Pentagon releases UFO footage

Screeeech said:
I'm demonstrating how you're conflating several different things, to reach a highly exotic, unlikely and almost certainly incorrect conclusion;





Only one of the above quotes is correct; The Pentagon have confirmed that the videos of the UAPs are genuine - that I agree with, (specifically the video of what is probably a duck, and the out of focus blob which could be anything)

The other one is completely incorrect: Nobody in any official capacity, in any meaningful way has said that these things have behaved in ways which are defy our understanding of physics.
Click to expand...

No your not. Your in denial because you haven't seen or heard about it and ignoring the fact truth or proof and science doesn't work like that.

The objects have been seen by the Tic Tac incident pilots and recorded and corroborated independently by the entire fleet accompanying the Nimitz. The evidence has been presented to Congress. What's so unofficial or non-meaningful about that? Furthermore, it was the Pentagon that said legitimate consideration should be given to possibility of these objects being extraterrestrial.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
The objects have been seen by the Tic Tac incident pilots and recorded and corroborated independently by the entire fleet accompanying the Nimitz. The evidence has been presented to Congress. What's so unofficial or non-meaningful about that?
Click to expand...

And how do you know, that the evidence which has apparently been presented, corroborates the claims you make regarding things defying the laws of physics?

In order to make that analysis, you'd have to know exactly what the evidence being presented is, and I'm willing to bet that you don't.
 
Screeeech said:
And how do you know, that the evidence which has apparently been presented, corroborates the claims you make regarding things defying the laws of physics?

In order to make that analysis, you'd have to know exactly what the evidence being presented is, and I'm willing to bet that you don't.
Click to expand...

I used to teach the Philosophy of Science and have a professional background in scientific research and methodology.

Given what has already been confirmed by the military it's not hard to figure out what would be required in the report to convince the legislature and the powers that be- that they have a problem from a potential adversary they know nothing about-which has been ignored for decades.


Work it out. If you had x amount of military personnel reporting there were between 14 and a hundred anomalous objects swarming your battle group without wings or any visible means of propulsion, moving at crazy and unimaginable speeds, your going to need as much monitoring data to independently corroborate this before anybody with a means to be able to do anything about it will believe you. What would you chose. There's your answer. It's called logic and it's something you've failed to get to grips with.
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
Work it out. If you had x amount of military personnel reporting there were between 14 and a hundred anomalous objects swarming your battle group without wings or any visible means of propulsion, moving at crazy and unimaginable speeds, your going to need as much monitoring data to confirm this as possible before anybody with a means to be able to do anything about it will believe you. What would you chose. There's your answer.
Click to expand...

It's not an answer because most, if not all of it is A: Heresay, B: Hasn't been corroborated or verified by anybody, and C: has never been officially confirmed. The best we have on the above incident is some media interviews, and the Joe Rogan show.

You can't just keep pulling random examples out of a hat, without any evidence and saying it's an answer - you'll get absolutely nowhere doing that. The only people you'll ever convince are people who already have little or zero understanding of the things being talked about. Nor do they understand or recognise the burden of proof required in order to validate them, these people have likely already pre-decided that there's an exotic otherwordly explanation, based on blind faith alone.
 
Screeeech said:
It's not an answer because most, if not all of it is A: Heresay, B: Hasn't been corroborated or verified by anybody, and C: has never been officially confirmed.

You can't just keep pulling random examples out of a hat, without any evidence and saying it's an answer - you'll get absolutely nowhere doing that. The only people you'll ever convince are people who already have little or zero understanding of the things being talked about. Nor do they understand or recognise the burden of proof required in order to validate them, these people have likely already pre-decided that there's an exotic otherwordly explanation, based on blind faith alone.
Click to expand...

You have little or zero understanding and I unsurprisingly can't convince you. Let's just leave it at that. Nobody has predecided anything. We'll let the evidence do that :)
 
ethan said:
You have little or zero understanding and I unsurprisingly can't convince you.
Click to expand...

You're making a claim about something that's highly exotic and tantamount to being physically impossible, so you're going to have to provide evidence that backs it up if you want to be taken seriously.

Saying that the person asking for the evidence has no understanding is just a cop out - you know I understand exactly. You just can't provide what's being asked because it almost certainly isn't there, or the things it corroborates wind up being nothing like what you think they are.
 
ethan said:
You have little or zero understanding and I unsurprisingly can't convince you. Let's just leave it at that. Nobody has predecided anything. We'll let the evidence do that :)
Click to expand...

Your "scientific" method of taking the word of people you don't know on the internet leaves a little to be desired. People are the worst witnesses imaginable! Imagine you're in the military and told to keep quiet about what you see and what you're doing, then you go and tell the world what you saw. You're either untrustworthy or a bare faced liar. Oh and PLEASE, people creaming themselves over camera artifacts, just lol

Most folk are open to the idea of UFOs assuming there is some proof... There is, to date, zero proof in the public domain. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence etc.
 
d_brennen said:
People are the worst witnesses imaginable! Imagine you're in the military and told to keep quiet about what you see and what you're doing, then you go and tell the world what you saw. You're either untrustworthy or a bare faced liar.
Click to expand...

Yeah the whole David Fravor thing reeks of BS to me.

He's the pilot and a couple of others who apparently witnessed/filmed the tic tac incident, where the camera from the jets was taken away by "men in suits" and never seen again (or something)

Think about it, you legit see that thing moving into and out of the water, hovering with no thrust or heat - then the naval fleet watch it moving around at mach 60 without any propulsion and it doesn't explode instantly. You chase the thing in your plane, the whole 9 yards.

Then you rock up on the Joe Rogan show and every media outlet (for cash of course), and spill the beans on it like the Exxon Valdez, and the US military just sits there indifferently... Come on :D

<the whole time providing zero actual evidence of any of the specific claims, of course>
 
d_brennen said:
Your "scientific" method of taking the word of people you don't know on the internet leaves a little to be desired. People are the worst witnesses imaginable! Imagine you're in the military and told to keep quiet about what you see and what you're doing, then you go and tell the world what you saw. You're either untrustworthy or a bare faced liar. Oh and PLEASE, people creaming themselves over camera artifacts, just lol

Most folk are open to the idea of UFOs assuming there is some proof... There is, to date, zero proof in the public domain. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence etc.
Click to expand...


... And your point is?

Please-lol. Your post reads like - what it is. A personal attack.

There is no such thing as scientifically taking one's word-let alone that from people unknown on the Internet. Your just being patronisingly stupid.

Where have I done so without giving full consideration
to the facts that could corroborate them?
Furthermore, if you are prepared to read the thread you'll see I've been arguing that the extraordinary claims being made by the witnesses will need to be accompanied by the evidence in the report to Congress? Nor have I disagreed to there being zero proof in the public domain?
I
 
ethan said:
[..]
Furthermore, if you are prepared to read the thread you'll see I've been arguing that the extraordinary claims being made by the witnesses will need to be accompanied by the evidence in the report to Congress? Nor have I disagreed to there being zero proof in the public domain?
I
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly done exactly that, claiming the existence of proof of the claims being made (particularly regarding the UAPs being artificial objects moving without propulsion, moving at tens of thousands of kph, instantly changing direction at 90 degrees at such high speeds, changing altitude by tens of thousands of feet per second, etc), claiming that the Pentagon has publically supported those claims (it hasn't) and also claiming knowledge of the contents of the report to Congress. A report that is not in the public domain. Even the edited summary of that report isn't in the public domain yet.

We're still firmly in the "I don't know" position for a tiny minority of UAP sightings (the rest being proven to have mundane explanations). The same as we were 70 years ago, when the USA military also made an official report on its investigation into UAPs.
 
ethan said:
... And your point is?

Please-lol. Your post reads like - what it is. A personal attack.

There is no such thing as scientifically taking one's word-let alone that from people unknown on the Internet. Your just being patronisingly stupid.

Where have I done so without giving full consideration
to the facts that could corroborate them?
Furthermore, if you are prepared to read the thread you'll see I've been arguing that the extraordinary claims being made by the witnesses will need to be accompanied by the evidence in the report to Congress? Nor have I disagreed to there being zero proof in the public domain?
I
Click to expand...

You realise you are arguing that aliens are flying randomly around on earth to troll the US military?
 
ethan said:
... And your point is?

Please-lol. Your post reads like - what it is. A personal attack.

There is no such thing as scientifically taking one's word-let alone that from people unknown on the Internet. Your just being patronisingly stupid.

Where have I done so without giving full consideration
to the facts that could corroborate them?
Furthermore, if you are prepared to read the thread you'll see I've been arguing that the extraordinary claims being made by the witnesses will need to be accompanied by the evidence in the report to Congress? Nor have I disagreed to there being zero proof in the public domain?
I
Click to expand...

If you feel this that was a personal attach I suggest you have a glass of milk and go to bed :o

ethan said:
I used to teach the Philosophy of Science and have a professional background in scientific research and methodology.

Given what has already been confirmed by the military...
Click to expand...

A what now?
 
The future of fighter aircraft will be automated AI drones (for one thing they don't have to worry about g-force limits), now who's trolling the fly saucers! AI bots be like "yeeehhhaaaaa I got a lock" "you see this thing dude?" "never seen anything like that my fellow AI dog(pilot)" "take some pics of that thing dude" "with the 8K hyper camera?" "pffft nah the 240p s**tpic one" Until the engineers reduce sarcasm by 15%.
 
d_brennen said:
If you feel this that was a personal attach I suggest you have a glass of milk and go to bed :o
Click to expand...

What else could it have been given it's emotive tone? Especially when taking one's word is, by definition to accept what one says without further verifying or investigating.

Your "scientific" method of taking the word of people you don't know on the internet leaves a little to be desired./QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ethan said:
What else could it have been given the emotive tone:
Click to expand...

You literally said you have professional experience of the scientific method yet you have no objective proof to present that these UAPs are more than hearsay or optical artifacts.

I'll eat my hat if there is any, any objective proof there's something other worldly going on. Indulge me.

Might as well confirm the Lock Ness monster is real, because so many people over the years have claimed as such. Are "they" keeping the truth from us?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom