Support NeoGAF

Cyber Caesar · Jan 1, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B__akc_6710

I believe these events took place and kept from the public to prevent civil unrest. The evidence here for interplanetary visitation is overwhelming.

Ubername · Jan 1, 2018

I for one agree.

jufonuk · Jan 1, 2018

Hello and welcome.

Meus may be gone but you may take his place.

Who is the new Kharvey?

But here is how it will go,
YouTube vids , docs etc.

Then the people saying no

More evidence from higher ups (gov officials , declassified docs)

More skeptics

Little while later thread closed

infinitys_7th · Jan 1, 2018

Cyber Caesar said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B__akc_6710

I believe these events took place and kept from the public to prevent civil unrest. The evidence here for interplanetary visitation is overwhelming.

No, this is not evidence for "interplanetary visitation", merely evidence of an unknown phenomenon displaying intelligence and interest in our world-ending capabilities.

Both sides immediately jump to "aliens" for no particular reason when the subject of UFOs comes up. The true ETH believers jump on anything odd as being evidence of alien visitation, and the equally simple-minded skeptics use those claims to handwave away these occurrences and shame anyone interested in them.

The whole framing of the conversation as being about whether aliens are visiting the Earth is detrimental to the conversation - no one can talk about anything without some true believer ranting about space brothers or some smug skeptic prattling on about "flocks of birds" explaining a radar-tracked object near instantly accelerating to Mach 5 (as happened with the 2004 Navy incident).

On further thought, maybe the entire reason the "alien visitation" meme exists is to be detrimental to the conversation. Maybe whatever is actually behind this phenomenon realized how readily people will ignore a stigmatized subject and engineered a way to stigmatize the subject to help keep itself hidden. Suppose that whatever is just a small separate human civilization which has much more advanced technology that we do (even 100 years could be significant, especially if they hit singularity). They could stage a few abductions using their technology, maybe instigate a few sightings, maybe even fake a crash or two, to generate and reinforce the "alien visitation" meme within the predominant society. This would be beneficial to them staying hidden.

Atrus · Jan 1, 2018

Cyber Caesar said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B__akc_6710

I believe these events took place and kept from the public to prevent civil unrest. The evidence here for interplanetary visitation is overwhelming.

All carefully assembled lies to distract us fellow humans from the petty human politics that take up all of your soon to be inconsequential lives.
There are no Aliens and they have not infiltrated every political office and armed agency on your world. If there were any "Aliens", it would already be too late as our agenda to terraform your planet would be beyond your feeble attempts to stop it.

Sosokrates · Jan 1, 2018

This stuff is as good as an x files episode. Haha

Pomerlaw · Jan 2, 2018

infinitys_7th said:
No, this is not evidence for "interplanetary visitation", merely evidence of an unknown phenomenon displaying intelligence and interest in our world-ending capabilities.

Both sides immediately jump to "aliens" for no particular reason when the subject of UFOs comes up. The true ETH believers jump on anything odd as being evidence of alien visitation, and the equally simple-minded skeptics use those claims to handwave away these occurrences and shame anyone interested in them.

The whole framing of the conversation as being about whether aliens are visiting the Earth is detrimental to the conversation - no one can talk about anything without some true believer ranting about space brothers or some smug skeptic prattling on about "flocks of birds" explaining a radar-tracked object near instantly accelerating to Mach 5 (as happened with the 2004 Navy incident).

On further thought, maybe the entire reason the "alien visitation" meme exists is to be detrimental to the conversation. Maybe whatever is actually behind this phenomenon realized how readily people will ignore a stigmatized subject and engineered a way to stigmatize the subject to help keep itself hidden. Suppose that whatever is just a small separate human civilization which has much more advanced technology that we do (even 100 years could be significant, especially if they hit singularity). They could stage a few abductions using their technology, maybe instigate a few sightings, maybe even fake a crash or two, to generate and reinforce the "alien visitation" meme within the predominant society. This would be beneficial to them staying hidden.

Man your theory is harder to believe than aliens lol

The burden of proof is still on people who think this is intelligent manifestation. I'm open minded by not so my brain falls off. I'm still skeptical of the whole thing.

infinitys_7th · Jan 2, 2018

Pomerlaw said:
Man your theory is harder to believe than aliens lol

Not really. It is about as likely as these craft being secret military technology. Perhaps they broke off early in the 19th/20th century and advanced just a little quicker. We would not necessary know, especially if they operated in the oceans (which would block a lot of their EM signature).

The burden of proof is still on people who think this is intelligent manifestation. I'm open minded by not so my brain falls off. I'm still skeptical of the whole thing.

You mean the sighted and radar detect objects the navy investigated that could:

1. Quickly ascend/descend 80,000 ft
2. Withstand entering water at high velocities
3. Speed up to Mach 5 virtually near-instantly to beat fighter jets back to their rendezvous point

are not indicative of some kind of advanced technology? There is something there at least that is able to negate drag forces, and the acceleration documented by both radar and sightings is not possible with current technology.

The burden of proof is on you to debunk the recorded evidence. Claiming eyewitness testimony is unreliable is insufficient when there is corroborating radar and video evidence, and potentially materials as well. Eyewitness testimony in the context of a court is unreliable because witnesses were often in mundane or emotionally tense settings when they bore witness. That does not really apply to people who are sent to investigate, or else we may as well throw out all of observational biology.

The first three theories I saw put forward on a skeptics forum for the 2004 Navy encounter were:

1. The pilots saw flocks of birds (debunked as birds cannot fly at Mach 5 and are unlikely to randomly crawl to a predetermined rendezvous point).
2. The video is of some kind of lens flare (debunked as lens flare obviously cannot cause radar readings).
3. The pilots saw a large commercial plane as in the Chilean sighting (debunked as planes do not hover over the ocean close enough to cause surf).

The best mundane theory I have seen is that this was some kind of missile launch test, but the accelerations observed are not possible for a missile, and the reason why they investigated the area in the first place is because of objects dropping from/ascending to 80,000 ft.

The worst theory put forward is was that this is some kind of conspiracy, which is humorously ironic.

TBH, what I notice so often is that a lot of the skeptical theories put forward explain bits and parts of these sort of phenomenon well, but with complex incidents like the 2004 incident the mundane explanations become insufficient by themselves.

Azelover · Jan 2, 2018

I love it how people just assume it's extra terrestrial because of the conditioning, and all the movies.

It's not extra terrestrial, it's inter dimensional.

The rabbit hole is really deep on this, and I frankly don't recommend messing with it. But it's not what you think.

You can always be skeptical, even when the thing is right in front of you, skepticism can be endless. You can even be skeptical about the color of the sky if you want. But in case that phenomenon isn't false, I'm 100% sure it originates right here on Earth, just on a different frequency.

Atrus said:
All carefully assembled lies to distract us fellow humans from the petty human politics that take up all of your soon to be inconsequential lives.
There are no Aliens and they have not infiltrated every political office and armed agency on your world. If there were any "Aliens", it would already be too late as our agenda to terraform your planet would be beyond your feeble attempts to stop it.

Very interesting. You know, people will always be human because what really defines us is the soul. An Alien cannot take the soul from you easily, so even if it did infiltrate your being, the soul would still define you. I think that's been happening a lot actually, not only to people in power but just regular people nowadays. And you wouldn't know because the soul still defines them, they're pretty much the same people regardless. I'm not making any allegations but just enquiring a thought.

Maybe these beings have taken a part in creating us, and perhaps have every right to infiltrate society if they want, or need to. There are number of things that suggest this might have been how we came about. Could be BS, could be true. I think the most important thing is to recognize what's right and carry it out. The meaning of life is to give, and also receive. We are constantly exchaging energy with other humans and beings, and that's all we need to do. We weren't born to know everything, and frankly some things are better left untouched.

Mohonky · Jan 2, 2018

This stuff stirs up the imagination.

I alwats err on the side of caution with this sort of stuff as far as credibility of witnesses etc, but its always interesting to see.

Razorback · Jan 2, 2018

What would the world look like if those claims were true? And how would that world differ from one where people simply lie or have false or misunderstood perceptions?

Given the available evidence, which one is more likely?

infinitys_7th · Jan 2, 2018

Razorback PT said:
What would the world look like if those claims were true? And how would that world differ from one where people simply lie or have false or misunderstood perceptions?

Given the available evidence, which one is more likely?

Given that one of the pieces of available evidence is that, in the 2004 incident, one of these object apparently intercepted radio transmissions and flew directly to a rendezvous point before fighter jets could reach that point, it is rational to rule out any kind of natural phenomenon.

How likely is it that a natural object like a meteor or flock of birds would randomly arrive at a specific point in that situation? How likely is it that that a natural object has all the characteristics seen in the 2004 incident? We know of no large natural objects that can ascend and descend at least 60,000 ft, let alone near instantly accelerate to Mach 5 in an atmosphere in a direction perpendicular to their ascent/descent.

So right off the bat, it has to be artificial. Who designed it is not something we can determine from the given information, unfortunately. It could be a military holographic simulation similar to Project Blue Beam. It could be secret craft developed by the military. It could be some kind of secret missile that can accelerate like nothing else we have. It could be a breakaway human civilization that has more advanced technology than the main human civilization. Another indigenous intelligent species is unlikely due to the fossil record, although I think an aquatic species is possible. Aliens are much more unlikely because of the low chance of us actually being found; we cannot even be detected beyond roughly 100 LY out from the Earth due to our EM history. Regardless, the deep ocean is a great place for any of those groups to hide - they have access to cold water as a heat sink for engineering, geothermal energy, minerals in the sea floor, and the ocean above to block most of their EM signature.

Razorback · Jan 2, 2018

infinitys_7th said:
Given that one of the pieces of available evidence is that, in the 2004 incident, one of these object apparently intercepted radio transmissions and flew directly to a rendezvous point before fighter jets could reach that point, it is rational to rule out any kind of natural phenomenon.

How likely is it that a natural object like a meteor or flock of birds would randomly arrive at a specific point in that situation? How likely is it that that a natural object has all the characteristics seen in the 2004 incident? We know of no large natural objects that can ascend and descend at least 60,000 ft, let alone near instantly accelerate to Mach 5 in an atmosphere in a direction perpendicular to their ascent/descent.

So right off the bat, it has to be artificial. Who designed it is not something we can determine from the given information, unfortunately. It could be a military holographic simulation similar to Project Blue Beam. It could be secret craft developed by the military. It could be some kind of secret missile that can accelerate like nothing else we have. It could be a breakaway human civilization that has more advanced technology than the main human civilization. Another indigenous intelligent species is unlikely due to the fossil record, although I think an aquatic species is possible. Aliens are much more unlikely because of the low chance of us actually being found; we cannot even be detected beyond roughly 100 LY out from the Earth due to our EM history. Regardless, the deep ocean is a great place for any of those groups to hide - they have access to cold water as a heat sink for engineering, geothermal energy, minerals in the sea floor, and the ocean above to block most of their EM signature.

I haven't really watched the video and I'm not going to. Million to one chance coincidences happen every day. And conspiracy documentaries or programs have a tendency to omit information and outright make shit up. I don't have the time to give each one a fair shake.

Did the pilot see something weird? Sure, but if no one knows what it was and have no further means to find out then that's that. No one knows what it was, end of story.
You can't start assigning probabilities to explanations like that's relevant information.
Maybe it's aliens, maybe it's a secret military experiment, maybe it's an intelligent ocean civilization, maybe it's god, maybe it's one of a large number of boring explanations that in no way excite the human imagination. I mean the list of things it could be is literally infinite.

The world is extremely complex and human cognitive bias and irrational thinking permeates every aspect of our lives, myself included. Besides the vast amount of just outright liars out there, I understand enough psychology to have a solid grasp of how conspiracy thinking works. We can find patterns and meaning in everything, white noise, clouds, and unrelated events.
We should all be very careful in choosing the sources we trust to explain the world to us.
We have no choice but to trust experts, we can't possibly go around falsifying every claim ourselves. But experts are often wrong, so that's why it's important to understand how cognitive biases affect us so we can make careful choices on what experts to really listen to.

If there was serious evidence out there, it would have already been looked at by serious people. Real scientists and rational thinkers. Having read a good amount of their work, I believe I have a solid grasp on how these people think and what values they hold, and it makes me doubt very much that they would all stay away from the subject for fear of ridicule or something else.

The truth is they have looked at it, and found nothing.

That doesn't mean I believe for sure those stories are false. It only means I assign a much higher probability that people that take the scientific method seriously are right compared to some guy on youtube or the History Channel doing it's best to ruin the critical thinking faculties of its audience for a quick buck.

infinitys_7th · Jan 2, 2018

Razorback PT said:
I haven't really watched the video and I'm not going to. Million to one chance coincidences happen every day. And conspiracy documentaries or programs have a tendency to omit information and outright make shit up. I don't have the time to give each one a fair shake.

Not my problem you are dogmatically closed-minded. I've encountered Baptists who are the same with evolution.

This was not a "conspiracy show" - it was pilot testimony with corroborating radar and video data investigating reports of similar activity.

Did the pilot see something weird? Sure, but if no one knows what it was and have no further means to find out then that's that. No one knows what it was, end of story.

You are diminishing the evidence. The pilot and radar and camera saw "something weird". And we do know what it was - some large, white, cigar-shaped object which was capable of rapidly ascending, intercepting radio transmissions to figure out where a rendezvous point was, and accelerating to Mach 5 near instantly based on the radar timeline. The object had those properties. What natural phenomenon has those properties?

You can't start assigning probabilities to explanations like that's relevant information.
Maybe it's aliens, maybe it's a secret military experiment, maybe it's an intelligent ocean civilization, maybe it's god, maybe it's one of a large number of boring explanations that in no way excite the human imagination. I mean the list of things it could be is literally infinite.

I never assigned probabilities - I merely debunked the skeptical explanations and put forward some other explanations which fit the data better. The "bird flock" explanation and the "lens flare" explanation in particular were as laughable as creationist science about dinosaurs.

The world is extremely complex and human cognitive bias and irrational thinking permeates every aspect of our lives, myself included. Besides the vast amount of just outright liars out there, I understand enough psychology to have a solid grasp of how conspiracy thinking works. We can find patterns and meaning in everything, white noise, clouds, and unrelated events. We should all be very careful in choosing the sources we trust to explain the world to us

So why are fanatical skeptics not as guilty of cognitive bias as true believers? The oft-mentioned "lens flare" explanation for thr 2004 incident is as idiotic as "aliens did it".

We have no choice but to trust experts, we can't possibly go around falsifying every claim ourselves. But experts are often wrong, so that's why it's important to understand how cognitive biases affect us so we can make careful choices on what experts to really listen to.

If there was serious evidence out, it would have already been looked at by serious people. Real scientists and rational thinkers. Having read a good amount of their work, I believe I have a solid grasp on how these people think and what values they hold, and it makes me doubt very much that they would all stay away from the subject for fear of ridicule or something else.

Then you have a fairly poor grasp of the politics of science.

The truth is they have looked at it, and found nothing.

How does one look at a transient, unrepeatable phenomenon? An expert "looking" at something requires experimentation.

They have access to the same data I do, unless they have some classified materials to which they are privy. In which case, "found nothing" is more likely to be "can say nothing".

That doesn't mean I believe for sure those stories are false. It only means I assign a much higher probability that people that take the scientific method seriously are right compared to some guy on youtube or the History Channel doing it's best to ruin the critical thinking faculties of its audience for a quick buck.

I do not assign probabilities to these explanations, and I am incapable of doing it. So are experts.

I look at properties and say "Oh, something large entered the water at high velocity and did not get obliterated. Something must be negating drag and other forces for that to happen."

I look at properties and say "Oh, something ascended 60,000 to near space altitude. That's not a flock of birds."

I look at properties and say "Oh, something large accelerated to Mach 5 in less than a second. Where did the energy come from for that?"

And I look at corroborating radar data and laugh my ass off at anyone who thinks that it is related to "lens flare".

golfham · Jan 2, 2018

infinitys_7th said:
Not really. It is about as likely as these craft being secret military technology. Perhaps they broke off early in the 19th/20th century and advanced just a little quicker. We would not necessary know, especially if they operated in the oceans (which would block a lot of their EM signature).

You mean the sighted and radar detect objects the navy investigated that could:

1. Quickly ascend/descend 80,000 ft
2. Withstand entering water at high velocities
3. Speed up to Mach 5 virtually near-instantly to beat fighter jets back to their rendezvous point

are not indicative of some kind of advanced technology? There is something there at least that is able to negate drag forces, and the acceleration documented by both radar and sightings is not possible with current technology.

The burden of proof is on you to debunk the recorded evidence. Claiming eyewitness testimony is unreliable is insufficient when there is corroborating radar and video evidence, and potentially materials as well. Eyewitness testimony in the context of a court is unreliable because witnesses were often in mundane or emotionally tense settings when they bore witness. That does not really apply to people who are sent to investigate, or else we may as well throw out all of observational biology.

The first three theories I saw put forward on a skeptics forum for the 2004 Navy encounter were:

1. The pilots saw flocks of birds (debunked as birds cannot fly at Mach 5 and are unlikely to randomly crawl to a predetermined rendezvous point).
2. The video is of some kind of lens flare (debunked as lens flare obviously cannot cause radar readings).
3. The pilots saw a large commercial plane as in the Chilean sighting (debunked as planes do not hover over the ocean close enough to cause surf).

The best mundane theory I have seen is that this was some kind of missile launch test, but the accelerations observed are not possible for a missile, and the reason why they investigated the area in the first place is because of objects dropping from/ascending to 80,000 ft.

The worst theory put forward is was that this is some kind of conspiracy, which is humorously ironic.

TBH, what I notice so often is that a lot of the skeptical theories put forward explain bits and parts of these sort of phenomenon well, but with complex incidents like the 2004 incident the mundane explanations become insufficient by themselves.

I remember the first time I smoked weed, too.

zerotol · Jan 2, 2018

Tom Delonge is amongst us.

Azelover · Jan 3, 2018

Razorback PT said:
I haven't really watched the video and I'm not going to. Million to one chance coincidences happen every day. And conspiracy documentaries or programs have a tendency to omit information and outright make shit up.

Yeah, that's true. But it is that way for pretty much anything, information is always omitted.

You can believe anything you want, and you'll always find a ton of things to back it up. If you don't believe it, chances are you don't want to, for whatever reason.

Even what is taught in school has omitted information and outright made up stuff, quite a lot actually. You believe it because you want to. That's the nature of things.

LookAtMeGo · Jan 3, 2018

I knew it

MidgarBlowedUp · Jan 4, 2018

Journalist Annie Jacobsen interviewed someone that worked at groom lake. That person claimed that alien bodies recovered from Roswell were actually 13 year-old Soviet pilots who had been the victims of eugenics experiments. The saucers were either disc shaped or planes with metallic parts over them to resemble flying discs. The goal was to overload the US air defense systems.

Just a neat tidbit of info.

sono · Jan 6, 2018

I want to believe

but when do we get past blury images for full HD?

Support NeoGAF

UFO's and Nukes

Member

Banned

not tag worthy

Member

Gold Member

Report me if I continue to console war

Member

Member

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads