Pentagon releases UFO videos

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

(we probably have a toddler's grasp on the rules of the physical universe)

That might be your understanding of the physical universe, but "you" isn't "we". Many modern technologies are based on the insights of our current theories of physics and simply would not work if these theories were not accurate descriptors of reality. To give a couple concrete examples, the GPS accessible by your phone uses the calculations of General Relativity to compensate for satellites being located in weak gravity, and computer chip manufacturing relies on our understanding of quantum physics.

These theories can't be wrong. Can't. They are incomplete, yes, as we don't yet have a single theory that unifies all physics, but incomplete is not the same thing as wrong or "toddler level".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Muta

Well I didn't claim that, so... ok?



Well of course that's what we want to achieve, everyone agrees with that. Water is wet and the sky is blue. Until those reviews happen though, there is a collection of building evidence to look into this further and galvanize more research into this phenomenon. That's the whole point. Doesn't discount the the testimonies and evidence that are now appearing - evidence that is released straight from the DoD as well.

That's the whole point to you, but I don't know if you or a few other people are doing a very good job of putting in even the minimum effort required to understand the point other people are making.

One guy: "It's clearly non-human intelligence beyond our own"

Two guy: "Evidence please."

Three guy: "There's lots of evidence of people witnessing things they can't explain, what more do you need?"

Two guy: "Evidence that it's non-human intelligence beyond our own."

Three guy: "I never said it was! The whole point is that there is lots of evidence of people witnessing things they can't explain."

Like, you're not even beginning to engage there. Nobody was asking whether anybody has witnessed a UAP. "Sky is blue, water is wet" as you said. Cool. People have seen "stuff." Not the conversation we're having.

The answer to GGG's original request was not "here's some evidence that isn't what you asked for, be happy with that" it was "there isn't any."

We all understand that some evidence might emerge eventually as more is declassified and studies are done etc. etc. Can't we all just agree that the standard of evidence for "this is definitely what it is" is more than someone seeing something and saying "I don't know what that is"?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by jammies

That might be your understanding of the physical universe, but "you" isn't "we". Many modern technologies are based on the insights of our current theories of physics and simply would not work if these theories were not accurate descriptors of reality. To give a couple concrete examples, the GPS accessible by your phone uses the calculations of General Relativity to compensate for satellites being located in weak gravity, and computer chip manufacturing relies on our understanding of quantum physics.

These theories can't be wrong. Can't. They are incomplete, yes, as we don't yet have a single theory that unifies all physics, but incomplete is not the same thing as wrong or "toddler level".

Isn't a toddler merely an incomplete adult human? Unless we know what "complete" is, we could be close or astronomically far away from complete.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That's the whole point to you, but I don't know if you or a few other people are doing a very good job of putting in even the minimum effort required to understand the point other people are making.

One guy: "It's clearly non-human intelligence beyond our own"

Two guy: "Evidence please."

Three guy: "There's lots of evidence of people witnessing things they can't explain, what more do you need?"

Two guy: "Evidence that it's non-human intelligence beyond our own."

Three guy: "I never said it was! The whole point is that there is lots of evidence of people witnessing things they can't explain."

Like, you're not even beginning to engage there. Nobody was asking whether anybody has witnessed a UAP. "Sky is blue, water is wet" as you said. Cool. People have seen "stuff." Not the conversation we're having.

The answer to GGG's original request was not "here's some evidence that isn't what you asked for, be happy with that" it was "there isn't any."

We all understand that some evidence might emerge eventually as more is declassified and studies are done etc. etc. Can't we all just agree that the standard of evidence for "this is definitely what it is" is more than someone seeing something and saying "I don't know what that is"?

Yeah, no, sorry dude. I never claimed to have the answers on this subject. I do recognize that there's tons of stories and articles now coming out on this subject, including action within US Congress to address it, and this is what interests me in addition to possible science-related discussion on the topic. I'm totally in agreeance that more research and independent papers are needed on this subject; that's always been my position. I also believe more evidence will emerge on this subject. I think you're trying to unnecessarily fight me on something here, when in fact we're on the same page really. I am willing to engage on this topic and am 100% open to all positions as stated multiple times in this thread, so not sure what your hostility is here.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Here's a Reddit megathread about the recent David Grusch whistleblower story (which is the latest development) with many links:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/commen...er_megathread/

Here's the Wikipedia page of the Pentagon confirmations of the UFO videos since 2017, complete with a ton of links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos

And here's a US Department of Defense site posted in April about the creation of the AARO (All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office), which is looking into this phenomena:

DOD Working to Better Understand, Resolve Anomalous Phenomena

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...ous-phenomena/

There's lots of interesting material here to start reading and looking at. Hopefully this helps as a start.

OK, so the DoD site seems quite reasonable, points out they have made no conclusions as to the source, and is investigating things they don't understand. Seems pretty fine to me. None of this points to aliens or alien technology. It doesn't exclude it, but that really doesn't tell us anything new.


The other 2 sites are just a load of stuff to comb through, and that's kind of the issue. There is so much, and the only people really interested in doing that are doing it because they really want to believe it is aliens, which makes it even less enjoyable.


So what new stuff in the past few months is intriguing?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Watch Bob Lazar tell his story then let us know if you think he's full of ####.

As an apparent skeptic I'm sure you've got some mental gymnastics lined up to find your way there though.

Personally, I don't know what people have seen and don't pretend to know, nor do i like to side with the accounts of people who are inclined to believe (because they're likely to twist the facts to support their beliefs), but I know people. And either Lazar is the most legendary conman or he's just a chemistry/physics nerd & scientist that had some extraordinary experiences working for the government and is retelling it like any average person recalling events without any preconceived notions about what it meant.

I’d say I’m closer to your side of the aisle than not… but I never found Lazar remotely convincing.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, so the DoD site seems quite reasonable, points out they have made no conclusions as to the source, and is investigating things they don't understand. Seems pretty fine to me. None of this points to aliens or alien technology. It doesn't exclude it, but that really doesn't tell us anything new.


The other 2 sites are just a load of stuff to comb through, and that's kind of the issue. There is so much, and the only people really interested in doing that are doing it because they really want to believe it is aliens, which makes it even less enjoyable.


So what new stuff in the past few months is intriguing?

The David Grusch testimony for sure. I know it seems like a lot, but have a look through the summary and links in the Reddit thread when you have some time; there's great content in there and does a great job summarizing what it's all about.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I’d say I’m closer to your side of the aisle than not… but I never found Lazar remotely convincing.

From what I understand, Ben Shapiro sounds pretty convincing to some people, too.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yeah, no, sorry dude. I never claimed to have the answers on this subject. I do recognize that there's tons of stories and articles now coming out on this subject, including action within US Congress to address it, and this is what interests me in addition to possible science-related discussion on the topic. I'm totally in agreeance that more research and independent papers are needed on this subject; that's always been my position. I also believe more evidence will emerge on this subject. I think you're trying to unnecessarily fight me on something here, when in fact we're on the same page really. I am willing to engage on this topic and am 100% open to all positions as stated multiple times in this thread, so not sure what your hostility is here.

Hostility? Trying to fight you? LOL, man. Reeeelax.

Perfect example of people struggling to put in the minimum effort required to understand the point other people are making, though.

You understand what evidence GGG was asking for, right? The outlandish claim someone made he was asking for proof of? And therefore, you understand why not providing that evidence and saying "what more do you need?" as though you had provided anything close to what was requested is... super bizarre, right? The answer obviously being... the evidence he asked for, which you then mocked with "water is wet" when he stated that? haha.

That's all. Nobody is fighting. You just had an oopsie and are getting defensive about it. Just gotta follow the conversation.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Isn't a toddler merely an incomplete adult human? Unless we know what "complete" is, we could be close or astronomically far away from complete.

We do know what a complete theory would look like, though. It would explain all observed reality from the subatomic to the cosmic and further make testable and accurate predictions of phenomena we have not yet observed. Our current theories can already do both these things, just not as one unified set of equations.

I think people misunderstand what having a correct and complete theory of physics really means. It's like (since this is a hockey site) knowing the rules of hockey - it's very useful to know, but knowing the complete rules doesn't mean you know everything about hockey. We can determine the entirety of the laws of physics and we still won't know everything that's in the universe, either.

[Jiggy_12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That's the whole point to you, but I don't know if you or a few other people are doing a very good job of putting in even the minimum effort required to understand the point other people are making.

One guy: "It's clearly non-human intelligence beyond our own"

Two guy: "Evidence please."

Three guy: "There's lots of evidence of people witnessing things they can't explain, what more do you need?"

Two guy: "Evidence that it's non-human intelligence beyond our own."

Three guy: "I never said it was! The whole point is that there is lots of evidence of people witnessing things they can't explain."

Like, you're not even beginning to engage there. Nobody was asking whether anybody has witnessed a UAP. "Sky is blue, water is wet" as you said. Cool. People have seen "stuff." Not the conversation we're having.

The answer to GGG's original request was not "here's some evidence that isn't what you asked for, be happy with that" it was "there isn't any."

We all understand that some evidence might emerge eventually as more is declassified and studies are done etc. etc. Can't we all just agree that the standard of evidence for "this is definitely what it is" is more than someone seeing something and saying "I don't know what that is"?

None of us here have any evidence. that's why we are discussing all the possibilities of what this could be. We are casually posting on a hockey message board trying to have a fun and interesting conversation.

I'm not sure what you want from people, exactly?

The whole reason why this is all so confounding is the profound lack of evidence which is what gets the wheels of imagination going, for me.

something is going on. but what? For myself - that's my whole point of conversation. This whole topic is a lot more fun to read about when you have an open mind.

You have some unexpected aggression and condescension towards some of us. Its off-putting.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Hostility? Trying to fight you? LOL, man. Reeeelax.

Perfect example of people struggling to put in the minimum effort required to understand the point other people are making, though.

You understand what evidence GGG was asking for, right? The outlandish claim someone made he was asking for proof of? And therefore, you understand why not providing that evidence and saying "what more do you need?" as though you had provided anything close to what was requested is... super bizarre, right? The answer obviously being... the evidence he asked for, which you then mocked with "water is wet" when he stated that? haha.

That's all. Nobody is fighting. You just had an oopsie and are getting defensive about it. Just gotta follow the conversation.

Speaking of needing to relax - take some of your own advice, geezus. Your tone is unnecessarily inflammatory, in case you haven't picked that up yet.

Of course we want hard evidence like GGG wants; we all do. No one is debating that. I'm suggesting that recent developments just add more and more smoke to this subject, which rationally justifies the need to conduct more independent research and documentation. What more do you want right now? We CAN'T provide more; what we have is whatever is developing in this subject. We may be able to get hard evidence later, however. Congress has created AARO to get to the bottom of this. Enough has happened in this subject that they've stepped in. I think you just have to be patient here.

And to suggest I'm 'struggling' or 'not putting in minimum effort', ironically, is quite a lazy interpretation on your part as well since I've now clarified my position several times, which you seem to just ignore. Pepsi - we are on the same page, chill.

[Ozy_Flame]

Some people just want nuts and bolts. They need the evidence front and center, and there's nothing wrong with that You'll never change their world view, and that's fine.

Personally I put faith in science. But I don't always need the scientists in the room to prove every theorem to me. I trust they are the experts in their domain, and there's no point in trying to get a Google degree in everything I might slightly disagree with or demand evidence for. If people make careers out of it and are validated by their peers, who I am to be an edgelord about it? I can't demand nuts and bolts from these people all day long (although it appears some people spend their days demanding so online).

I also trust physicians, pharmacists, engineers, botanists, data scientists, architects, pilots, police, firemen, and everyone else who are experts to have the 'nuts and bolts' if I really want them.

David Grusch is a confirmed, validated expert in his field. If he's saying there's smoke, there might very well be. I'm not going to demand nuts and bolts from him or otherwise I may think he's a fraud. Quite the opposite. Let pressure and time deliver on those nuts and bolts. It will come if there is truth to it. This area is also significantly more difficult to extract specific details because of its classification in the USIC. Much like anything else about SIGINT, HUMINT, IMINT, GEOMINT, MASINT or OSMINT gathering and knowledge building, it's probably stored behind a litany of NDAs and special access programs on a need to know basis. The same can be said about intelligence on terrorism, espionage, cybersecurity, foreign intelligence or any other matter that is sensitive to national security.

In the meantime, it's fun to indulge. Some of you need to take a chill pill. This topic is miles ahead of where it was before the 2017 NYT article. Very exciting!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

None of us here have any evidence. that's why we are discussing all the possibilities of what this could be. We are casually posting on a hockey message board trying to have a fun and interesting conversation.

I'm not sure what you want from people, exactly?

The whole reason why this is all so confounding is the profound lack of evidence which is what gets the wheels of imagination going, for me.

something is going on. but what? For myself - that's my whole point of conversation. This whole topic is a lot more fun to read about when you have an open mind.

You have some unexpected aggression and condescension towards some of us. Its off-putting.

The aggression is entirely imagined.

But I honestly don’t understand how suggesting most of the evidence and eye-witness accounts point to one conclusion is being painted as more open-minded than asking for the evidence that points to that specific conclusion when you’re then saying there isn’t any and nobody has any.

It’s a wonder these conversations aren’t fun when the response to asking for the evidence that apparently points one direction is met with “there isn’t any, stop being hostile and aggressive.” Why say the evidence points one direction if there isn’t any evidence in the first place?

[Fuzz]

It's just easy to be skeptical becuase after all these years, after all these incidents of recovered craft and aliens and sightings, and everything else, no one can actually hold out a piece of evidence to a scientist and say, here it is. Try and disprove it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Muta

Speaking of needing to relax - take some of your own advice, geezus. Your tone is unnecessarily inflammatory, in case you haven't picked that up yet.

Of course we want hard evidence like GGG wants; we all do. No one is debating that. I'm suggesting that recent developments just add more and more smoke to this subject, which rationally justifies the need to conduct more independent research and documentation. What more do you want right now? We CAN'T provide more; what we have is whatever is developing in this subject. We may be able to get hard evidence later, however. Congress has created AARO to get to the bottom of this. Enough has happened in this subject that they've stepped in. I think you just have to be patient here.

And to suggest I'm 'struggling' or 'not putting in minimum effort', ironically, is quite a lazy interpretation on your part as well since I've now clarified my position several times, which you seem to just ignore. Pepsi - we are on the same page, chill.

You’re misreading my tone, because I’m not intending to be inflammatory, I’m fuucking confused man lol.

Two separate people say the evidence points to non-human intelligence beyond our understanding (that isn’t alien). Then we’re told there is no evidence. Then I’m called silly, hostile, aggressive, inflammatory, and accused of trying to discredit the entire conversation because I’m confused how the evidence can point one direction if there is no evidence.

My guy, walk me like a dog through this and explain how that works. I know you’re not the one who made the original claim, but help me out here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muta

Yeah, no, sorry dude. I never claimed to have the answers on this subject. I do recognize that there's tons of stories and articles now coming out on this subject, including action within US Congress to address it, and this is what interests me in addition to possible science-related discussion on the topic. I'm totally in agreeance that more research and independent papers are needed on this subject; that's always been my position. I also believe more evidence will emerge on this subject. I think you're trying to unnecessarily fight me on something here, when in fact we're on the same page really. I am willing to engage on this topic and am 100% open to all positions as stated multiple times in this thread, so not sure what your hostility is here.

I’m not sure why you replied to my original post which really was a sarcastic jab at Lanny overstating the conclusions that can be made with the available evidence AGAIN.

In general I think we are in agreement with there’s a bunch of cool stuff here. The current scientific analysis publicly available sucks and we need better info.

I lean more to the unless proven otherwise there is likely and earthbound explanation whereas as you seem a little more agnostic but both of our positions are far from Lannys statement in his last posts.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Is it time to merge this thread with 'I don' t want to live on this planet anymore'? ��

[Cain]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Is it time to merge this thread with 'I don' t want to live on this planet anymore'? ��

Well it seems like the aliens may be interested.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So you say we have a primitive understanding.

Damn rights we have a primitive understanding. How long has the universe been around? How long has man as a species been around? How long have we been studying physics? When have the big break throughs really started? Is it safe to say that we made a really huge leap about 100 years ago and expanded our knowledge dramatically? Would it be safe to say that you would have to be extremely arrogant to suggest that we have figured out everything about the universe and how it behaves - according to the rules of physics that WE created - in the past 100 years? Yes, we're just scratching the surface of what we know about physics and the universe and in another 100 years we are likely going to look back and laugh at some of the assumptions we think are infallible now. Remember Dalton's model of the atom? Good times.

To me that is you admitting that it is something we do not understand, which doesn't make it "aliens" anymore than it make it God. You understand this is just god of the gaps, right? "We don't understand it, therefore it must be aliens" is not a credible scientific statement.

If the technology is not from any nation state or enterprise, then who else could it be? If those who have access to the most advanced technology on the planet don't know who or what it is, then what would you call it? It is alien to us. If it not can be claimed terrestrially, then what is the alternative?

Originally Posted by GGG

Is there where we ask for peer reviewed evidence or official information to support your statements and you give us links to the alien autopsy guy and then claim we aren’t proper skeptics if we dare question any of it. Because I always enjoy that part of the thread cycle.

Is this where you do what you self-described skeptics do and attack the researcher rather than the research itself? That's your consistent behavior. Any research you don't like you attack the researcher and attempt to discredit their work.

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

I think there is just a lot, a hell of a lot yet to be understood.

People often seem to like to throw out silly sounding superlatives like you just did to discredit this topic and those interested in it.

That is their game plan. That is the game plan of the self-proclaimed skeptic community. They produce nothing themselves to counter evidence, they only try to discredit the evidence or those presenting it. "Oh, you believe in X? We'll just make abuse you for doing so, then others will be afraid to state similar beliefs and expose them to similar belittlement."

I wouldn't wager a single guess as to what's going on myself, but there is a vast array of possibilities and I find it all pretty fascinating to consider. I enjoy calmly discussing it, but this topic seems to really enrage people around here (not just here), making it tough to have any real discussion.

It enrages people because they have to be right. They are so entrenched in their views that they could not imagine anything that does not comply with the beliefs they have developed over their lives. To me there is nothing more liberating than learning something new and having an old belief proven wrong. Not many people are that way, especially those who claim to be skeptics.