QSD
Member
I'd be interested to see some kind of poll of the general population to see if people actually would like these UAPs to be aliens, vs people that do not want that
I'm pretty sure it's gonna be close to 50-50
-
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 pretty sure it's gonna be close to 50-50
Razorback
Member
I'm not saying the kind of people you are describing don't exist. But I've never met any.
In my experience, people who want to believe are pretty common. I used to be one so I know what that feels like.
Airola
Member
Comforting and "don't panic" are your words though. You have no evidence he does this to comfort anyone.
It's like saying James Randi likes to debunk claimed supernatural powers because he wants to comfort people that there is no supernatural existence, god or whatever.
These debunkers usually just want to find the truth behind things that happen. And sometimes they want to stop charlatans scamming people with nonsense. If there is a possibility that what we have been shown in the news actually really is just birds and planes and things like that, and that there are ways to prove or at least make that a viable possibility, then these people would probably want to clear the misconceptions so that news shows, and the government and the senate etc, would use their time in more important things.
The fact just is that a lot of things are explainable by ordinary explanations.
I would say that a lot of people who you might claim want to see explanations out of fear and panic of the unknown are probably just not interested in getting scammed and fooled in one way or another. They might even want to believe it was all real alien stuff, but they just don't want to be fooled by stupid things. For me personally it would be amazing if there really was some triangle alien spacecraft flying around, but I'm not interested in getting fooled by an out of focus effect on a regular plane, or a bird minding its own business and flying around. And it becomes even more absurd when these things are shown in the news as if an alien spacecraft or even an enemy spy drone would be the most likely option. And I've seen enough "former this and that high person" claiming whatever to take their word without question.
Last edited:
StormCell
Member
Damn. What does it feel like to want to believe in aliens visiting Earth?
I have a great deal of concern on a variety of fronts. On one front, it's inconceivable to me that on a multi-trillion dollar defense budget we can't discern the differences between bokeh effects, birds, balloons, and commercial airlines from a potential foreign adversary. On a very similar front, I find it even more inconceivable that objects are making incursions into our airspace that we can't identify and the cases are dumped off on little known department on a shoe string couple million dollar budget to track and resolve. If something like this is really happening, and they say it is, I would expect they would have this as a top priority to resolve.
I have mixed feelings of concern and slight worry that we are, in fact, being visited (if visited is the right word for a long-term forward base with a potentially growing population of beings co-inhabiting your world) and they refuse to say hello or even acknowledge us. Something about that is a bit off and somewhat concerning. Someone that advanced, if they have any issue with us, could resolve said issue on their own almost too quickly. It's got to be unsettling if we're in this scenario.
And the reason why I opt to go straight to the idea of a base of some sort on our planet is because of the supposed frequency of craft encounters. Even if they're all drones, it seems increasingly likely that they their origin is somewhere nearby. Earth is as good a place as any to launch from, wouldn't you say?
Last edited:
Wheeljack539
Member
Keep in mind this was 1952:
And there still isn't a straight answer.
As others said pages ago, foo fighter reports during WWII. My own sighting was in the early 90s. These can't be drones if they are "ours". The battery life wasn't even close to being there in those times.
QSD
Member
There's a whole discussion to be had about the motivations of skeptics like James Randi. I'm pretty sure there's probably quite some ego involved, (e.g. OWNING people with FACTS and LOGIC avant-la-lettre) but I don't think you should outright dismiss the possibility that there's also a fair bit of fear of the unknown, and also a bit of tribal behaviour (e.g. camp science vs camp spirituality/new age/etc). Luckily through the scientific acceptance of the benefits of something like meditation, the camps are no longer as juxtaposed as they used to be. But man, a few years ago there was a talk with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, and Sam just had a hell of a time getting Richard to even show any interest in his more recent work around meditation. The anti-woo/anti-spirituality stance in science used to be real. Insofar as UFO's/UAP's are still counted as "woo" there is still going to be a lot of entrenchment on the science side.
Romulus
Member
Supernatural and various governments having UAP programs backed with data is a false equivalence.
There's no evidence Mick he's doing this purely for the good of the conversation either. So, what you're saying is simply an opinion also. With his knowledge, he could simply be taking softball pitches and debunking those. "Oh wow, this guy must be the source for information." But he ignores the more interesting conversations purposely for some reason. He diverts and steers the conversation toward his agenda. In the tic tac case, he basically said all the pilots were probably mistaken and that the video was also a plane. Four pilots claiming the same thing? That sort of omission doesn't sound like someone that wants to get to the bottom of something, it sounds like someone with an objective.
He takes an investigative stance yet tosses in radar data for good measure that "might" be this and that, yet ignores and doesn't even converse data supporting from radar techs that were involved with the incidents he 'debunked'. He's not interested in speed or G forces of these objects which are being studied by science because that's not what his viewers what to hear, and if he has to mention the unexplainable it comes with a laugh or berating or snarky "alien spacecraft" joke. That's not like someone open to all possilbities, and I don't think it's a stretch to assume his viewers are like-minded. All of them? No.
Last edited:
Razorback
Member
It feels pretty special. Like something amazing is about to happen on a galactic level and you'll get to see it.
Agreed, it is concerning.
If Aliens are here and they haven't destroyed us yet I consider that extremely positive news. It means a space-faring civilization has survived any great filters, meaning that doom is likely not in the cards for us as well. And they have taken an interest on us and shown no hostile intentions. The only reason they would hide is that they care about us or have strong values about not interfering.
Of course like you say, it would make more sense to just come out and say hello. That's why I don't buy the current scenario we have where they choose to hide, but they still mess up occasionally and we get glimpses of them. But never good enough glimpses to put the case to rest.
You mean drones from foreign countries to the US? Sure that's a perfectly plausible explanation.
StormCell
Member
No, I mean drones from an advanced foreign entity of the sort that may be extra-terrestrial but definitely not any of our known foreign adversaries.
I'm operating on the assumption that the things we're being told from verified former intelligence directors and the like are true and the pentagon has the evidence we're currently missing. This means that your scenario where the aliens are hiding but occasionally fail but we only ever get poor glimpses is out of play -- understood? For now we assume the US government has the incredible evidence of objects traveling 50,000 mph, doing 90 degree turns instantly without signs of inertial forces impacting it, and hitting the water at 50,000 mph without crash debris or any signs of the craft remaining. We assume they've got it, because this is what they're saying, you know what former president Obama is saying, and you know what former president Clinton is saying.
In the scenario where they don't have that evidence, it becomes something like a false flag -- right?
If we assume the objects are as they say, I believe they're not traveling from very far away due to the frequency of encounters. If they are coming from the moon, that's not improbable but then NASA should have loads of images. NASA is only now imploring its researchers to begin looking into the military's UAP encounters -- huh, that's rather interesting, yes? I think that if they're traveling here from Venus or Mars, we might occasionally see them on camera from our satellites and rovers, so again this would be NASA sitting on some very interesting stuff -- I just don't believe that for the moment.
So my hunch is that their origin and return destination must be somewhere on Earth. A base full of occupants with no known nationality who may or may not be originally from Earth. I don't think too far past this point because there's no more details for conjecture except folk tales and horror stories I've heard. It gets too fringe for me, but this is largely why I guess the objects are being launched somewhere on Earth and not a known adversary for the logical reasons. Basically, trust the Pentagon: neither Russia or China has aircraft moving at these speeds or performing these manuevers, because if they did we'd be watching them on the news pretty much every day as they take whatever they want.
Airola
Member
As a believer myself, I kinda like to think that Randi does what he does because deep down he is afraid of the prospect of God being real, but that's not really a good argument against him. Even if that was part of the reason he does what he does, there most likely are more valid reasons to that. What comes to his ego, sure I think that in general it's easy for people to have the "owning" attitude in debunking others with science. But I think that's just a "side-product" of what comes to some people when they get to explain why some claim is wrong. The core of the will to set things straight is still them wanting to know and show the truth.
Airola
Member
What actually is the data you speak of?
So far I've only seen claims of data and not anything we can study and observe ourselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there isn't any raw data to actually look at (instead of having someone just say this and that without nothing to show) how would he be able to implement that to the videos?
QSD
Member
Interesting comment... I was a bit surprised by the fear-of-god-being-real point (that's known to me as the "Peter Hitchens argument" because IIRC that's where I first encountered it) because it seems to me that if you can imagine that kind of fear being a motivating factor, then why is it hard to believe that someone might fear extraterrestrial beings that have god-like abilities/properties? I mean, the parallels are right there in some sci-fi, e.g. The Day the Earth Stood Still where an very powerful extraterrestrial being comes down, judges us and finds us wanting.
One of the biggest reasons I can imagine that would predispose people (in general, not necessarily scientists) to rejecting the idea of extraterrestrials is actually religious convictions. There's a lot of people out there (maybe you, too?) whose religious/philosophical framework would at least be rattled by the discovery that we are not alone in the universe.
But to get back to your argument: I would be skeptical if there is a "core of the will" to be found that you describe. I'm generally of the opinion that different motivations operate in parallel and together determine attitudes and behaviour. I'm sure Randi was at least partly motivated by truth, but am by no means certain that he has always deferred to that as being the ultimate goal. People are more complicated than that, generally.
Last edited:
Razorback
Member
I see. So if I understand correctly, many high-ranking people claim that the Pentagon is in possession of evidence that shows to a high degree of certainty vehicles moving in ways that defy known technology. In that case, the Aliens may suck at hiding but not in a way that is too conveniently close to how things would look if they didn't exist at all.
Well, I'll be waiting for the moment they share that evidence. And if they don't have it, would that mean they are purposefully lying to us? A false flag as you say? Maybe.
I don't rule out that many people there are just mistaken about these radar readings or eye witness encounters, whatever it is.
I saw someone make this analogy about a cat chasing a laser pointer. To the cat, it seems like he's chasing something that defies the laws of physics. It can instantly travel from point A to point B. Zigzag around incredibly fast, climb walls, move on the ceiling. And it always manages to escape, no matter how quick the cat's reflexes are like the red dot is made of some immaterial substance.
Is it inconceivable that these very serious people from the government are being duped by something as trivial as that?
Can't it just be that people are people and people make mistakes? Does it always have to be some nefarious ulterior motive?
StormCell
Member
This is going to feel like a cop out or appeal to a higher authority, but for ~$1.5T (or whatever the US defense budget is) it IS inconceivable that the very serious people from the government are mistaken, on numerous occasions, and are being duped by something as trivial as a Russian faux matter gun that can make fake mass appear in the sky and move about like a laser pointer.
And this has been happening for decades. The further back you go, the more you have to ask yourself how long someone can be duping these very serious people, right?
Airola
Member
I wrote that "I like to think" because that's how it is. I _like_ to think that would be the case, but that doesn't mean that actually is the case, or doesn't necessarily even mean that I believe that is the case. I just recognize that it's easy to think that if someone doesn't believe in something that I believe in, they don't want to believe because of fear or something like that. And that just isn't a good argument against anything because it doesn't address any actual points the other person has made.
As I've said in this thread before, I don't see extraterrestrials as something that go against any major religious belief. The Bible, Torah and Quran have all kinds of depictions of outside forces that are beyond our skills and strengths. Angels, demons, the Nephilim, all kinds of visions, people appearing from the skies and people going up to the skies. And the more people start to bring up theories about the extraterrestrials being from some other dimension or using dimensions as travel mechanism, and giving them skills like telepathy, the more they fit into current religious beliefs.
What comes to Randi and co., of course there is also the business side of things to them too. Once they know talking and writing about a certain thing can be profitable, part of it becomes something they do mostly for business. That goes to skeptics and believers of anything.
Razorback
Member
I didn't mean duped on purpose by other people\foreign goverments. Just duped by random coincidences, natural phenomena, bugs in the system.
QSD
Member
The point I was making is that I don't see a reason to questions the believers' motives especially, you can definitely also question the skeptics' motives. but I agree that overall arguing about motives will not get you very far.
Thanks for clarifying and agree on the last point
Liljagare
Member
I'd like to think that alot of people in this thread that discuss this, are actually smart people, but, it still doesn't sit well, that we still, do not have a smoking gun, after all of theese years of videos, and official videos even.
I think this is data that gives the wrong solution, just like this picture.
Where would you reinforce this aircraft that came back from a bombing mission, in order to make the next one survive too? As with this known problem, I think we are really jumping through hoops to make things exist that do not, if that makes sense.
I think this is data that gives the wrong solution, just like this picture.
Where would you reinforce this aircraft that came back from a bombing mission, in order to make the next one survive too? As with this known problem, I think we are really jumping through hoops to make things exist that do not, if that makes sense.
Romulus
Member
That these various governments have admitted they have recorded UAPs using different instruments, specifically radar and visual. But even if you, I, or Mick had the actual datasheet, does that mean it's gospel at that point? It would just look like a bunch of numbers. Here you go, a PDA with 100,000mph instant acceleration.
Mick himself is making a claim too, so why listen to him when he claims the same object is a balloon and then a flare? What gives him the credentials to be an expert in various fields? He was a video programmer with no experience on any of the instruments we're speaking of. Now he gets paid to go on CNN etc and has a following because he busted a few softball pitches.
But when it comes to the more compelling cases, he assumes more of a sniper behavior.
He does interviews, but selectively. Then he asks only questions that he can muddy the water and disparage claims by not even listening to him. "Did you really know the size of that craft if you didn't know the distance?" When 10 seconds earlier the pilot told him the distance.
Then he ignores the other pilots that were with him. Isolate, divide and conquer. He can't really bring in the radar operators because it then begins to paint a more comprehensive stance against his claims. At this point, you've got 5 experts in various fields with collaborating accounts. That doesn't seem intelligent to address if you're steering the narrative away from UFO to a plane.
The radar operator even by himself is difficult to dissect. The guy is just looking at data. Mick isn't stupid, he understands that layers of expert accounts are not just hot air, and it completely goes against his claim that it was some ordinary "plane" debunk. So yeah he's not going to do anything to conflict that. He's making it out like he wants the entire picture, but he's very selective.
So yeah, the softball pitches, Mick and others can make claims(some definitive) all day long, but they're very intelligent how they frame the more compelling cases. Let's be objective and get the whole story, but also be sure to leave out stuff that isn't self-serving.
Last edited:
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
I'd like to think that alot of people in this thread that discuss this, are actually smart people, but, it still doesn't sit well, that we still, do not have a smoking gun, after all of theese years of videos, and official videos even.
I think this is data that gives the wrong solution, just like this picture.
Where would you reinforce this aircraft that came back from a bombing mission, in order to make the next one survive too? As with this known problem, I think we are really jumping through hoops to make things exist that do not, if that makes sense.
StormCell
Member
I would say that's not even in the ballpark of possible unless everyone speaking up now is lying. That's more far-fetched than a new type of matter that shoots through skies at 50,000 mph or alien visitors. At this point, anyway.
StormCell
Member
You are jumping the gun by assuming that what's happening right now with former intelligence officials speaking up has been happening for "all these years." The official videos we've gotten are weak compared to what we're being told the Pentagon isn't releasing. The report coming this month won't divulge anything they don't want the public to see. The big deal of that report is an admittance that objects are flying through our airspace that we don't know what they are -- that should always be a big deal in this post 9/11 world.
Your claim that we're trying to make things exist that don't falls flat next to real authorities telling us these objects do exist and they're unidentifiable.
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
New telescope detects 'hundreds' more mysterious radio bursts from space
A new telescope has detected 'hundreds' of mysterious radio bursts from space, prompting a string of theories about where they're coming from that run from the mundane to the astonishing. Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are very short but very intense pulses of radio waves which were first discovered...
Damn, aliens not even trying to hide anymore eh?
SirKicksalot
Member
Most of this thread when it finally happens
I'd like to think that alot of people in this thread that discuss this, are actually smart people, but, it still doesn't sit well, that we still, do not have a smoking gun, after all of theese years of videos, and official videos even.
I think this is data that gives the wrong solution, just like this picture.
Where would you reinforce this aircraft that came back from a bombing mission, in order to make the next one survive too? As with this known problem, I think we are really jumping through hoops to make things exist that do not, if that makes sense.
That image is indisputable proof that the people in charge can be idiots running on autopilot.
Liljagare
Member
Almost what I meant.
StormCell
Member
INC
Member
Just found out Mick West made the tony hawk games
How do you know it was a hawk? , could of been a balloon
noonjam
Member
Sam Harris
Are We Alone in the Universe?
A Conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sam's latest podcast, mentions again the contact he had with some governmental or ex government official, about what is coming around the 45 min mark and later in the show as well.
56 min mark
Are We Alone in the Universe?
A Conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sam's latest podcast, mentions again the contact he had with some governmental or ex government official, about what is coming around the 45 min mark and later in the show as well.
56 min mark
Last edited:
QSD
Member
AFAIK Sam not one to tell tall tales.
QSD
Member
Sam Harris is one of the "4 horsemen", 4 prominent atheists (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett) that became famous in the early oughts, campaigning against religious influence in politics and education. After that crusade died down, Sam became a "public intellectual" on the internet, with a highly regarded podcast and a meditation app.
QSD
Member
He recently did a series of podcasts with Ricky Gervais that might be up your alleySo another Peterson type character....I mean...using words I dont understand, or how the context even works lol
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
56 minute mark? It's only 52 minutes, or do I have to pay?!
noonjam
Member
It's a long podcast.
Listen To Waking Up with Sam Harris - Subscriber Content Podcast Online At PodParadise.com
Join neuroscientist, philosopher, and best-selling author Sam Harris as he explores important and controversial questions about the human mind, society, and current events. Sam Harris is the author o…
www.podparadise.com
QSD
Member
Yeah he paywalls the last 30 minutes of his podcast
INC
Member
Coolwhhip
Neophyte
It's a long podcast.
Listen To Waking Up with Sam Harris - Subscriber Content Podcast Online At PodParadise.com
Join neuroscientist, philosopher, and best-selling author Sam Harris as he explores important and controversial questions about the human mind, society, and current events. Sam Harris is the author o…
Thanks, you can listen for free there?
ManaByte
Gold Member
The stuff about the Zoom call is interesting. Maybe that NY Times article was a PSY-Op to help prevent panic.
MMaRsu
Banned
Romulus
Member
Eric W. Davis, Ph.D is a research physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies-Austin and EarthTech International, and is also the CEO of Warp Drive Metrics(now in Austin, TX). He contracts with and consults to the Air Force Research Laboratory/Propulsion Directorate-Propellants Branch and the Department of Defense. During 1996–2002 he was with the National Institute for Discovery Science in Las Vegas, NV where he served as the staff Aerospace/Astro-Physics researcher. He also participated in and consulted to the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, and co-founded the Advanced Deep Space Transport Technology Assessment (Breakthrough Propulsion Physics) Group at NASA-JSC.
I'm wondering if the way he frames these answers keeps him safe because much of the stuff he's saying could be interpreted differently. A crash could mean foreign power Earth technology and the occupants could be interpreted as Russians/Chinese etc, but he's just framing it in a clever way where he can't get in trouble and it also sends the message.
I'm wondering if the way he frames these answers keeps him safe because much of the stuff he's saying could be interpreted differently. A crash could mean foreign power Earth technology and the occupants could be interpreted as Russians/Chinese etc, but he's just framing it in a clever way where he can't get in trouble and it also sends the message.
Last edited:
- Status