News maybe. But not all news aligns with reality,
And no, not the US president saying something. An objective third party showing something would go a long way though.
But then I could just say it's a government psyops conspiracy "distraction."
You seeing something means what exactly? How is your brain going to discern alien tech without some other human telling you what you're seeing? What perspective to you have living on earth for your entire life to be able to even understand something created in another galaxy by another civilization?
"The alloy is constructed of X, Y, Z. We've never seen anything like it!" -Science community.
How do you know that for certain?
Because someone told you. But you don't really know them, so you'll be trusting someone that is telling you to trust their resume.
And to boot scientists have been wrong throughout history. Just 130 years ago the best scientists in the world said flight was impossible.
And even if it was legit, I can always argue it's some secret human technology and it couldn't be disproved outside of some ridiculously unlikely scenario like an archeological dig find, but I can pick that apart too.
True, but dont you think that spaceship technology that can go that far at presumably insane speeds or some other massively advanced technology are a bit more advanced than cars? we crash cars because the technology in cars isnt that great (its getting better with self driving cars and at some stage cars may no longer crash (or extremely rarely)). So you'd think that this massively advanced technology would be good enough to simply not crash, so, no, I dont personally think its a dumb argument.
When we do eventually go to Mars etc. we'll still be way way behind technologically than these craft and I dont expect us to crash into Mars.
birds take down commercial airliners by existing and caveman got them beat at least by a littleRiiiighhht. So alien race, stupidly advanced, travels billions of miles with technology for that to happen, so much so that we are the equivalent of cave men, and we shoot it down risking a war with said alien race? If that's the case then we deserve to get wiped out due to sheer stupidity.
The same person said that even if we assume the same UFO crash ratio as people in cars, that would mean there are hundreds/thousands of UFO visits to the planet every day.... if that were the case we'd all have noticed them rather than the occasional blurry photoshopped image, wonky video recording and nutjob claiming he was abducted to get his 15 minutes of fame. Nothing I have seen or heard so far convinces me aliens are visiting this planet and I am a believer that life evolved on other planets in this solar system, not just in other solar systems.Just because we can build cars, which are crazy to ants, doesn't mean we don't crash them.
Same with spaceships.
This is really the dumbest argument Ive ever read.
An ant would look at a human car crash and say "lmao so they can make cars but cant keep them from crashing? "
There was a news topic a few weeks ago from a sceptic that basically argued that if advanced alien civilizations were flying light years to Earth, why are they so bad at parking that they keep crashing? They had a point.
Going from sticks and stones to a car is a speck of dust in terms of magnitude of advancement compared to going from a car to light speed travel. I don't know how you think it's reasonable to compare faults in monkey technology to faults god-tier technology. It's clear you have no idea how impossible it is to even comprehend light speed travel.That's not a good argument. The premise is that as the technology is so advanced then it should have a 0% failure rate, which is a very weak argument to make.
Technology today is much more advanced from the technology we were using in 1960s, yet our technology still fails.
Even then I'm just assuming a crash was caused by a malfunction. Could be an error with the pilot. We have pilots today who make errors and crash, even with hundreds or thousands of hours of experience.
Going from sticks and stones to a car is a speck of dust in terms of magnitude of advancement compared to going from a car to light speed travel. I don't know how you think it's reasonable to compare faults in monkey technology to faults god-tier technology. It's clear you have no idea how impossible it is to even comprehend light speed travel.
Anything you show to a neolithic man would be incomprehensible. By your logic of there should be no limit to what we are able to do, including reviving the dead. I mean, we have cryonics right???? Now tell me why thinking that because we can cure certain cancers, the dead can be revived is ridiculous, it's the same reason why thinking that because "we can make cars and helicopters then FTL travel should be possible" is ridiculous. I brought this up not because I think FTL is impossible, but because you're seriously downplaying the magnitude of breakthroughs that would be necessary like I pointed out we only have a spec of dust of progress in that direction. And to think a civilization would be make all those breakthroughs including the fact that it's just flat out a paraodixical feat and space is filled with difficult to manoeuvre obstacles even at normal speed and probably millions of times more difficult at FTL speeds, with celestial bodies, microscopic debris, space-time ripples, solar radiation, interplanetary and interstellar gas and dust, so to be so advanced enough that it's able to conquer all those obstacles in space and reality, only to be put to halt by something on Earth is just laughable and it surprises me this would even need to be explained to some people.I disagree.
Neolithic man wouldn't be able to comprehend our technology. A car or jet plane would be like encountering a God.
However, we can comprehend FTL travel. An Alcubierre drive is a good example of how we can envision FTL travel thanks to our understanding of physics, something that Neolithic humans wouldn't be able to comprehend. FTL travel isn't some god-tier technology, but it is way beyond our capabilities currently.
I'm not comparing faults in our technology with faults in hypothetical alien tech. I'm simply calling out the poor premise of the original argument.
Absolute horseshit:I'm not comparing faults in our technology with faults in hypothetical alien tech. I'm simply calling out the poor premise of the original argument.
Even then I'm just assuming a crash was caused by a malfunction. Could be an error with the pilot. We have pilots today who make errors and crash, even with hundreds or thousands of hours of experience.
Anything you show to a neolithic man would be incomprehensible. By your logic of there should be no limit to what we are able to do, including reviving the dead. I mean, we have cryonics right???? Now tell me why thinking that because we can cure certain cancers, the dead can be revived is ridiculous, it's the same reason why thinking that because "we can make cars and helicopters then FTL travel should be possible" is ridiculous. I brought this up not because I think FTL is impossible, but because you're seriously downplaying the magnitude of breakthroughs that would be necessary like I pointed out we only have a spec of dust of progress in that direction. And to think a civilization would be make all those breakthroughs including the fact that it's just flat out a paraodixical feat and space is filled with difficult to manoeuvre obstacles even at normal speed and probably millions of times more difficult at FTL speeds, with celestial bodies, microscopic debris, space-time ripples, solar radiation, interplanetary and interstellar gas and dust, so to be so advanced enough that it's able to conquer all those obstacles in space and reality, only to be put to halt by something on Earth is just laughable and it surprises me this would even need to be explained to some people.
It's nice that you're cherry picking things out of my response to make yourself look less dumb. Now we're going to have to play a game of "this is what you said, this is what I said" because you're too intellectually dishonest.Calm yourself and go back to the original argument.
The argument is that if these are aliens with technology that allows them to travel the galaxy, then the idea of their craft crashing is in your own words "laughable".
However, to make such a conclusion you would need reems of evidence to back this up. Just saying that they're technology is far more advanced means it would have a 0% failure rate only works if you know exactly what this technology is.
So please, explain how this technology is manufactured and how it would have a 0% failure rate. If you cannot do so then the argument is flawed.
Where did I say it would have a 0% failure rate? I didn't make that blanket statement anywhere. You mentioned a scenario, and I broke it down for you as to why it's stupid and unlikely, and none of that mentioned anything about a "failure rate".So please, explain how this technology is manufactured and how it would have a 0% failure rate.
No, you absolute liar, I didn't say that. You think an alien civilization can build a craft that travel FTL through space, only to crash when entering earth. And I clearly explained why that's absurd. I'll dumb it down with an anology for you since you're being dense and purposefully dishonest, it's like witnessing an Olympic-level gymnast flawlessly execute a series of intricate flips and twists on the uneven bars, only to faceplant embarrassingly while trying to step off the mat. Believing that an alien craft capable of interstellar travel and FTL speeds would crash on Earth, despite successfully maneuvering through countless cosmic hazards, is pure nonsense and garbage. Are you going to address this or come up with a new lie to tell me I need to prove?The argument is that if these are aliens with technology that allows them to travel the galaxy, then the idea of their craft crashing is in your own words "laughable".
It's nice that you're cherry picking things out of my response to make yourself look less dumb. Now we're going to have to play a game of "this is what you said, this is what I said" because you're too intellectually dishonest.
Where did I say it would have a 0% failure rate? I didn't make that blanket statement anywhere. You mentioned a scenario, and I broke it down for you as to why it's stupid and unlikely, and none of that mentioned anything about a "failure rate".
No, you absolute liar, I didn't say that. You think an alien civilization can build a craft that travel FTL through space, only to crash when entering earth. And I clearly explained why that's absurd. I'll dumb it down with an anology for you since you're being dense and purposefully dishonest, it's like witnessing an Olympic-level gymnast flawlessly execute a series of intricate flips and twists on the uneven bars, only to faceplant embarrassingly while trying to step off the mat. Believing that an alien craft capable of interstellar travel and FTL speeds would crash on Earth, despite successfully maneuvering through countless cosmic hazards, is pure nonsense and garbage. Are you going to address this or come up with a new lie to tell me I need to prove?
You: Aliens can travel FTL and then crash on earth - perfectly reasonable
Me: No, that's fucking stupid heres why...
You: Here's these things you didn't say, prove them whilst I ignore what you actually said
Me: You're a dishonest liar, here's why...
More hypocritical tone policing and straight up lies because you couldn't handle you've been exposed and won't dare address that. You're a low grade Narcissist.Irrational anger isn't helping your argument.
Calm yourself and let's start again.
Let's start with a simple question, and please try to answer in a calm and rational manner.
Why is it impossible for a hypothetical alien craft to crash on earth?
More hypocritical tone policing and straight up lies because you couldn't handle you've been exposed and won't dare address that. You're a low grade Narcissist.
I'm not sure how I've been exposed?
We can't make a claim that's it's impossible for alien craft to crash on earth when we know nothing about the technology involved.
If you can answer my previous question in a rational manner then maybe we can have a polite debate about it. Otherwise we'll just call it a day. It wasn't my intention to upset you and I certainly don't want to upset further.
And HereAnd to think a civilization would be make all those breakthroughs including the fact that it's just flat out a paraodixical feat and space is filled with difficult to manoeuvre obstacles even at normal speed and probably millions of times more difficult at FTL speeds, with celestial bodies, microscopic debris, space-time ripples, solar radiation, interplanetary and interstellar gas and dust, so to be so advanced enough that it's able to conquer all those obstacles in space and reality, only to be put to halt by something on Earth is just laughable and it surprises me this would even need to be explained to some people.
You think an alien civilization can build a craft that travel FTL through space, only to crash when entering earth. And I clearly explained why that's absurd. I'll dumb it down with an anology for you since you're being dense and purposefully dishonest, it's like witnessing an Olympic-level gymnast flawlessly execute a series of intricate flips and twists on the uneven bars, only to faceplant embarrassingly while trying to step off the mat. Believing that an alien craft capable of interstellar travel and FTL speeds would crash on Earth, despite successfully maneuvering through countless cosmic hazards, is pure nonsense and garbage. Are you going to address this or come up with a new lie to tell me I need to prove?
Let me jump in here to try and clarify. You never said these crafts have 0% failure rate but you're also claiming the notion of a craft that can travel FTL crashing is absurd. So what exactly is your position? Try to reply calmly without the histrionics.You specifically stated a "FTL" craft. YOUR ANSWER IS IN ALL OF MY POSTS.
HERE
And Here
Then you asked me for evidence for claiming such a craft would have to have 0% failure rate, which I didn't say and you STILL have not shown me where I said that. And instead of addressing anything, you just tell me I need to "prove how it's impossible" - I don't need to prove anything, I just need to debunk your nonsense claims, which I clearly have. That's how the burden of proof concept works.
How exactly is it incomptabile? Try to reply calmly without lying, tone policing or violating the principles of critical thinking. Your hypthetical craft can trascend the paradoxes of travelling at the speed of light and traverse the universe filled with difficult to manoeuvre obstacles which even at normal speed would be impossible, and probably millions of times more difficult at FTL speeds, with celestial bodies, microscopic debris, space-time ripples, solar radiation, interplanetary and interstellar gas and dust. It happens to never fail through all of that, yet when it hits earth, oh boy, it's failed. Never did I say it has a 0% failure rate, it can fail, but you're the one making the claim or siding with the position that it somehow doesn't fails in the most likely situation - traversing Earth, but ends up failing in the least likely instance which is where it has the least obstacles, variables and complexities to navigate - that is ridiculous. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that this is somehow possible.Let me jump in here to try and clarify. You never said these crafts have 0% failure rate but you're also claiming the notion of a craft that can travel FTL crashing is absurd. So what exactly is your position? Try to reply calmly without the histrionics.
So it can fail it just can't crash on earth that is your position?How exactly is it incomptabile? Try to reply calmly without lying, tone policing or violating the principles of critical thinking. Your hypthetical craft can trascend the paradoxes of travelling at the speed of light and traverse the universe filled with difficult to manoeuvre obstacles which even at normal speed would be impossible, and probably millions of times more difficult at FTL speeds, with celestial bodies, microscopic debris, space-time ripples, solar radiation, interplanetary and interstellar gas and dust. It happens to never fail through all of that, yet when it hits earth, oh boy, it's failed. Never did I say it has a 0% failure rate, it can fail, but you're the one making the claim or siding with the position that it somehow doesn't fails in the most likely situation - traversing Earth, but ends up failing in the least likely instance which is where it has the least obstacles, variables and complexities to navigate - that is ridiculous. The burden of proof is on you for making the claim that this is somehow possible.
Anything can happen, I could have sex with Jessica Alba tomorrow. I'm not saying your FTL craft invulnerable to cosmic hazards and paradoxes can't crash on Earth, I'm saying I don't know how that would be possible in light of what you're saying it can do, and why you think it's likely enough to be meaningful probability in any way.So it can fail it just can't crash on earth that is your position?
That's quite a choice she has herpes but that's neither here nor there. Different strokes for different folks. I'm not kink shaming. You're not helping your argument any just because it's improbable that you'll have sex with an std laden former celebrity doesn't mean its impossible.Anything can happen, I could have sex with Jessica Alba tomorrow.
It's nice that you're cherry picking things out of my response to make yourself look less dumb. Now we're going to have to play a game of "this is what you said, this is what I said" because you're too intellectually dishonest.
Where did I say it would have a 0% failure rate? I didn't make that blanket statement anywhere. You mentioned a scenario, and I broke it down for you as to why it's stupid and unlikely, and none of that mentioned anything about a "failure rate".
No, you absolute liar, I didn't say that. You think an alien civilization can build a craft that travel FTL through space, only to crash when entering earth. And I clearly explained why that's absurd. I'll dumb it down with an anology for you since you're being dense and purposefully dishonest, it's like witnessing an Olympic-level gymnast flawlessly execute a series of intricate flips and twists on the uneven bars, only to faceplant embarrassingly while trying to step off the mat. Believing that an alien craft capable of interstellar travel and FTL speeds would crash on Earth, despite successfully maneuvering through countless cosmic hazards, is pure nonsense and garbage. Are you going to address this or come up with a new lie to tell me I need to prove?
You: Aliens can travel FTL and then crash on earth - perfectly reasonable
Me: No, that's fucking stupid heres why...
You: Here's these things you didn't say, prove them whilst I ignore what you actually said
Me: You're a dishonest liar, here's why...
You're saying that we still have car accidents despite the capacity to go to the moon, so having advanced technology doesn't make you completely prone to failing at more basic stuff, likewise it shouldn't be implausible to believe that a FTL craft would fail and crash on earth for one reason or another. The problem is, scale and level plausability and probability given you're telling me it's a FTL craft traversing the universe, so that'd mean it is inherently invulnerable and intelligent enough to navigate the quadrillion constantly varying obstacles it would encounter; thus, it cannot fail and is disaster prone to everytthing since it's constantly evading an infinite number of unpredictable disasters and events, but then getting confused as to why someone would find it weird that you think it could fail on earth. I could maybe see where you're coming from if you're example was actually comparable which in this case would be having a world with no cars or rockets ever failing in the entire history of the earth, only for that one astronaut and pilot to have the first car accident ever, but even then it wouldn't capture even a bit the magnitude of improbability that is comparable to a craft traversing the universe FTL only to crash on earth.Wasn't there an astronaut that flew to the moon then came home and killed himself by hitting a pole in his car? Lol, ex fighter pilot and space craft pilot dies driving a car that normal people do every day.
And Ryan Graves said their f18 squadron saw unidentifiable objects every day for years, so yeah, it doesn't seem isolated off the coasts.
You're saying that we still have car accidents despite the capacity to go to the moon, so having advanced technology doesn't make you completely prone to failing at more basic stuff, likewise it shouldn't be implausible to believe that a FTL craft would fail and crash on earth for one reason or another. The problem is, scale and level plausability and probability given you're telling me it's a FTL craft traversing the universe, so that'd mean it is inherently invulnerable and intelligent enough to navigate the quadrillion constantly varying obstacles it would encounter; thus, it cannot fail and is disaster prone to everytthing since it's constantly evading an infinite number of unpredictable disasters and events, but then getting confused as to why someone would find it weird that you think it could fail on earth. I could maybe see where you're coming from if you're example was actually comparable which in this case would be having a world with no cars or rockets ever failing in the entire history of the earth, only for that one astronaut and pilot to have the first car accident ever, but even then it wouldn't capture even a bit the magnitude of improbability that is comparable to a craft traversing the universe FTL only to crash on earth.
Which, imho, proves (if true) that these craft are of earth origin and not some alien craft with technology to travel faster than light across the universe.And we are shooting them down
Just because we can build cars, which are crazy to ants, doesn't mean we don't crash them.
I thought it was probe insertionthe craft are crashing because the pilot is getting sucked off in the cockpit.
I thought it was probe insertion
Anything is a toy if you’re brave enough.THE PROBE IS NOT A TOY
Great article and actual photo evidence
Edit - link in second tweet
Top one is almost certainly a cruise ship. It lines up exactly. I’m not convinced it’s anything else.
Black tic tac is cool though
Where’s this last one from?