The UFO/UAP disclosure thread
- Thread starter Agent Mulder
- Start date
TheDarceKnight
Veteran
Cool info. And it’s What I figured. It has nothing to do with UAPs though.
No one cares about skyquakes that are obviously created by sonic booms from regular aircraft though. That’s not what is making skeptics less skeptical in the works right now, and it’s not what has scientists and governments around the world curious.
Leavingtheecstasy
All Star
.
Last edited:
KillerB88
Superstar
Videos showing aliens on radar? Which radar video do you feel most conclusively demonstrated an alien?
If that's your response then I don't think you watched or understood any of what I just posted at all. For the 5th time, I never said they weren't real objects or that they don't show up on radar. (though you should ask yourself why beings with technology supposedly 1000 years ahead of us would show up on radar at all, considering stealth is a relatively simple technology compared to all the ridiculous shyt you've been claiming they can do.) Like I keep saying, it's not that the objects aren't there, it's that their relative size/distance/movement is misjudged, something that is extremely common in the sky.
The videos he makes are put together after discussions between hundreds of people many of whom have expertise in related fields, he's not coming up with these theories himself, he just organizes the community and makes the final product. You don't have to believe anything Mick West says on his authority because he's not making arguments from authority (the logical fallacy many here keep using). He presents a logical argument with data and evidence to back it up and his argument stands on its own merits, not on his "authority".
Why do y'all keep discussing how important your "authorities" are but never discuss the actual physical evidence?
TheDarceKnight
Veteran
I know you weren’t asking me, but it’s pretty obvious that whoever was piloting the tic tac gave no fukks about being seen and likely wanted to be seen, since it was more or less fukking with the pilots.
I wouldn’t make any assumptions what these people (or if they aren’t people) what “they” want in regards to being seen or not.
I think we need to differentiate between skeptics and deniers. I trust the evidence from high tech military hardware and highly trained military personnel. And I’ll wait to see what it is.
They’re the ones that seem clinical and rational. Everyone foaming at the mouth and acting crazy are the folks that are wanting to pretend that millions of dollars of military hardware and elite fighter pilots are all incorrect multiple times on multiple dates, again and again, while NASA, the Navy, the Pentagon, China, and other branches of government and military across the world are calmly working to figure out what this is.
TheDarceKnight
Veteran
presented like a mic drop when it’s not even what anyone is discussing
Leavingtheecstasy
All Star
I'm done talking about it until the report comes out. He's not necessarily convincing me and I'm damn sure not convincing him of my opinion. I do appreciate the effort that you're putting into your argument though. We'll know whats going on in around 2 weeks and who's right or wrong on this issue. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong 
I'll know soon enough that it doesn't really call for arguing about it.
I'll know soon enough that it doesn't really call for arguing about it.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
I'm not doing a mic drop or trying to dunk on anybody. It was an unexplained phenomenon that ended up having a perfectly normal explanation.
I agree logic is out the window in this thread but that's not a good thing.
"Logic is out the window" is a cop-out. Once you stake your position as the illogical one then there's no benefit to further discussion. You're forced to assume aliens first to even make that claim, and then since you've already assumed aliens and assumed that logic is impossible, there's nowhere further to go. Why would a craft make an autopilot that would mimic the motions of the thing chasing it? Aren't you supposed to do the opposite, aren't you supposed to counter the motions of the thing chasing you? It would make zero sense.
The obvious answer is that it was a parallax or autokinetic optical illusion, where the object he was viewing was much further away than he believed it to be and thus he interpreted his own movements as movements of the object against the background. He was primed to be thinking about UFOs cause UFO hysteria had been building for a few days among the crew and this was the result, same as many of the other major sightings have followed the same sort of priming. But y'all don't want to take the obvious answer.
The bolded is my biggest issue with your argument. The FACT of the matter is there are no obvious answers which u habitually ignore. You have absolutely no evidence to support your argument that parallex or autokinetic optical illusions explain the phenomena being discussed. ZERO EVIDENCE has been submitted by you to buttress this argument outside of a couple of YouTube videos explaining the existence of these illusions. Their sheer existence doesn't mean we have a definitive answer to the UAP question. You have offered nothing but a hypothesis. Please refer to it as such. Repeating the same talking points over and over doesn't make your OPINION any more valid. On the flip side, I wanted to post the interview noted astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson had with Bill Maher on this subject matter last week but the only clip I could find conveniently left out this portion of the interview
But Dr Tyson actually expressed a similar skepticism that you have espoused throughout the thread. I.e "pilots aren't infallible, all technology has glitches(regarding radar),where are the HD videos, etc." I wanted to mention that in regards to objectivity. However the HUGE difference is he readily embraces the UNIDENTIFIED nature of the aforementioned phenomena and willingly admits " He doesn't know." I appreciate the different viewpoints you have contributed to the discussion but stop talking as if u have any solid evidence of anything.
If that was your biggest issue then you'd be more upset at the people in this thread who are definitively saying that it was aliens.
Except that I haven't said that I have "definitive" answers to the phenomena. I have said repeatedly that there is often not enough evidence to know. For example, look at my statement on the previous page:
What has happened is that over and over in this conversation, certain people have said, "We can absolutely rule out all possibilities other than aliens or humans who can break the known laws of physics." THEY are the ones who are claiming a definitive answer, not me. I'm just pointing out that there are clear alternatives that, without any meaningful evidence for aliens, remain far more likely.
I have asked, over and over and over, for anyone to provide evidence for aliens beyond "I can't tell what that is or how it is moving like that". And no one has provided the slightest evidence for aliens beyond, "I don't understand how it does that." So long as we don't have any evidence better than that, then things that we KNOW exist, like drones and human craft misjudged by parallax and autokinetic effects, remain far more likely than things we don't even know exist.
To reuse an earlier analogy, it's like a homicide detective not being able to solve a murder and then deciding a ghost did it. The homicide detective is never, ever going to do that if he doesn't have any evidence for ghosts. It would be a ridiculous cop-out. Saying, "I don't know how they killed her" is not good enough to prove or even suggest ghosts, just like saying, "I don't know how it moved like they say it did" is not good enough to prove or even suggest aliens. Especially when highly plausible alternative explanations exist.
So get off my dikk and call out all the numerous people, INCLUDING Luis Elizondo and Tom DeLonge, who claim that they know these things but haven't revealed the slightest actual evidence to back up their claims.
In the bolded you are clearly giving a definitive "answer" to some shyt u clearly don't have an answer for.If that was your biggest issue then you'd be more upset at the people in this thread who are definitively saying that it was aliens.
Except that I haven't said that I have "definitive" answers to the phenomena. I have said repeatedly that there is often not enough evidence to know. For example, look at my statement on the previous page:
What has happened is that over and over in this conversation, certain people have said, "We can absolutely rule out all possibilities other than aliens or humans who can break the known laws of physics." THEY are the ones who are claiming a definitive answer, not me. I'm just pointing out that there are clear alternatives that, without any meaningful evidence for aliens, remain far more likely.
I have asked, over and over and over, for anyone to provide evidence for aliens beyond "I can't tell what that is or how it is moving like that". And no one has provided the slightest evidence for aliens beyond, "I don't understand how it does that." So long as we don't have any evidence better than that, then things that we KNOW exist, like drones and human craft misjudged by parallax and autokinetic effects, remain far more likely than things we don't even know exist.
To reuse an earlier analogy, it's like a homicide detective not being able to solve a murder and then deciding a ghost did it. The homicide detective is never, ever going to do that if he doesn't have any evidence for ghosts. It would be a ridiculous cop-out. Saying, "I don't know how they killed her" is not good enough to prove or even suggest ghosts, just like saying, "I don't know how it moved like they say it did" is not good enough to prove or even suggest aliens. Especially when highly plausible alternative explanations exist.
So get off my dikk and call out all the numerous people, INCLUDING Luis Elizondo and Tom DeLonge, who claim that they know these things but haven't revealed the slightest actual evidence to back up their claims.
Is it your stance that the military officials who reviewed the footage are unfamiliar with parallex and autokinetic optical illusions? One would argue if that were the answer they would readily chalk it up to those illusions right? U keep mentioning dude Luis and Defonge as if I give a fukk what they're saying. At no point have I vouched for their opinions about anything. Much less portrayed those opinions as facts or evidence of anything. I've been focused on highlighting the fact that you're talking out your ass about something u don't have any evidence to seriously rebuke. U keep asking for evidence yet have provided no such thing to be formulating "clear answers" to. Then use the bullshyt homicide/ghost analogy. Have u never heard of a cold case? That's would explain the terrible example you're using. If the cop doesn't know who committed the murder, then the case remains unsolved. The same way the government acknowledged the existence of this phenomena yet admitted they didn't know what it was.
We have no idea who specifically reviewed them or what they are familiar with, it appears very minimal effort was put into the report. We don't even know which specific sightings they haven't explained and which ones they've completely explained - it's possible that EVERY video we have discussed has been clearly explained behind the scenes and the "unexplained" videos are something else entirely. And having plausible explanations doesn't mean they are going to attribute it if they evidence is so poor that you can't even tell. Like I said earlier, saying they don't have an explanation can simply mean "It was a blurry video at a distance with too little information to make a conclusion".In the bolded you are clearly giving a definitive "answer" to some shyt u clearly don't have an answer for.
I would think you should care what they're saying more than you care what I'm saying, since they're the ones whose statements have driven all these threads.
That's exactly what I've said.
I feel like you're not reading me clearly breh.
We both agree that we don't know exactly what footage was reviewed or who reviewed it. Nonetheless, the optical illusions you have referenced isn't classified information and there is no reason to believe investigators would just sit on such an explanation. You claim "minimal effort" was put into the report in the very same sentence you acknowledge being unaware of the dynamics surrounding the investigation. How you know minimal effort was applied is anyone's guess. Regarding Luis and Defonge, the UAP phenomena started long before these guys existed and will continue long after they are off the scene. Personally speaking, I've never seen Luis say anything "off the wall" while watching the show Unidentified. In fact he seems to be extremely measured in his approach based on everything I've witnessed. The Reddit post would qualify as "off the wall" in my opinion but I haven't listened to the podcast. As @DarceKnight has already stated, there is a huge difference between being skeptical and outright denying the plausibility of UAP. Based on all of your comments thus far you seem to fall into the latter category which is certainly your prerogative. Just miss me with the "objective, science-based reasoning" angle.We have no idea who specifically reviewed them or what they are familiar with, it appears very minimal effort was put into the report. We don't even know which specific sightings they haven't explained and which ones they've completely explained - it's possible that EVERY video we have discussed has been clearly explained behind the scenes and the "unexplained" videos are something else entirely. And having plausible explanations doesn't mean they are going to attribute it if they evidence is so poor that you can't even tell. Like I said earlier, saying they don't have an explanation can simply mean "It was a blurry video at a distance with too little information to make a conclusion".
I would think you should care what they're saying more than you care what I'm saying, since they're the ones whose statements have driven all these threads.
That's exactly what I've said.
I feel like you're not reading me clearly breh.
