and all such phenomen…
>Any phenomenon which decreases in rate proportional to our ability to measure it is very unlikely to exist. Military UFO sightings have only increased as we have deployed more sophisticated RADAR/LIDAR/Thermal/EWAR systems. In the nimitz case they had just recently been upgraded. AEGIS/SPY-1 detected objects entering theater at 80,000+ ft, that quickly dropped to sea level. The tracks then disappeared from radar and…
Fancy new equipment that's new to it's operators, who aren't familiar with it's capabilities and behaviour, using it in a highly complex environment. What could possibly go wrong.
When I see an instrument measure something at some extreme level, which suddenly drops to another extreme level, personally I think instrument auto-recalibration. We had a host suddenly decide it was logging events from 30 years ago, then switch back to 'today'. Turns out it wasn't aliens or ghosts, just a glitch in NTP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible that your bias against believing this means your interpretation is a lot of bizarre takes dressed up as the only possible conclusions. What I don't get is the arrogance of every side about this subject. We have no answers. We have no understanding. The government seems to be about to admit as much. But the true believers are sure, and the true debunkers, yourself included, are sure. To me, you're both j…
What’s the middle of “something definitely exists” and “nothing exists”? Seems like it would err on the side of “maybe something exists” which doesn’t quite feel like a middle ground. Replace UFOs with Sasquatch. “Sasquatch exists and here is the picture and Sasquatch tracks to prove it!” “You made that up. It’s a guy in a costume. Why can’t we find any single dead Sasquatch? Why are all the pictures and videos crapp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s the middle of “something definitely exists” and “nothing exists”? Seems like it would err on the side of “maybe something exists” which doesn’t quite feel like a middle ground. Replace UFOs with Sasquatch. “Sasquatch exists and here is the picture and Sasquatch tracks to prove it!” “You made that up. It’s a guy in a costume. Why can’t we find any single dead Sasquatch? Why are all the pictures and videos crapp…
Being uncertain is in the middle. It's a position that too few humans are willing to take on any issue, treating it as if it were madness. If you are uncertain your options are to either ignore the issue or explore all the options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we talking about the three US military videos that surfaced in recent years? I've seen all of them clearly and thoroughly explained away. In one case, you could literally use the numbers on the recording and some middle-school level geometry skills to calculate that the tracked object is a bird. And it's quite easy to guess why these videos were released. They're technology demonstrators. The general public can t…
>I've seen all of them clearly and thoroughly explained away. No, you haven't. Every "debunking" has itself been thoroughly debunked.
No you didn’t.
Yes I did.
No you didn’t...
Talk about low bar to discussion.
They have been debunked; even if you refuse to believe that, the overwhelming body of evidence, statistically, shows no consistent conclusive evidence.
So, what do you want to believe?
That there are one or two pieces of “evidence” to prove “it’s all true”, or that there are thousands of pieces of evidence which have shown no evidence of anything out of the ordinary.
This is how conspiracy theory stuff grows; people hang on to the few outliers.
...now when its true, the body of compelling evidence grows over time (see COVID vaccine -> blood clots) and eventually there is enough of a body of evidence that it starts to be compelling.
...but no matter how “smoking gun” your one example is, it does let make it convincing even if it’s true.
What we haven’t seen is a growing compelling body of evidence for ufos.
That’s fair reason to believe that...
> No, you haven’t
Yes. I have.
The whole thing is a masterpiece of bizarre statements dressed up as reasoning Take: Second, between (Ca) spontaneous decentralized hoaxes and lies, and (Cb) hoaxes and lies coordinated by a big central organization, (Cb) seems much more likely. Apply this to reports of something other than UFOs, like, say fairies, ghosts or angels. You don't need to be an Oxford research associate writing about overcoming bias to re…
This is the justification for that. However, they don't "almost never break down and laugh and crow about their jokes". They do this all the time. It's just that when they do this, it moves from the category of "hardest-to-explain UFO cases" to the category of "known hoaxes". It's an obvious selection effect, not something that requires deeper explanation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apply this to reports of something other than UFOs, like, say fairies, ghosts or angels. Fairies, ghosts and angels don't show up on radar or FLIR and the Inspector General of the DoD has never launched an investigation into how they have been handled by that department.
Are we talking about the three US military videos that surfaced in recent years? I've seen all of them clearly and thoroughly explained away. In one case, you could literally use the numbers on the recording and some middle-school level geometry skills to calculate that the tracked object is a bird. And it's quite easy to guess why these videos were released. They're technology demonstrators. The general public can t…
All I've seen are hypotheticals about how the videos could be anything but what the aviators reported, and yeah, so far have just dismissed or ignored their accounts altogether.
Interested to see otherwise!
As Stephen Hawkings and Neil deGrasse Tyson have quipped, in Earth’s history, any time a more technologically advanced civilization has come across a less technologically advanced civilization, it has never ended well for the less technologically advanced civilization. Any hypothetical which places a group of extraterrestrials capable of interstellar travel on Earth is fundamentally a catastrophe. It’s a lot like dis…
That sounds nice, but is it true? Weren't the Vikings, later Normen, far less advanced than the places they raided? They absorbed the technology, the land and culture and used it to conquer and form what is present-day England. Maybe we'll beat the aliens with our savagery.
There would be no way for humans to win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medieval people did not think the Earth was flat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
That Wikipedia page can be edited by any visitor, therefore it is not a reliable authority on the posted information. Take a look at the revision history page for your link, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myth_of_the_flat_... . Half of the edits appear not to be attributed to people but to unnamed ip addresses. i.e. Don't believe everything you read. To illustrate this point, go to different Wikipedia pag…
Pretty much anything on the internet is written by random people, all of whom could be great authorities on the subject or complete crackpots.
A couple more sources on the Myth of the Flat Earth, written by random people on the internet and found by a google search:
[0] : https://www.discovery.org/v/the-flat-earth-myth/
[1] : https://jameshannam.com/flatearth.htm
[2] : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003172170708800...
[3] : https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/why-did-so-many-peop...