UFOs?

[Pags]

The fact that we have a Tic-Tac gap really stinks.

Mr President, we must not allow a tic tac gap!

 

[Jim123]

 

[Flash]

So if there is some advanced threat out there that the IC is either ignoring or knows about but is failing to adequately investigate, then we are at risk of another failure to warn - which I think would be a bigger deal than 9/11 or Iraq WMD.

For someone who supposedly should know better maybe you ought to heed Pags says.

What makes you think they (IC) aren't tracking this, aware of, etc? If they were and it was within the norm of existing technologies why would they say anything and reveal their hand?

 

[Mirage]

If it was actions of a red team that align to a threat or some such why would that become public knowledge?

That's my point, it wouldn't become public knowledge, because that could potentially reveal our weaknesses. So why, then, did they release the footage and pictures and say they're investigating it. To me, that alone makes it very unlikely it was any sort of red team explanation (though no less likely than that it was a near peer competitor, corporation, or ET).
And to the tic tac gap point, I'd be utterly shocked it Trump was sitting on such a gap and not using it to boost the budget himself. Not to mention he'd paint it as a failure of Obama in letting the gap develop and another reason we need to reelect him.

 

[Pags]

That's my point, it wouldn't become public knowledge, because that could potentially reveal our weaknesses. So why, then, did they release the footage and pictures and say they're investigating it. To me, that alone makes it very unlikely it was any sort of red team explanation (though no less likely than that it was a near peer competitor, corporation, or ET).
And to the tic tac gap point, I'd be utterly shocked it Trump was sitting on such a gap and not using it to boost the budget himself. Not to mention he'd paint it as a failure of Obama in letting the gap develop and another reason we need to reelect him.

See, that's the most likely explanation...because the DOD released it the pros from dover have looked at and said "meh, whatevs, it's just random drones/balloons/crap." But we can't take that answer because it makes us seem close minded ?

 

[Mirage]

See, that's the most likely explanation...because the DOD released it the pros from dover have looked at and said "meh, whatevs, it's just random drones/balloons/crap." But we can't take that answer because it makes us seem close minded ?

If they looked at these events and ID'd them as insignificant, then why create a fake task force to study it, led by a deputy SECDEF, then release the videos and pretend like they could be significant? Especially when the playbook for our entire history has been to simply say "it was such and such mundane phenomenon." Not to mention committing billions of dollars to study the possibility of foreign life and making it a key objective of NASA.

Maybe you're right and there's some reason that I'm missing, and as I said I agree with you that that is still more likely than that it's ET. But it doesn't make enough sense to stop the conversation and think you know the answer. Plus, it's more fun to keep it going

 

[Hair Warrior]

Some people say that the Navy has the technology for a hybrid underwater aerospace vehicle that uses a mass reduction device for propulsion...

Google Patents

Search and read the full text of patents from around the world with Google Patents, and find prior art in our index of non-patent literature.

patents.google.com

(“Some people” being NAVAIR’s lead technologist on behalf of SECNAV)

 

[nittany03]

Testimony from people like Luis Elizondo, Rob Lazar, Governor of Arizona...just to name a few, makes you wonder what motive would be behind lying about claims of ET visitation/crashes/technology etc. Is the alien merch/conspiracy market that profitable or beneficial to ones reputation to make it worthwhile?

Sigh . . .

 

[Sonog]

Completely agree, but as I said in a previous post, we also shouldn't rule out legitimate possibilities until we can establish facts that allow us to. In this case, we are far from a shred of evidence, let alone facts. If you close your mind off to legitimate possibilities, or pass off assumptions as facts and label anything else as the ramblings of crazy conspiracy theorists, you risk making the same mistake some of the brightest minds in history made when they assumed we were the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that you couldn't break the sound barrier (RIP Chuck), etc etc.

Right, and I am saying elusive ETs are not a legitimate possibility.

 

[nittany03]

If you close your mind off to legitimate possibilities, or pass off assumptions as facts and label anything else as the ramblings of crazy conspiracy theorists, you risk making the same mistake some of the brightest minds in history made when they assumed we were the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that you couldn't break the sound barrier (RIP Chuck), etc etc.

The known atheists of AWs may chuckle to watch my believing ass quote Carl Sagan, but he definitely applies here regardless. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Flat earthers aren't taken seriously in science because there is extraordinary evidence which can prove that they're wrong. Galileo has been proven right via extraordinary evidence, to the point where Pope Saint John Paul II formally apologized for his predecessors' treatment of him. We know the "sound barrier" isn't a thing because of the work of aerodynamicists over the last half century, which has produced detailed extraordinary evidence via wind tunnels and test results in the cockpit.

Meanwhile, you're trying to throw so-called "evidence" up of little green men which is nothing but a string of anecdotes, and then scoff at people who won't believe your proof. I, at least, understand that my personal belief is just that . . . a faith. I choose to believe what I believe about the universe and what is beyond it in the absence of formal proof, because I have to decide what I believe in the realm of what can't be proven. I don't disparage people who believe differently, because I believe we'll all get the fairest of fair shots in The Great LFE Debrief That Ends It All. And I also fully understand that I can't PROVE dick. That's why it's called a "faith." And it's why I don't insert my personal faith in purely scientific questions, unlike some less-educated people.

So if your religious belief includes UFOs, that's cool. You may be right. I don't know, and neither does anyone else; we're all taking our best guess. But don't conflate that with science. Science has its limits, which are more limited than the internet IFLS crowd might want to believe, but it's damn good at what it does inside its limits.

To quote Sagan again . . . "the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

 

[Jim123]

quote Carl Sagan

I quote the Guide, for the Oddest Thing in the Universe (2:06... and 2:50)

 

[nittany03]

I quote the Guide, for the Oddest Thing in the Universe (2:06... and 2:50)

"Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sorts of parties."

 

[Mirage]

The known atheists of AWs may chuckle to watch my believing ass quote Carl Sagan, but he definitely applies here regardless. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Flat earthers aren't taken seriously in science because there is extraordinary evidence which can prove that they're wrong. Galileo has been proven right via extraordinary evidence, to the point where Pope Saint John Paul II formally apologized for his predecessors' treatment of him. We know the "sound barrier" isn't a thing because of the work of aerodynamicists over the last half century, which has produced detailed extraordinary evidence via wind tunnels and test results in the cockpit.

Meanwhile, you're trying to throw so-called "evidence" up of little green men which is nothing but a string of anecdotes, and then scoff at people who won't believe your proof. I, at least, understand that my personal belief is just that . . . a faith. I choose to believe what I believe about the universe and what is beyond it in the absence of formal proof, because I have to decide what I believe in the realm of what can't be proven. I don't disparage people who believe differently, because I believe we'll all get the fairest of fair shots in The Great LFE Debrief That Ends It All. And I also fully understand that I can't PROVE dick. That's why it's called a "faith." And it's why I don't insert my personal faith in purely scientific questions, unlike some less-educated people.

So if your religious belief includes UFOs, that's cool. You may be right. I don't know, and neither does anyone else; we're all taking our best guess. But don't conflate that with science. Science has its limits, which are more limited than the internet IFLS crowd might want to believe, but it's damn good at what it does inside its limits.

To quote Sagan again . . . "the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Now I'm just confused. What have I said that could possibly lead you to think I have some personal belief in UFOs? What evidence have I provided of "little green men"? I've repeatedly said it's a very unlikely outcome, but one that is possible all the same. Just like any one religion being right is extremely unlikely, and there's no proof of any of them being true, so I choose not to believe any of them (atheism included). I have no problem saying that I don't know, which seems like a rare thing unfortunately. What I've been advocating is not at all that these incidents were caused by aliens, but that there's a lot of people on here who seem to have made up their minds that they know for sure what it was, and to me it seems obvious that they do not. You, on the other hand, said you don't know, and neither does anyone else, so it sounds like we agree.

 

[Sonog]

Now I'm just confused. What have I said that could possibly lead you to think I have some personal belief in UFOs? What evidence have I provided of "little green men"? I've repeatedly said it's a very unlikely outcome, but one that is possible all the same. Just like any one religion being right is extremely unlikely, and there's no proof of any of them being true, so I choose not to believe any of them (atheism included). I have no problem saying that I don't know, which seems like a rare thing unfortunately. What I've been advocating is not at all that these incidents were caused by aliens, but that there's a lot of people on here who seem to have made up their minds that they know for sure what it was, and to me it seems obvious that they do not. You, on the other hand, said you don't know, and neither does anyone else, so it sounds like we agree.

You're just coming across as giving the possibilities equal weight. Less logical people latch onto that language and, voila, little green men.

 

[Mirage]

These are all great ideas that I'd bet are more likely than ET

...I agree with you that that is still more likely than that it's ET.

If that's the way I'm coming across, then the fault is in other's reading comprehension, not my writing.