More proof of aliens

[esmozz]

But your argument is that you are open minded?

Yet you are leaning towards aliens.

So taking a position on one side of an argument makes you closed minded? I'm not even sure where to begin with that.

So everybody who takes a position different to you in an argument (or debate) is closed minded? Because that very much seems to me what you're saying.

Do you now see a massive contradiction?

No I really don't see a massive contradiction - I'm not entirely sure how you do. What exactly is the contradiction? That I'm arguing a point you disagree with, and I disagree with you? Do prefer people to argue their points via the opposing position - that would be weird.

I'm taking a position in a debate which means I'm leaning towards that side of the argument - you disagree with that position, thats great, thats how debates work. It does not make me closed minded. Or if it does, then you are the same.

Right I really am done. I'll take this up another time, but not in this direction. Perhaps you'd like to shoot me down by arguing how the events in the OP could be explained by current advanced technology, for example the seemingly improbable acceleration of the object moving 60 miles in less than a minute.

Have a great evening.

 

[Raymond Lin]

There is not much to say when i point out the contradiction and you still can't see it.

The fact is that you want it to be aliens and your mind just goes there, it's the first place that it jumps to, regardless that you claim you are open minded, you are not, never have been.

We all can see it, I tried to point it out to you, but it seems you are reading the words, but not processing it through your brain.

 

[enkoda]

Multiple independant instrument failures, all in the same manner?
I would classify a US naval pilot as an expert observer and witness. (Especially when independantly verified)
US navy colluding to make this up?

All are possible but seem to me unlikely. They may not seem unlikely to you.

From the NYT:

An operations officer aboard the U.S.S. Princeton, a Navy cruiser, wanted to know if they were carrying weapons.

“Two CATM-9s,” Commander Fravor replied, referring to dummy missiles that could not be fired.

And this:

The fighter jets returned to the Nimitz, where everyone on the ship had learned of Commander Fravor’s encounter and was making fun of him.

So basically the new boy gets pranked - make sure he isn't carrying weapons to avoid any harm or damage, convince him there's a UFO, then round it off by mocking him mercilessly on his return.

 

[Angilion]

Armstrong went for a reason. He did'nt find anything but he thought something was there. [..]

He was an explorer. That doesn't mean he thought ancient alien artefacts were in the cave. Do you have any evidence that he did?

 

[Angilion]

Yes it is and no I'm not.

No it isn't and yes you are. At best, it's a poor quality hypothesis based on ignorance. That's not really science. It might possibly qualify as a potential starting point for science, but that's being generous. You might as well write the same text and replace "alien" with "god" or "wizard" or "faerie". The scientific value would be the same and the meaning would be pretty much the same too - "I have no explanation, so it must be supernatural and non-human".

EDIT: I was just brushing my teeth then I realised the truth! It was Loki, playig tricks on mortals for their own amusement. That's my theory!

 

[BowdonUK]

I think a lot of this subject comes down to two different approaches. One side are open minded and think well every sighting can't be a misunderstanding, while the other side needs absolute proof before they consider that it might be true.

 

[Angilion]

Actually, I went there via the words 'IF', 'possible' and 'possibility', but yes, I got there in the end.

Are you so dismissive of the scientists who hypothesised that the large rock (not going to try and spell the name) seen entering the solar system not so long was a solar sail of alien origin?

If that's what they had done, I might have been. But that's not what they did. They said that was one possibility that matched some of the very limited evidence available. The key points being one possibility, not the only one or the most likely one, and evidence. They were following the scientific method. "I don't know, therefore aliens" is not. Also, they were wrong. But that's OK in science, as long as you do it right.

I suggest you read their paper and note how it differs from "we don't know, therefore aliens". There's a link to the paper in PDF format from this page:

https://www.universetoday.com/140391/could-oumuamua-be-an-extra-terrestrial-solar-sail/

 

[Angilion]

I think a lot of this subject comes down to two different approaches. One side are open minded and think well every sighting can't be a misunderstanding, while the other side needs absolute proof before they consider that it might be true.

Assuming that lack of knowledge is proof of a desired conclusion is not being open minded. It's an act of faith.

I'd need absolute proof before I consider something to definitely be true. Anything that's not proven impossible might be true, for varying values of "might". I might be the only person in the universe and everyone else is just a hallucination of my mind, either to preserve my sanity or because I'm insane. We might all be NPCs in a game and not know it because we haven't been programmed to be aware of it. We might all be in the Matrix. I and everything I perceive might be the dream of a sleeping goat. Earth and everything on it might be a test facility for genetic engineering experiments by aliens. Or gods. What value I assign to "might be true" depends on evidence, as much I can do so.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

I think a lot of this subject comes down to two different approaches. One side are open minded and think well every sighting can't be a misunderstanding, while the other side needs absolute proof before they consider that it might be true.

"Open minded" does not mean "I believe any old nonsense anyone comes up with". I could say the moon is made of green cheese but without any kind of evidence to back it up I'd be laughed out of the room and rightly so.

 

[Angilion]

I’m don’t see why aliens with such technology would be interested in us in the slightest. Military testing on the other hand, that seems much more likely.

I agree that military testing seems much more likely (because we know it exists and we know it would not be admitted), but I can see why aliens with technology so far in advance of ours might find us of some interest. Developing technology to such a level would require a lot of intelligence and curiosity, so at least some people in a a society with such technology would probably be curious about other life. If intelligent life is very rare, that alone would make intelligent life interesting to people who have intelligence and curiousity. Even if it's common, then a planet of at least fairly intelligent life with at least fairly advanced understanding and technology and which is experiencing a period of rapid growth of both would plausibly be of interest to people with intelligence and curiosity. Even if intelligent life is common, intelligent life at that point in development at this point in time probably wouldn't be. There's immense scope for different intelligent life on different planets to be at different stages of development of knowledge and technology, so even if there were thousands, even millions, of examples we might well be the only one at this point in development at this point in time. Imagine, for example, an archaeologist of this hypothetical alien civilisation being delighted at seeing some piece of current human technology and realising how much it has in common with finds from digs on their own planet, technology from their past, the partially deteriorated remains of the technology of their ancestors a thousand years earlier. That would shed new light on partially understood archaeology. There'd be at least a couple of papers in that!

 

[mattyg]

Maybe the Aliens code of conduct states they cannot interfere until we have warp capability

I'm sure thats defo a rule somewhere









lol

 

[dowie]

For reasons best known to yourself you've decided to bring religion into this. Twice. It's an utterly pointless argument. It's possible God exists and aliens don't. Its possible the otherway round. Or both. Or neither.

You tried to claim you were putting forth a “theory” and that this alien claim was somehow “science” I’ve simply pointed out that it isn’t and it is more akin to religion whereby the unknown is explained away by a magical being.

You don’t have any evidence to support the claim, it is pure fantasy at the moment.

 

[esmozz]

You tried to claim you were putting forth a “theory” and that this alien claim was somehow “science” I’ve simply pointed out that it isn’t and it is more akin to religion whereby the unknown is explained away by a magical being.

You don’t have any evidence to support the claim, it is pure fantasy at the moment.

Actually you went further than that, god bless those poor dumb religious folk.

Since we seem to have gone full circle I'll just refer to my previous post and leave it there

Subtantiated by expert witness, radar data and visual recordings? And perhaps we could try to match to discriptions given by the pilots against a database of all known aircraft. But if it makes you happy I'll use the word hypothesis instead.

 

[esmozz]

If that's what they had done, I might have been. But that's not what they did. They said that was one possibility that matched some of the very limited evidence available. The key points being one possibility, not the only one or the most likely one, and evidence. They were following the scientific method. "I don't know, therefore aliens" is not. Also, they were wrong. But that's OK in science, as long as you do it right.

I suggest you read their paper and note how it differs from "we don't know, therefore aliens". There's a link to the paper in PDF format from this page:

I read the paper. Could I ask you to actually read posts before commenting on them. Who said 'Don't know, therefore aliens'. You seem to be arguing a point I never made.

I'm not saying its 100% Aliens, however one explanation (or theory) which fits the bill is technology far in advance of ours. And a technology far in advance of ours leads where?
Also, I'm entirely open to other more mundance explanations. I have no particularly strong feelings about it either way - apart from finding the whole thing interesting.

Nonetheless, I maintain that one possible 'hypothesis' is the existance of a technology far in advance of what I, certainly, know of.

I'm open to the possibility it could be alien tech. I'm open to the possiblity it could be secret military testing. Or mass hysteria. It is possible to consider all three as explanations.

This is the nub of it. IF they saw an actual craft or not. I cannot prove they did either way. However I do think they are credible witnesses and if they did it was something very unusual.

So please tell me how my position differs from the authors of that paper.

 

[esmozz]

There is not much to say when i point out the contradiction and you still can't see it.

The fact is that you want it to be aliens and your mind just goes there, it's the first place that it jumps to, regardless that you claim you are open minded, you are not, never have been.

This made me chuckle. Fella, I don't think we're that well acquainted.

We all can see it, I tried to point it out to you, but it seems you are reading the words, but not processing it through your brain.

Likewise. Yawn.

 

[Thekwango]

You can't prove a negative.

when it's negative 5°c outside i can definitely prove it's ******* freezing

 

[enkoda]

Perhaps you'd like to shoot me down by arguing how the events in the OP could be explained by current advanced technology, for example the seemingly improbable acceleration of the object moving 60 miles in less than a minute.

Here's a plausible scenario - the technology used in those craft is top secret and the manufacturers don't want to divulge their research.
Until you've proven that this isn't the case, "alien tech" theories remain pure fantasy.

 

[Raymond Lin]

This made me chuckle. Fella, I don't think we're that well acquainted.



Likewise. Yawn.

Yawn? I felt asleep after repeating myself half a dozen times and you still not got the point. lol

 

[BowdonUK]

"Open minded" does not mean "I believe any old nonsense anyone comes up with". I could say the moon is made of green cheese but without any kind of evidence to back it up I'd be laughed out of the room and rightly so.

I agree that it doesn't mean you believe any old nonsense. But some of the questions are open ended. We have high level members of society, including airforce, army and navy people. These have been investigated at high level, and while many have been given a reasonable explanation some of the sightings have remained unexplained. So we're entitled to ask questions as to what they could possibly be. Some people can suggest "it can't be that because..". But they cannot prove its not 100% something that we haven't seen before. It's like 2 people arguing is the glass half full or half empty.

Assuming that lack of knowledge is proof of a desired conclusion is not being open minded. It's an act of faith.

I'd need absolute proof before I consider something to definitely be true. Anything that's not proven impossible might be true, for varying values of "might". I might be the only person in the universe and everyone else is just a hallucination of my mind, either to preserve my sanity or because I'm insane. We might all be NPCs in a game and not know it because we haven't been programmed to be aware of it. We might all be in the Matrix. I and everything I perceive might be the dream of a sleeping goat. Earth and everything on it might be a test facility for genetic engineering experiments by aliens. Or gods. What value I assign to "might be true" depends on evidence, as much I can do so.

That's interesting you mentioned about us being in a game, a matrix. I think that is a theory some people have. I'm not sure I believe that. But then I don't know enough to say its not possible. It's like a magic trick. When we don't understand a magic trick we think its not possible. But then later when we're explained how the trick works we can see it is possible. Our opinion, as you say, is based on our knowledge and what we see at the time. Something we might deem impossible today could be possible tomorrow.

 

[dowie]

Actually you went further than that, god bless those poor dumb religious folk.

Yes believing in some fantasy story is a bit dumb, especially in the cases where people base how they live their life around it and/or expect others to behave in certain ways because that is what the book/magical sky pixie says... It is utterly dumb, religious people at best have a massive blindspot after being indoctrinated at a young age or are just plain thick.

I don't have an issue at all with someone saying there might be aliens out there in some other habitable planet. This issue is with the explanations for aliens apparently already listing this planet and anything unidentified in the sky being attributed to them... when generally it turns out to be nothing of the sort i.e. a weather balloon or an experimental stealth aircraft etc... it is just clinging onto some fantasy believe that there is no basis for in reality - why weren't these aliens spotted until they reach earth? Why is the fighter plane able to track/lock onto them but they've been completely undetected approaching earth? It then becomes either a conspiracy theory about world governments covering it up or some handwaving nonsense about super duper advanced stealth technology that was seemingly used right up until they happen to be photographed by some crackpot who happens to be interested in aliens or they decide to fly right in front of a fighter jet.

Since we seem to have gone full circle I'll just refer to my previous post and leave it there

But your previous post you quoted there has nothing to do with aliens? The aliens bit is completely unsupported, the only supported thing is that something unknown was scene and the polite that saw it seemed to think it was a drone.