So we’re moving from attacking the evidence, which has failed, to attacking the people that got it released. When you’re falling to ad hominem attacks that means you’re losing the argument.
Bob Bigelow hunted ghosts in Utah therefore Fravor and Dietrich are liars and the videos are birds?
No man.
This was you just a while ago:
Because the evidence is just a couple of blurry videos with more mundane possible explanations, it was you who was compelled to an appeal to authority. By linking stuff by Elizondo and Reid and others…
The article @RichVR is not an ad-hominem attack, but a refutation of said authority showing those “authorities” have engaged in previous collusion, have vested economic interests in the subject matter and are subject to extreme ideological agendas (no neutral parties looking at facts). Now, I agree the tone could have been more neutral, but the tone does not invalidate the facts presented.
So now the appeal to authority is dismounted and you are left to support extraordinary claims with blurry evidence.
This is how a discussion based in facts flows.
Take the politicians out of it then. Focus on the evidence. If you don’t like the evidence, think is rubbish, then there’s no point in discussing it further, but,
Such as? If you link a Mick West video I swear… :P
Why? Lots of those videos make very good cases trying to really analyze the images. Definitely better than those claiming the videos present “unexplainable” behavior without actually saying how so.
There’s also the previously linked article pointing to an intelligence gathering operation through drones and balloons, which would explain both the videos and the radar signatures.
This is, in my opinion, a the beginnings of legit explanation. We’re testing our latest tech against our own pilots. The technology involved, though, would have to be wildly advanced. Like not only projecting false radar hits, but fooling weapons systems and infrared cameras, and projecting visual manifestations.
So if we had a drone that could shoot out laser filaments, like this: U.S. Navy Laser Creates Plasma ‘UFOs’
That would seem pretty alien right?
I think it can be more mundane. A traditional balloon or drone that can emit radar interfering signals (without plasma projection or anything more exotic) could be enough to explain the videos and related reports.
It’s interesting to wonder just how fast that transition can happen. Again, with only one data point it’s hard to say - maybe we got lucky and we’re on the low end.
Did I miss the first one? I love talking about the Fermi Paradox - it’s fun to think about even if it’s all conjectural as hell.
I mean, I’d be surprised if foreign governments weren’t using drones to spy on our military. Seems like an ideal mechanism for doing so.
I think it was a month or two ago (in this thread)? I remember posting that it’s kind of meaningless to try to come up with a numerical answer from the Drake equation since you can’t put error bars on a probability where you only have one occurrence. But the wheel of time has turned, etc etc.
I BELIEVE IN SPACE GHOST AND DINO BOY TOO
Zorak, however, is clearly an urban legend.
I do as well! I wasn’t referencing any particular thread; I just know we’ve discussed it many times on this forum since I started posting here in 2003.
Or, maybe…shoddy contractors? Nah, that’s too far-fetched!
I answered yes to this under the premise that the intended question is if UFO’s/UAP’s are possible as evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, as I hew more towards the “unexplained” part of those acronyms while still being quite open to the possibility of aliens.
Never have have been comfortable saying a blanket “No” and lumping myself in with the largely-condescending set of skeptics that treat it as a topic for derision and ridicule.
Pure bred member of that tribe here, and it’s really not about condescending. It’s more about hearing the same argument over and over and over and never getting anywhere. To go back to Randi, you don’t say that it’s not what someone says it is, you just demonstrate that you can make the same effect in a much more plausible manner. Any professional magician can do things that are way more unreal and impressive than sensor blobs, but there are other magicians that are handy to say, “Uh, yeah, it’s a string.” If it were easy for regular people to own planes and sensors like the military has, then it would all be explained hours after it surfaced.
ShivaX
1705
Maybe we got lucky and no one else has yet gotten to that point.
As you mention, we only have one data point, so we have no way of knowing.
Or maybe the Shivans/Reapers got them. Again, no data available.
Which is highly improbable, of course, but certainly one solution to the Fermi Paradox (and is one of the 75 Webb mentions).
And that’s another. Gotta watch out for those Von Neumann machines.
I’d love to take part in your poll Tom, but I can’t without some gray area.
While I don’t think we’re being visited by aliens, and while I’ve never even seen a UFO, I also am not as eager as most here to totally discount the idea to practically zero percent likelihood. My own gut tells me it’s more like a 2% likelihood, but I’m not basing that on any evidence; just what my own thoughts on the matter have led me to.
I am also not a fan of the old saying: “Be careful not to keep your mind so open that your brains fall out,” because I resemble that remark.
Keeping an open mind is important. Which is why I’d likely be terrible on a jury.
