Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Fuzz]

Again, not what is happening.


I view this as people who watch The Curse of Oak Island. The first season was intriguing, but at this point? Some still watch every episode thinking this is the time they'll find it! But for others, they realized soon in there is nothing new, nothing convincing, nothing worth reading more of the same stuff. You can only be dragged along for so long before it takes something REAL to get you interested again. And 70 some odd years later we are still seeing more of the same stuff. I found it all very interesting and exciting when I was 14. Not so much anymore.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Again, not what is happening.


I view this as people who watch The Curse of Oak Island. The first season was intriguing, but at this point? Some still watch every episode thinking this is the time they'll find it! But for others, they realized soon in there is nothing new, nothing convincing, nothing worth reading more of the same stuff. You can only be dragged along for so long before it takes something REAL to get you interested again. And 70 some odd years later we are still seeing more of the same stuff. I found it all very interesting and exciting when I was 14. Not so much anymore.

Then why try to take that excitement away from those that still do find it exciting?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Then why try to take that excitement away from those that still do find it exciting?

I'm a realist. Not against all discussions going on, but some of the points just get into silly territory.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Muta

People want irrefutable proof of alien life (because that’s the only thing that one can believe in apparently with this phenomena), or GTFO because everything is wrong and shouldn’t be discussed or debated until that happens. Those are the only two options it seems for some.

Nobody is saying things shouldn’t be discussed or debated. Why is it being distorted that way?

Speaking for myself, I find it all fascinating. I’m interested. That’s why I come to the thread. I enjoy thinking about the possibilities of UAPs being anything from extraterrestrial to space-time distortions to misunderstood earthly phenomena to human technology. I would say I most enjoy trying to find explanations for things based on what we do know, and find it a lot less interesting to shrug my shoulders and chalk it all up to things we can’t know.

The only thing I’ve consistently rejected or seen consistently rejected are absolute conclusions without evidence. Is anybody attempting to shut down discussions of what is possible? Why can’t those discussions include thoughts of what it would take to believe what seems impossible, or the possibilities of explanations that are less than the fantastic?

From what I’ve seen, the two groups that get pushback are those that state definitive conclusions without evidence, and those that ask for that evidence. From a scientific perspective, which is what this conversation should be grounded in, only one of those groups should receive any pushback. It’s bizarre to mock people who approach this from a scientific perspective. “Oh, some people just need evidence and will only believe something if there’s evidence!” No doubt, man. That’s science.

[Muta]

Who here is making ‘absolute conclusions without evidence’?

[Ozy_Flame]

If there's any thread where people can opine, speculate and hypothesize, this is thread. It's on UAP, what do people expect to happen here? Citizen-driven scientific process? Committing vast amounts of time to deep-dive the classified archives of government intelligence just to post here with vast analysis and primary evidence?

I fear every time this thread gets bumped, because almost immediately there are posters who just come in to be contrarians and obstructionists. They just load on the "where's the evidence? Your argument is no good if there's no evidence" and there just no pleasing that crowd.

Those of us interested in the topic get that there are nuts and bolts people who won't believe anything on this topic until an alien is trotted out on a podium in front of the world. For the rest of us, there is a far more nuanced approach and understanding of the disclosure process that requires patience, pressure (e.g. public congressional hearings), and a bit of pragmatism.

It also sucks that some of them are usually flippant, dismissive, and mocking in their tones and make personal attacks (even if they think they're not doing it).

If you plan to obstruct or just want to come in her and #### on ideas and other people personally, then create your own thread on skepticism and the perils of idealism in a scientific world.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm a realist. Not against all discussions going on, but some of the points just get into silly territory.

Why do you care if some points just get silly? is this personally insulting to you? Let it be silly, Its a thread about aliens for goodness sake.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Muta

Who here is making ‘absolute conclusions without evidence’?

Lanny. When GGG asked for evidence and you responded telling him asking for evidence that doesn’t exist was unreasonable, he was asking Lanny to provide evidence for a conclusion he’d made without it. Why is that unreasonable?

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

If there's any thread where people can opine, speculate and hypothesize, this is thread. It's on UAP, what do people expect to happen here? Citizen-driven scientific process? Committing vast amounts of time to deep-dive the classified archives of government intelligence just to post here with vast analysis and primary evidence?

I fear every time this thread gets bumped, because almost immediately there are posters who just come in to be contrarians and obstructionists. They just load on the "where's the evidence? Your argument is no good if there's no evidence" and there just no pleasing that crowd.

Those of us interested in the topic get that there are nuts and bolts people who won't believe anything on this topic until an alien is trotted out on a podium in front of the world. For the rest of us, there is a far more nuanced approach and understanding of the disclosure process that requires patience, pressure (e.g. public congressional hearings), and a bit of pragmatism.

It also sucks that some of them are usually flippant, dismissive, and mocking in their tones and make personal attacks (even if they think they're not doing it).

If you plan to obstruct or just want to come in her and #### on ideas and other people personally, then create your own thread on skepticism and the perils of idealism in a scientific world.

I think people expect skepticism and alternative theories to be welcomed. I think people expect scientific approaches to the topic to be welcomed, and possible earth or human-centric theories to be welcomed.

I also think people don’t expect the person complaining about being flippant, dismissive, and mocking in tone to be the same person who distills their opinions down to requiring aliens trotted out on a podium, or mocks their intelligence, or tells them he’s going to go get the popcorn as he demands they meet his expectations for conversation, or suggests they aren’t as nuanced or pragmatic as he is, or otherwise has no problem doing all the things he complains about.

If this thread is for everyone, it’s for everyone. You don’t decide who it’s for. If you want to have a conversation where some people aren’t welcome, DM people privately. Go nuts.

Until then, I think we’ll all continue enjoy this thread in our own way, and if you aren’t enjoying it, don’t click on it.

[Jiggy_12]

Time is a really fascinating concept as it directly relates to space. Its so mind warping.

Time is already referred to as the 4th dimension, but I believe time to be the way we experience the 4th dimension. that something exists beyond our comprehension/senses, and time is it's effect on us and the way we interact with it. Its not my own theory, but its the one I think currently is the most accurrate.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Until then, I think we’ll all continue enjoy this thread in our own way, and if you aren’t enjoying it, don’t click on it.

I suggested a hypothetical, and people aggressively attacked, including yourself who suggested I look down on people for lesser reasons like some sort of narcissist. You are exactly the problem like what you just described.

But thank you for the suggestion, it is probably time to bow out. The fun has been sucked out of this thread entirely.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

Time is a really fascinating concept as it directly relates to space. Its so mind warping.

Time is already referred to as the 4th dimension, but I believe time to be the way we experience the 4th dimension. that something exists beyond our comprehension/senses, and time is it's effect on us and the way we interact with it. Its not my own theory, but its the one I think currently is the most accurrate.

Aside from the idea of time being a series or progression of moments, I also kind of find the idea of time as sort of an element that affects everything it touches as kind of fascinating. Similar to radiation, in the way that it’s not really a passage of anything, but more of something where the more you’re exposed to it the more you’re impacted by it’s effects, and that there could exist a possibility where time is more or less “dense.”

The idea that there might be places where time doesn’t exist and nothing grows or decays (could a place even exist, then?) or a place where time is denser than here, and things grow and decay rapidly relative to how it happens here.

Cool anyway.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I suggested a hypothetical, and people aggressively attacked, including yourself who suggested I look down on people for lesser reasons like some sort of narcissist. You are exactly the problem like what you just described.

But thank you for the suggestion, it is probably time to bow out. The fun has been sucked out of this thread entirely.

However you want to spin it in your mind works, I guess. Be sure to bring that popcorn when you come back.

[Matata]

People seem to be struggling with the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.

A hypothesis is where you notice a trend and decide it is worth investigating. A hypothesis only needs to be strong enough premise that you can start collecting evidence for or against it.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been rigorously tested by multiple individuals in multiple scenarios under laboratory conditions (ideally tens of thousands of times) and has been refined to be able to provide predictable, reliable results.

Some criticism should be involved in developing a hypothesis, but excessive criticism will limit perception and stunt the develop of a good hypothesis. It's a lot like brainstorming: the last thing you want in a brainstorming session is a nay-sayer who trys to sound smart by crapping all over everyone else's ideas.

[Enoch Root]

Except the conversation isn't about a hypothesis of alien life, it's about claims that alien life, or NHI if you prefer, has, or is visiting us. These types of claims do beg for scientific reasoning and demand evidence.

If you want to discuss the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence, great. Except it will probably be a short conversation because we probably all share a more or less similar view that it is highly likely, or at least reasonably likely.

But if you want to talk about sightings, contact, abductions, cover-ups, and global conspiracies, it's going to take more than your hypothesis - bring your scrapbook.

[Fuzz]

Nobody is struggling with that. Well, except maybe Lanny.

[PepsiFree]

It seems like there is nothing but hypothesis in this thread. It’s full of people developing and sharing hypothesis.

It’s the part that must come after a hypothesis that seems to be the sticking point. It’s fun to come up with a hypothesis, but the actual fun is in testing it. When there’s no evidence to collect and nothing to test, that’s tough. When you get mad at people providing evidence that could give reason to reject the hypothesis, that’s missing the point entirely.

Most of the hypothesis are non-falsifiable. They don’t really have much more value than a random thought until they can actually be tested.

[Fuzz]

I was thinking about these things last night, and came up with a pretty simple experiment to show how changing perspective can pretty easily make an object appear to be moving erratically and in different directions, and at greater speed. This is mostly helpful in explaining those viewed from an aircraft, with the UAP below, and ground below that for reference, as several of these videos show.

OK, so put a piece of paper on your desk, and grab a pen. The centre of the pen will represent a mostly stationary UAP(though it can be moved if desired as well). The top of the pen is the location of the aircraft. The tip will draw out the line of motion, which is what we see as erratic.

Now hold the pen virtually, and make a mark on the ground. As you move the pen, keep the centre of the pen over this mark, as the UAP isn't moving in this example.

Move the top of the pen while leaving the centre stationary(grip it between your index finger and thumb at the UAP point). The pen is now projecting your view to the paper. Draw a straight line. You can now see the point of projection has moved to under where the plane started, and the plane is now at the point of projection where the UAP appeared relative to the background, above the ground.

So with this basic principle, we can already see a stationary object appeared to move the same distance as the aircraft travelled, without actually moving.

Move the "plane" around a bit, keeping the centre stationary, and observe how the line traced can appear erratic and shift directions quickly.

Alterations to this can be tested with extreme oblique angles and forming your paper into a hill.

You can also grip the pen at different heights, which alters the apparent velocity.

Now, add in cameras that can be independently aimed from the direction of flight, and an object may be moving in the wind(or just another lower aircraft flying)you can quickly see certain combinations can exhibit erratic looking movements. I'm sure a 3D simulator could show this principle a lot better, but I like the simplicity of pen and paper. I suspect many of these sightings can be explained by these perspective shifts.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm a realist. Not against all discussions going on, but some of the points just get into silly territory.

Think it's time to go elsewhere. You're really contributing nothing of value and just bogging down discussions for people who are interested.

Plenty of threads for "realist" issues on this board.

You say you're not against it but your actions show otherwise.

Don't be the child that steals the ball from someone else's game because you're upset that they're playing. Just go about your own business.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It seems like there is nothing but hypothesis in this thread. It’s full of people developing and sharing hypothesis.

It’s the part that must come after a hypothesis that seems to be the sticking point. It’s fun to come up with a hypothesis, but the actual fun is in testing it. When there’s no evidence to collect and nothing to test, that’s tough. When you get mad at people providing evidence that could give reason to reject the hypothesis, that’s missing the point entirely.

Most of the hypothesis are non-falsifiable. They don’t really have much more value than a random thought until they can actually be tested.

Isn't it "hypotheses"?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Think it's time to go elsewhere. You're really contributing nothing of value and just bogging down discussions for people who are interested.

Plenty of threads for "realist" issues on this board.

You say you're not against it but your actions show otherwise.

Don't be the child that steals the ball from someone else's game because you're upset that they're playing. Just go about your own business.

Uhm, get bent?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Isn't it "hypotheses"?

That’s the plural form of hypothesis, yes.