Razorback
Member
I'm lost.
I don't understand what there is to be on the same page about then. Can you put your original question into other words? Sorry, guess I'm being slow today.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Aliens and UFOs
- Thread starter Grand Theft Scratchy
- Start date
- Status
I'm lost.
I don't understand what there is to be on the same page about then. Can you put your original question into other words? Sorry, guess I'm being slow today.
INC
Member
That yes ufo/uap are real (as the preliminary states having 100+ cases in 2 years) and procedures need to be put in place to collect and record data on the phenomenon
That page........
Airola
Member
Apparently this was just a shadow that comes from a building that has lights from the ground pointing up and to the walls.
The explanation comes after 12:20.
Now, the pictures this person shows didn't come from that certain incident and his pictures don't form a triangle because when he took the pictures there were lights only on one side of the building, but it shows this type of lighting can make the kind of hard lines show up in the sky that were seen in that triangle video.
Last edited:
Razorback
Member
No wonder I'm confused. The sentence "Yes unidentified flying objects are real" doesn't make any sense. What would it mean for UFOs not to be real? Everyone knows what everything in the sky is all of the time?
INC
Member
Ufo/uap whatever makes you more comfortable i guess.
Razorback
Member
I don't care what you call it. There's no such thing as being skeptical of things that are unidentified.
There are skeptics of aliens though. That I understand. I'm sorry I'm tripping up on the language here, I'm happy to use your definition of UFO if you give me one.
Airola
Member
It kinda just means that yes there are things in the sky that people haven't been able to identify at the time of sighting and haven't been able to bring enough data to help us identifying it later, and as these things are sometimes a danger and a hazard to pilots for example if airborne clutter messes with training or gets in way of cameras in combat situation and as these could also be objects from other countries we need to be able to identify these objects more effectively.
Saying UFO/UAP is a real phenomena doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that. But honestly though I think that for a lot of people it immediately is more than that.
INC
Member
Pretty much this
In some cases, with all forms of data, video, eye witness accounts, you can put more into it (and theyre the cases this preliminary were pointing at, because they're not just balloons). But that doesn't automatically mean all ufos are anything more than mis-identified objects, faulty equipment or natural phenomena, after closer inspection.
Razorback
Member
Yes, that is a straightforward definition of UFO. I don't think anyone sane would disagree that those are real.
That's why I find it suspicious when anyone claims UFOs are real. There's no reason to say something so mundane. Unless you're sneaking in something extra in the definition of UFO.
So we're in agreement. But then what did this report coming out change? Why would we now be on the same page when before we weren't?
INC
Member
Because some said it was all BS still. That its all just balloons (which ironically 1 was) etc
PleaseDontBanMe
Banned
what if UFOs are a glitch in the matrix/simulation that we're living in?
God is still running the universe on Windows 95 and there are hiccups?
God is still running the universe on Windows 95 and there are hiccups?
INC
Member
Still more believable than the bibles god story
Razorback
Member
You accepted the straightforward definition of UFO and from context, I assume you agree that it makes no sense to be skeptical of UFOs in that sense. But now you mention people who said it was all BS.
These can't be the same people. We already established that doesn't make any sense.
So what do these people believe is BS? You claim they say "Its all just balloons". Not taking that literally I assume you mean they think it's all explainable by simple mundane stuff. So for them what would fall into the BS category as an explanation?
INC
Member
Romulus
Member
For those who don't already know please review the below on "Fastwalkers" coined by NORAD
I feel like this is the holy grail that the government might be quiet about, objects entering and leaving our atmosphere. I think its possible the most interesting info is tied up in NORAD classified documents. If Navy ships can track them, so can missile defense systems capable of tracking incoming space objects.
I feel like this is the holy grail that the government might be quiet about, objects entering and leaving our atmosphere. I think its possible the most interesting info is tied up in NORAD classified documents. If Navy ships can track them, so can missile defense systems capable of tracking incoming space objects.
Last edited:
Airola
Member
Quick look into the two documents seems to show that they aren't looking at them as controlled craft but more like space debris etc (they even mention actual debris as one potential possibility of what they are) because they are focused on trying to calculate their orbit and seem to be more concerned about any danger of any sort of damage their appearance too quickly from an unanticipated direction could cause.
Romulus
Member
Not saying fastwalker=aliens. All I'm saying is there is likely a wealth of info there if objects are already being tracked. I doubt they'll declassify it anytime soon but some of the NASA official videos are pretty crazy, especially now with more context.
PleaseDontBanMe
Banned
i wish god was real
i want to see my loved ones again
I hate myself for being kinda smart enough to realize god isn't real but still dumb enough to be poor
Last edited:
ParanoidAndroidz
Member
Apparently the classified version of the report is 70+pages has 14 videos, totaling 40 mins of footage.
INC
Member
so the reports states they need more research and people to analyse the data
so they hold back the other 60+ pages with data and video..........so cant be analysed and better conclusions cant be made
makes perfect sense, just fucking release it all, its patheitc, unless some of the videos do indeed show US test craft.....but the pentagon said theyre not ours......so whats the hold up...
Last edited:
Airola
Member
The full report, if released, would be read and analyzed by every single foreign force. Could be that the videos, pictures and additional info would reveal too much about the methods the US uses to track things.
And yeah, the pentagon apparently said they are not theirs, but the report itself says they could be theirs. Basically they are in between a rock and a hard place, as the people behind the report can't be sure if the data shows some test data of US secret projects so they might feel they themselves could risk national security if they just go and put forward the exact info to the public.
INC
Member
Well if theyre holding back supposed tech like being demonstrated, then they already have full dominance anyway, since its lightyears ahead of anything else on the planet, and has been for quite some time
QSD
Member
where are you guys getting/reading this info?
this is massively frustrating... JUST DECLASSIFY THAT SHIT, THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE WORLD THEY LIVE IN!
ParanoidAndroidz
Member
INC
Member
well tbh someone should leak asap, because this is BS, hardly an open conversation, and open to debate, when 95% of the data needed is still classified
Airola
Member
Unless those 18 cases where the movement seems impossible aren't part of those, at least fully.
Maybe those wildest moving things are just anomalies in equipment and maybe also people exaggerating what they've seen. They did say in the report that those perhaps could be explained by other things so everything still could be explainable by mundane explanations, and even if some of it was about US secret tech, maybe none of that tech really do any of what has been described as impossible for our current technology. Maybe the secret tech are some of those outside from that group of 18 cases, and those 18 cases aren't actual objects doing actual movements. As they said, some of the evidence could be explainable by spoofing too, which is to make radars etc show stuff that isn't actually there, which is something they do because it's cheaper to test things by spoofing than by sending an actual drone or missile or whatever.
For me this report mostly just made everything look like there actually are more possible normal and mundane explanations for the UAP than what I imagined there could be. I didn't think of natural phenomena being able to be shown on radar and I didn't know about it being possible to literally make nonexistent things to be deliberately shown on radar before this report. And also before this report it didn't come to my mind that if they call UAPs a hazard and a problem for pilots, it could also mean normal things stopping training and normal things in the sky making it harder to follow and execute commands in combat situations. Before this the "UAPs are confirmed to be a threat to pilots" type of a line had a far more sinister feeling to it, but the report gave more level-headed contexts to it than what I and possibly everyone else believed it would give.
But yeah sure, it would be easier to draw real conclusions about anything if we were able to see the evidence. Currently it's just assumptions we can make about anything. But still, the report did give much more possibilities for "normal" explanations than I ever expected. And especially if it's possible to not only spoof radars but also IR cameras and whatever else, that kinda is even more convenient explanation than CGI. Not only there could be technical anomalies on radar, but it's also possible to deliberately create things to be shown on radar, and maybe even on IR cameras. I think the report gave more ammunition to skeptics than to believers.
Zippitydodaday
Member
Corbell says something is coming on Tuesday very cryptic like always. Hopefully next leak is a doozy.
So from my understanding the government parties got something around a 70+Page report with 14 videos? But we get 6 pages of “yeaaaaaaa they real but we don’t know what it is and intentions.”
Something that someone told me and there is a video of someone explaining somewhere out there that there is a site near 51 called 7 levels of hell and each level you go down gets crazier and crazier that the first 3 levels are on classified for human tech. One thing they apparently recovered was a leaf from another planet stronger than the best armor we have. Could be all bs.
So from my understanding the government parties got something around a 70+Page report with 14 videos? But we get 6 pages of “yeaaaaaaa they real but we don’t know what it is and intentions.”
Something that someone told me and there is a video of someone explaining somewhere out there that there is a site near 51 called 7 levels of hell and each level you go down gets crazier and crazier that the first 3 levels are on classified for human tech. One thing they apparently recovered was a leaf from another planet stronger than the best armor we have. Could be all bs.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
Both sides of the argument before the UAP report= "the government cannot be trusted."
Super skeptics after unclassified UAP report = "The government can be trusted."
I think the opposite would be true. Let's say alien bodies were in the report. lol. Believers would suddenly take that as gospel and skeptics would say it's a ploy for "funding to fight aliens bro."
Super skeptics after unclassified UAP report = "The government can be trusted."
I think the opposite would be true. Let's say alien bodies were in the report. lol. Believers would suddenly take that as gospel and skeptics would say it's a ploy for "funding to fight aliens bro."
INC
Member
Would help if they actually released the full report
Romulus
Member
The problem is it needs to be unclassified, which is so far down on the scale. Even "Classified" "Confidential" and "Secret" reportings are pretty unexciting almost always. You need Top secret or above in most cases. That's why I didn't expect anything.
But for me, it's the other agencies seeing the classified briefing that will provoke more discussions and investigations. In the last 3 days, NASA has had its own plans circling the UAP hot zones.
Last edited:
StormCell
Member
And you don't think that the report, especially the preliminary version, is written this way intentionally? I agreed with your take on the change of terms from UFO to UAP. They've widened the net, and now they're writing a report where they're able to cast all kinds of doubt across a broad range of cases ranging from stray balloon to actual physical object moving at incredible speed and doing turns we can't match, supposedly. If that case and that video is in the same pile of other UAP, they've just said "could have been glare, could have been ball lightning, could have been sensor malfunction or spoofing, could have been a civilian drone, or maybe it's our top secret thing." Would love to hear more opinions from congressmen who are privy to the classified report. I'm gonna need more than Rubio's sci-fi take because he's the reason this report happened, so of course he wants the public to believe it wowed his peers.
infinitys_7th
Member
It's Blue Book all over again.
Is this the one where the lower levels have aliens growing humans in vats to eat? Come on.
Last edited:
StormCell
Member
I'm sorry. You knew the report had to be like this, though. It's pretty much going to continue to be like this until such a time as they are confident that a video showing probably a craft not made by humans is conclusively not a foreign adversaries, and probably the only way we'll get there is, maybe, with this standardized data gathering where they can get sufficient details to rule out a number of mundane explanations.
Even then I fail to see the benefit to them to release it to the general public even if we have a so-called right to know. I sort of even question what the benefit actually is from this report if the only outcomes are standardizing data gathering and communication across branches of the military and regular follow ups on data gathered. It will remain classified anyway, but I guess at least then some of congress will know what's up.
INC
Member
Well we already know evidence is being held back, and the point of the report was to avoid this. And thats only form 2019, so these report should be public, because its after the reporting process was put forward
But the other thing, why is it again just wait on US to release these videos adding up to 40mins worth, wheres all the other countries videos.....?
All very odd to me, 'we're gonna be open, but we're holding back videos', unless these videos have data that is deemed classified still (radar UI etc that can't be seen by foreign forces, that would make sense), but say that, and edit the videos
StormCell
Member
The objects in the videos could be foreign adversaries. Just because they seem to rule them out as being foreign doesn't make it conclusive. The Pentagon seemingly posted a video of a pyramid "bokeh" effect, and look at how that has gone over with the public. Imagine posting a video of a hypersonic spy drone and having China heartily laugh at us in the international press.
Yeah, this is all very confusing. I want to believe they're making an honest effort, but then I can't believe they're not pressing buttons and bringing civilian drones down out of the air to clear simple air clutter. Where does the buck really stop in this mess? I expect them to know stuff. You expect that a top dollar military can detect an elk breathing 15 miles away from their base let alone unidentified drones flying overhead of them as I've read on some sites. It's just a whole lot of bullshit, and I'm kinda fighting back disappointment in what I'm supposedly hearing on some of these cases.
We, in the United States, pay too many dollars to have foreign powers flying probably basic consumer drones over our military bases and basically getting 4K footage of things they shouldn't be -- it's a level of detail that would basically give their soldiers realistic VR missions to run through our bases in training simulations. That kinda stuff is not okay.
Last edited:
INC
Member
If you watch the video i posted above, our modern day reporting, and ufo sightings, its basically the same as 1945 now. Which is also very odd. It sounds almost the same, even the language used.
So I'm really at the point where this just seems like a massive nothing burger and just more esmoke and mirrors for whatever reason
But also remember these reports sounds like the modern ufo reports, movement, shape etc etc, so now that leaves the question who the fuck had this in 1945.........if its natural phenomena, we've missed it for 70-80years, and its odd military are out there with trucks to pick up ball lightning.
Theyre stories tho, just stories
Ballthyrm
Member
Here is my take on it.
Being a good Bayesian , I would give Aliens visiting us a good 0.000000001% chance
And I think I'm being very generous.
Looks like the "Aliens" really like the English speaking world too.
Just like the movies were they usually attack the USA.
Also some classic basic reasoning principles:
- Governements can't be trusted
- Governements aren't competent
- A bunch of Apes can't make sense of poorly shot videos
- There aren't enough collaborating data of the same event to establish decent conclusion
- We (Humans) aren't that interessing
- We (Humans) are pretty dumb
- There is plenty of things about Earth we don't understand
- History teaches us that we are pretty good at making stuff up until science explain it
Being a good Bayesian , I would give Aliens visiting us a good 0.000000001% chance
And I think I'm being very generous.
Looks like the "Aliens" really like the English speaking world too.
Just like the movies were they usually attack the USA.
Also some classic basic reasoning principles:
- Occam's razor: Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct; avoid unnecessary or improbable assumptions.
- Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hitchens's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Hume's guillotine: What ought to be cannot be deduced from what is. "If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect."
- Alder's razor: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.
- Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- Popper's falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.
- Grice's razor: As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations.
Last edited:
INC
Member
Here is my take on it.
- Governements can't be trusted
- Governements aren't competent
- A bunch of Apes can't make sense of poorly shot videos
- There aren't enough collaborating data of the same event to establish decent conclusion
- We (Humans) aren't that interessing
- We (Humans) are pretty dumb
- There is plenty of things about Earth we don't understand
- History teaches us that we are pretty good at making stuff up until science explain it
Being a good Bayesian , I would give Aliens visiting us a good 0.000000001% chance
And I think I'm being very generous.
Looks like the "Aliens" really like the English speaking world too.
Just like the movies were they usually attack the USA.
Also some classic basic reasoning principles:
- Occam's razor: Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct; avoid unnecessary or improbable assumptions.
- Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hitchens's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Hume's guillotine: What ought to be cannot be deduced from what is. "If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect."
- Alder's razor: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.
- Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- Popper's falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.
- Grice's razor: As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations.
Yeh but Bob Lazar built a rocket powered Honda.......case closed
You could also argue, that its mainly more developed countries reporting it, access to technology (cameras, phones, the internet). Whats the stats from 2013-2021, most countries have caught up now
Last edited:
StormCell
Member
Here is my take on it.
- Governements can't be trusted
- Governements aren't competent
- A bunch of Apes can't make sense of poorly shot videos
- There aren't enough collaborating data of the same event to establish decent conclusion
- We (Humans) aren't that interessing
- We (Humans) are pretty dumb
- There is plenty of things about Earth we don't understand
- History teaches us that we are pretty good at making stuff up until science explain it
Being a good Bayesian , I would give Aliens visiting us a good 0.000000001% chance
And I think I'm being very generous.
Looks like the "Aliens" really like the English speaking world too.
Just like the movies were they usually attack the USA.
Also some classic basic reasoning principles:
- Occam's razor: Simpler explanations are more likely to be correct; avoid unnecessary or improbable assumptions.
- Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hitchens's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Hume's guillotine: What ought to be cannot be deduced from what is. "If the cause, assigned for any effect, be not sufficient to produce it, we must either reject that cause, or add to it such qualities as will give it a just proportion to the effect."
- Alder's razor: If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.
- Sagan standard: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- Popper's falsifiability principle: For a theory to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable.
- Grice's razor: As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations.
I think that you don't even recognize some flaws in your thinking. There's so much anti-christian dogma in the humanist circles (apparently) that humans can't even be praised or spoken highly of for some reason. I talk a good bit about the human race being dumb and how I'm stuck on a rock full of really dumb intelligent critters.... but that's that and it stops there. In any sort of serious conversation you can't assume that human beings are not incredibly smart or incredibly interesting. We're the only thing like ourselves so far. We're studying stars by the hundreds and building complex models of solar systems and planets to figure out what the prospects are for finding more life out there. One week, we talk about how the earth can't be special and thousands of worlds out there and such, and then the next week a study is published showing a mathematical model or simulation that suggests this planet earth may be only one of two planets in the entire milkyway galaxy that orbits a star capable of providing it the solar radiation required to create the biosphere we have. There may, in fact, only be one other possible planet out of thousands of solar systems in this galaxy with a similar biosphere.
Lifeforms such as ourselves are going to be more rare than common. Fewer than 1% of planets, I would wager. Any other-wordly visitor may be filled with joy and hope at finally locating us. We may be the only neighbors they've found among a thousand planets.
This doesn't limit the possibility of alien life, but it could have dire implications for any life as we know it. Dreams of an Earth 2 just got a lot further away if holes can't be punched in that study.
That map would also seem to suggest internet availability and access to the modern world. How much data would you expect to get out of desert Australia or third world India with its limited access to electricity? China and Russia are separate cases from the rest. Mostly I think that other cultures aren't looking to the sky expecting to see aircraft from another world. They may see angels or gods instead.
Last edited:
INC
Member
1% of all planets, in what? The known universe? that'll still be an number I can't even fathom, or type
Ballthyrm
Member
Saying we are Dumb as a species doesn't take away anything you've said.
It's not a either-or situation.
We can be incredibly unique , smartest species on the planet , all that jazz, and incredibly dumb at the same time.
Most of the population is incredibly dumb by our own standard, as George Carlin said, take your average American and now think that 50% of the population is dumber than that.
My position if anything is agnostic. Just waiting for strong evidence to be shown.
As for your long explanation you've just described the process of Science.
It stumbles, it makes progress until it doesn't, It doesn't have to make sense to you or anybody.
And we are just following along, pushed foward by the 0.1% of Humans who actually know what they are doing.
StormCell
Member
That sentence suggests that I'm speaking of our galaxy and i'm referring to complex life such as ourselves. Fewer than 1% can mean 0.1% or 0.01% or even less. 1 in 1,000. 1 in 10,000. I keep thinking that there will be just gobs of edge case types where the star isn't necessarily the source of radiation needed but some other sources provide a substitute radiation to allow life a way to evolve and for a biosphere to exist. The only way we're going to get those answers is to launch probes and take the deep plunge on some of Saturn's moons. Even then, it's not the same as getting direct observational data from some of the prospect worlds orbiting red dwarf stars where the solar radiation might not be sufficient.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked