Pentagon releases UFO videos

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

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.

DM from one of the last times I proved one of Lanny's beliefs wrong:

Please report this, you obnoxious little ####. What a misrepresentation of positions. I expect nothing less from someone without critical thinking skills, and someone that needs to appeal to the crowd. Very disappointed in your supposed thought processes. You’re a ######.

Not many people are that way.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Skepticism is warranted. It's when you get people who think mankind has the book on the universe already, that our theories are bulletproof and absolutely nothing could get by us without us knowing. That warrants mocking more than people who are approaching the topic with an open mind or at least playing along to see if there is something of substance to be found.

[Matata]

Modern physics is about 300 years in, add another 300 years to that and we'll be doing all sorts of crazy stuff that no one from this era can even begin to comprehend. Add 10,000 more years to that and no one can even begin to wrap their head around it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

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.

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?
-snip-

You can refer to Jammies' post for the first part, I think he's sufficiently deep sixed that idea of yours.

As to the second part, those are all assumptions. So many ifs. If you can systematically rule all of those out, what you are left with is not "aliens" it's something else that you failed to rule out. But I don't think you can successfully rule anything out, other than it's probably not from the Lesotho or Sri Lankan government. This still leaves lots of options. Like, you just make up "most advanced technology on the planet" as if that is some proven fact. It's not. If it is, prove it.

And this is why people take issue with your bold statements. They are meaningless.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Skepticism is warranted. It's when you get people who think mankind has the book on the universe already, that our theories are bulletproof and absolutely nothing could get by us without us knowing. That warrants mocking more than people who are approaching the topic with an open mind or at least playing along to see if there is something of substance to be found.

Are you planning on burning that strawman when you are done with it?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are you planning on burning that strawman when you are done with it?

People who think the way he describes have to be even rarer than even the most hardcore "aliens abducted me and anal probed me" believers.

Of course they'd be mocked.

[Enoch Root]

I have not come across many people who can do a better job of making flawed and empty arguments SOUND as well constructed and valid as Lanny. And to be able to do it so belligerently and condescendingly, well..

#chef'skiss#

To the main discussion at hand: being skeptical is NOT closed-minded. I strongly doubt there is ANYONE in this thread that doesn't WANT there to be Aliens - it would be the most incredible thing imaginable. Being skeptical, and demanding higher standards than simply accepting other peoples' word as evidence, doesn't lack critical thinking, it IS critical thinking. It isn't closed-minded, it is the right approach. A lack of proof either way, does not infer the positive ("if we don't know what it is, it MUST be Aliens!"), it is simply a lack of proof.

For something this extraordinary, there has to be proof, or at least substantially more evidence than testimonials.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Lol taking swipes at other people's perspectives while holding yours close to your chest is a tad cowardly though. At least present your own perspectives for equal judgment and fight honorably.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Lol taking swipes at other people's perspectives while holding yours close to your chest is a tad cowardly though. At least present your own perspectives for equal judgment and fight honorably.

Was that directed at me? Because I have, many times in this thread.

Is there something specific you would like me to opine on? Or are you just upset because I defended skepticism?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Lol taking swipes at other people's perspectives while holding yours close to your chest is a tad cowardly though. At least present your own perspectives for equal judgment and fight honorably.

Like “listen to Bob Lazar, how could he lie?”

This entire argument is a group who accepts testimonials as proof versus a group that doesn’t. Science also doesn’t accept testimonials. I find them interesting, because the topic is interesting to me. And obviously there is tons we don’t know, and thinking about what we will know next is exciting…. But someone’s “expert eye witness account” is frankly worth #### all.

[Ozy_Flame]

If Biden came out on tv and declared in a state of the union address that we are sharing this planet with an NHI, do we believe him?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If Biden came out on tv and declared in a state of the union address that we are sharing this planet with an NHI, do we believe him?

Me? Did he just see it himself? If so, #### no.

An official presidential address announcing findings of the government…. Of course. What a thought experiment.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If Biden came out on tv and declared in a state of the union address that we are sharing this planet with an NHI, do we believe him?

No. Unless he presented evidence.

Why should we believe him? Because he is the President? Oh, you're the President, so you're above providing evidence? If it's true, and you want us to believe it, simply show us your evidence.

[Scroopy Noopers]

I’ll never forget when this guy told me “once you see Vatican City with your own eyes, you’ll have to believe”. I can’t believe it came out of an adult humans mouth.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Was that directed at me? Because I have, many times in this thread.

Is there something specific you would like me to opine on? Or are you just upset because I defended skepticism?

Not you. Fuzz and Pepsi. I'd like to see them present their positions and open themselves up to potential scrutiny depending on how things progress on this topic. That's part of the fun.

Defending skepticism seems reasonable. There's been no hard evidence brought forward. Biting on what has been presented to this point would be premature, and require a little some going out on a limb. So that's fine. I lean towards skepticism still, but there's a lot of smoke of late so I'm interested in seeing where this all leads. When stories from purportedly qualified/connected sources begin to overlap, it seems worth looking into further.

However, I think there's a segment of people who could be presented with literal extraterrestrials and they would still deny it/refuse to acknowledge the validity of it, and it could arguably be said that these hardline skeptics suffer from similar delusion as the UFO fanatics, just with the opposite perspective. And they could stand to recieve a little more flak for living in a bubble where they cling to familiarity and limitation and refuse to acknowledge the greater possibilities that exist to preserve their sense of safety and control.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Not you. Fuzz and Pepsi. I'd like to see them present their positions and open themselves up to potential scrutiny depending on how things progress on this topic. That's part of the fun.

Defending skepticism seems reasonable. There's been no hard evidence brought forward. Biting on what has been presented to this point would be premature, and require a little some going out on a limb. So that's fine. I lean towards skepticism still, but there's a lot of smoke of late so I'm interested in seeing where this all leads. When stories from purportedly qualified/connected sources begin to overlap, it seems worth looking into further.

However, I think there's a segment of people who could be presented with literal extraterrestrials and they would still deny it/refuse to acknowledge the validity of it, and it could arguably be said that these hardline skeptics suffer from similar delusion as the UFO fanatics, just with the opposite perspective. And they could stand to recieve a little more flak for living in a bubble where they cling to familiarity and limitation and refuse to acknowledge the greater possibilities that exist to preserve their sense of safety and control.

Who do you think falls into this camp, because I am not seeing it. Not trying to be confrontational. However, I do think that when believers are challenged, they get upset by the non-believers, and that clouds their judgement (this applies to all things, not just this topic).

Would you agree or disagree that belief carries a fair bit of emotion with it, whereas skepticism carries much less?

[Ozy_Flame]

So we don't believe Biden because he doesn't show proof.

I mean, by that logic, you should be skeptical the US killed Osama Bin Laden, since you didn't see them kill him, extract his corpse, and dump it in the ocean with your own eyes?

It's preposterous to think it didn't happen, but how could you believe this and give Obama a pass, or even Biden with Al-Zawahiri, but can't believe Biden if he stated there's an NHI here with us?

Where is the burden of proof? Or is it higher because the topic is more abstract? Or do you just not trust presidents?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Not you. Fuzz and Pepsi. I'd like to see them present their positions and open themselves up to potential scrutiny depending on how things progress on this topic. That's part of the fun.

Defending skepticism seems reasonable. There's been no hard evidence brought forward. Biting on what has been presented to this point would be premature, and require a little some going out on a limb. So that's fine. I lean towards skepticism still, but there's a lot of smoke of late so I'm interested in seeing where this all leads. When stories from purportedly qualified/connected sources begin to overlap, it seems worth looking into further.

However, I think there's a segment of people who could be presented with literal extraterrestrials and they would still deny it/refuse to acknowledge the validity of it, and it could arguably be said that these hardline skeptics suffer from similar delusion as the UFO fanatics, just with the opposite perspective. And they could stand to recieve a little more flak for living in a bubble where they cling to familiarity and limitation and refuse to acknowledge the greater possibilities that exist to preserve their sense of safety and control.

People who deny science and reality are mocked all the time. In what world do you think you’re bringing something new to the table by suggesting that people who would deny the existence of something, despite being presented with physical, visible evidence of its existence, should be mocked? Stand to receive a little more flak? They receive all the flak lol.

I’ve shared my opinion plenty of times. You’re free to go back and read as much as you like. I’m not sure what you gain by calling me a coward and suggesting I should “fight honourably” when we’re discussing a scientific topic. Maybe stop being a weirdo about it and have a normal conversation?

I’m literally open to any possibility. I’ve gone on about which I think are more likely than others, but the one constant is that I’m not prepared to accept any definitive answer without actual evidence. You want to believe whatever, have fun, nobody cares.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Like “listen to Bob Lazar, how could he lie?”

This entire argument is a group who accepts testimonials as proof versus a group that doesn’t. Science also doesn’t accept testimonials. I find them interesting, because the topic is interesting to me. And obviously there is tons we don’t know, and thinking about what we will know next is exciting…. But someone’s “expert eye witness account” is frankly worth #### all.

The point being made was that he comes across as genuine, and doesn't appear to suffer from delusions or schizophrenia. Seems like a grounded, rational guy with a science background. And he has a remarkably consistent account of these things he claims to have experienced.

He threw me through a loop because I've seen plenty of people in my time lie and exaggerate, or deceive through omission. And Lazar set off none of those alarms for me at least.

We can't confirm anything that he claims obviously but I sure believe that he believed 100% in what he was saying which is at the very least interesting.

I really don't know what you're bitching about. Go watch for yourself. I didn't say he could lie, I was suggesting others watch for a second opinion because I found it fascinating.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

So we don't believe Biden because he doesn't show proof.

I mean, by that logic, you should be skeptical the US killed Osama Bin Laden, since you didn't see them kill him, extract his corpse, and dump it in the ocean with your own eyes?

It's preposterous to think it didn't happen, but how could you believe this and give Obama a pass, or even Biden with Al-Zawahiri, but can't believe Biden if he stated there's an NHI here with us?

Where is the burden of proof? Or is it higher because the topic is more abstract? Or do you just not trust presidents?

Actually, they did present evidence that they killed Bin Laden.

However, that's not the point. Claiming their is alien life among us is an entirely different thing. And it is a thing that requires proof. Period. How do you not see that? The only explanation is that you already believe, so his statement would constitute proof for you.

Or maybe I just don't trust Presidents, LOL.