Pentagon Confirms New UFO Video

[IAmReallyImportant]

Could also be a hologram projected by a spotlight or something.

I also saw an UFO in a park in Munich up in the sky above the height of airplanes. It turned out there was a concert nearby.

It could be anything else but just assuming these are real alien spaceship as the most probable occurrence sounds weird lol

Wishful thinking comes into mind.

Edited May 28, 2021 by IAmReallyImportant

[Scholar]

14 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Well what you're contending with in even the more credible accounts of encounters with these types of phenomena isn't any sort of positive identification of any of these objects, but rather a process of elimination where the object seems as though it's not explainable through more conventional explanations.

Now the possibility is certainly open that some of these objects might actually be from another world; but without some method of verification you're not really doing anything more than guessing at this point; there may be possibilities that aren't at all obvious which you're not accounting for.

Note that I'm not claiming that the Scientific Method of attempting to empirically Validate claims is the only way of acquiring knowledge (or even always the best way), but I have my doubts that eyewitness accounts from other people of things that lie far outside of most people's lived experience are altogether reliable or trustworthy. Nor is the recorded footage that exists which shows objects recorded from a great distance behaving in strange or unexpected ways necessarily indicative of something from another world, though of course it could be that.

If an Alien lands on my lawn tomorrow, or if additional types of evidence further add to the mosiac in a convincing way, I'm of course open to revising my opinions on this matter.

You are not engaging with anything, you are just giving me vague and general claims. Apply them to the Fravor Incident, don't just give me your idea of how you would approach the data. Approach it.

You keep making the basic analytical mistake I have pointed out several times now. We are not talking about eyewitness report incidents, then footage of another incident, then radar data from another incident. We are talking about all of this data from one incident. All of them corroborating each other. That's what you have to contend with, not some random stuff that some civilian recorded or saw.

[Blackhawk]

This UFO-stuff has been a wake up call for me, because it shows how people in this forum (and also Leo) are too unskeptical. They buy basically anything which they want to believe in, without requiring any evidence. This UFO-stuff is like one big confirmation bias party. You guys want to believe it so badly that you're completely lost in confirmation bias/wishful thinking.

If you are like this about this topic, then you probably are like this in all other topics aswell. So this ruins your credibility in other areas too. For example, of course you will believe any hallucinations which you experience when you are tripping balls, without demanding any actual evidence before you believe in your hallucinations.

All the footage is completely useless. Period. Most of it are debunked and the rest could be anything since the "objects" are always super fuzzy.

The most difficult thing to dismiss is the eye witness reports, but it's not enough. Many of them are probably lying. There's several examples of intentionally faked images/video footage, and of people lying, Bob Lazar is one example of someone who is clearly lying. And the rest is probably hallucinating or seeing some rare phenomena, like for example a optical illusion or something.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Pateedm]

4 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

This UFO-stuff has been a wake up call for me, because it shows how people in this forum (and also Leo) are too unskeptical. They buy basically anything which they want to believe in, without requiring any evidence. This UFO-stuff is like one big confirmation bias party. You guys want to believe it so badly that you're completely lost in confirmation bias/wishful thinking.

If you are like this about this topic, then you probably are like this in all other topics aswell. So this ruins your credibility in other areas too. For example, of course you will believe any hallucinations which you experience when you are tripping balls, without demanding any actual evidence before you believe in your hallucinations.

All the footage is completely useless. Period. Most of it are debunked and the rest could be anything since the "objects" are always super fuzzy.

The most difficult thing to dismiss is the eye witness reports, but it's not enough. Many of them are probably lying. There's several examples of intentionally faked images/video footage, and of people lying, Bob Lazar is one example of someone who is clearly lying.

The thing is man, I've directly experienced a UFO and can confirm that they do exist.

Whether ya believe me is up to you.

[Blackhawk]

Just now, Pateedm said:

The thing is man, I've directly experienced a UFO and can confirm that they do exist.

Whether ya believe me is up to you.

Well, what did you experience?

[Pateedm]

1 minute ago, Blackhawk said:

Well, what did you experience?

My brother made a post about it a while ago, he experienced it as well.

 

[Blackhawk]

23 minutes ago, Pateedm said:

My brother made a post about it a while ago, he experienced it as well.

 

"I was a able to pinpoint the first phenomena of that night, which happened to be a something moving at a constant rate, that was the same size as the apparent size of stars in the night sky. (I now see this phenomena often)."

That's satellites.

 

 

"I’m open minded to dragons"

"my brother was experiencing a state of rather ecstatic heightened consciousness (I’m guessing some degree of random kundalini activation of sorts), saying things such as “humanity is ascending”....”there is a global awakening taking place”"

Those are warning signs.

Maybe you were hallucinating.

Or maybe you are lying.

So, yes, I don't belive you. But I don't rule out the possibility that you actually saw aliens. But before I believe that I would need more evidence.

And why didn't you take photos or videos of it..

Edited May 28, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Pateedm]

7 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

"I was a able to pinpoint the first phenomena of that night, which happened to be a something moving at a constant rate, that was the same size as the apparent size of stars in the night sky. (I now see this phenomena often)."

That's satellites.

 

 

"I’m open minded to dragons"

"my brother was experiencing a state of rather ecstatic heightened consciousness (I’m guessing some degree of random kundalini activation of sorts), saying things such as “humanity is ascending”....”there is a global awakening taking place”"

Those are warning bells.

Maybe you were hallucinating.

Or maybe you are lying.

So, yes, I don't belive you. But I don't rule out the possibility that you actually saw aliens. But before I believe that I would need more evidence.

And why didn't you take photos or videos of it..

Couldn't have been satellites as they were changing directions, he didn't mention that though. 

No psychedelics were involved, it was as much a hallucination as your present experience of experiencing a screen.

Didn't have our phones on us at the time and tbh it's not the first thing that crosses your mind to just whip out a camera and start filming.

Anyway, I'm just telling ya they exist, up to you though man 

[Scholar]

50 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

This UFO-stuff has been a wake up call for me, because it shows how people in this forum (and also Leo) are too unskeptical. They buy basically anything which they want to believe in, without requiring any evidence. This UFO-stuff is like one big confirmation bias party. You guys want to believe it so badly that you're completely lost in confirmation bias/wishful thinking.

If you are like this about this topic, then you probably are like this in all other topics aswell. So this ruins your credibility in other areas too. For example, of course you will believe any hallucinations which you experience when you are tripping balls, without demanding any actual evidence before you believe in your hallucinations.

All the footage is completely useless. Period. Most of it are debunked and the rest could be anything since the "objects" are always super fuzzy.

The most difficult thing to dismiss is the eye witness reports, but it's not enough. Many of them are probably lying. There's several examples of intentionally faked images/video footage, and of people lying, Bob Lazar is one example of someone who is clearly lying. And the rest is probably hallucinating or seeing some rare phenomena, like for example a optical illusion or something.

This isn't about aliens, I don't care if aliens visited us or not. This is about showing how none of you guys have done any epistemic work at all, you work completely from cultural dogma. You don't actually consider how you can know something and this incident is the perfect example for this. You don't have any reasoning here, you are just rationalizing your dogma. Sure, 90% of the people who believe in this don't do so because of rigorous epistemic standards, but this is the case equally for those who just dismiss this incident without even contending with any of the data. It shows how biased your are and that you basically don't have any standards at all. You just backwards rationalized why your position is true.

 

Again, we have 4 fighter jet pilots witnessing an object that moved in basically impossible ways in terms of what we consider technologically viable, we have radar and visual data corroborating this incident. You have literally two options, either they are all lying for the sake of some government conspiracy, or what you have is a technology that you cannot explain at all. Not a weather phenomena, not some hallucination, but a technology.

 

But you don't care, you will just dismiss anything because you think not believing in aliens is the most rational thing to do.

 

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

You are not engaging with anything, you are just giving me vague and general claims. Apply them to the Fravor Incident, don't just give me your idea of how you would approach the data. Approach it.

You keep making the basic analytical mistake I have pointed out several times now. We are not talking about eyewitness report incidents, then footage of another incident, then radar data from another incident. We are talking about all of this data from one incident. All of them corroborating each other. That's what you have to contend with, not some random stuff that some civilian recorded or saw.

My overall impression is that David Fravor's account comes across as a highly trained and highly competent professional who is being sincere about what he experienced. The number of corroborating factors that you point out make the incident difficult to dismiss, and gives a much higher degree of credibility than is typical in the vast majority of encounters with unidentified ariel objects. 

If you recall, I never actually dismissed the possibility of at least some of these incidents actually being aliens.  The David Fravor incident offers one of the more compelling Data Points pointing in that direction. 

In short: yes, I find David Fravor's account about as credible as an incident like this probably could be through eyewitness accounts that have been corroborated with indirect evidence.

But for something that would without hyperbole be one of the largest paradigm shifts in the history of Humanity (that intelligent life outside of Earth not only exists but is interacting with us), I would think the bar of Paradigm Shifting Validation should be quite a bit higher than a very small handful of compelling incidents among a vast ocean of claims that either can't be verified or have been debunked. 

Seems like the bar of evidence should be at least as high as the Verification process that must be cleared when a new animal species is discovered.

If that's a completely unreasonable reason to remain agnostic about the issue until it can be verified in a more substantial way, I'd be interested to hear why.

Edited May 28, 2021 by DocWatts

[Blackhawk]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

This isn't about aliens, I don't care if aliens visited us or not. This is about showing how none of you guys have done any epistemic work at all, you work completely from cultural dogma. You don't actually consider how you can know something and this incident is the perfect example for this. You don't have any reasoning here, you are just rationalizing your dogma. Sure, 90% of the people who believe in this don't do so because of rigorous epistemic standards, but this is the case equally for those who just dismiss this incident without even contending with any of the data. It shows how biased your are and that you basically don't have any standards at all. You just backwards rationalized why your position is true.

 

Again, we have 4 fighter jet pilots witnessing an object that moved in basically impossible ways in terms of what we consider technologically viable, we have radar and visual data corroborating this incident. You have literally two options, either they are all lying for the sake of some government conspiracy, or what you have is a technology that you cannot explain at all. Not a weather phenomena, not some hallucination, but a technology.

 

But you don't care, you will just dismiss anything because you think not believing in aliens is the most rational thing to do.

Lmao, funny how you think you are smart, and even talking about epistemic work.

I have more reasoning than you. It's you who have dogma which tells you to believe in any woo-woo stuff which you wish is true.

Your epistemic method is: "believe everything you hear or see, if you don't, it means you are closed-minded and dogmatic."

It's claimed that 4 fighter jet pilots saw the thing, but only one or two of them have talked infront of a camera about his experience (David Fravor).

There's a million red flags about the Nimitz incident. One is that the witnesses disagree with each other.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

My overall impression is that David Fravor's account comes across as a highly trained and highly competent professional who is being sincere about what he experienced. The number of corroborating factors that you point out make the incident difficult to dismiss, and gives a much higher degree of credibility than is typical in the vast majority of encounters with unidentified ariel objects. 

If you recall, I never actually dismissed the possibility of at least some of these incidents actually being aliens.  The David Fravor incident offers one of the more compelling Data Points pointing in that direction. 

In short: yes, I find David Fravor's account about as credible as an incident like this probably could be through eyewitness accounts that have been corroborated with indirect evidence.

But for something that would without hyperbole be one of the largest paradigm shifts in the history of Humanity (that intelligent life outside of Earth not only exists but is interacting with us), I would think the bar of Paradigm Shifting Validation should be quite a bit higher than a very small handful of compelling incidents among a vast ocean of claims that either can't be verified or have been debunked. 

Seems like the bar of evidence should be at least as high as the Verification process that must be cleared when a new animal species is discovered.

If that's a completely unreasonable reason to remain agnostic about the issue until it can be verified in a more substantial way, I'd be interested to hear why.

No, this is not how any of this works.

There is no scientific paradigm that tells you aliens were never here, or couldn't visit us, or are unlikely to visit us. That's all just nonsense people make up to sound reasonable. None of this is scientific, none of this is rational, none of this has anything to do with evidence.

This is not like we have an established theory if evidence supporting it that can make scientific predictions, and that if aliens exist all of that will turn out to be wrong. This isn't like Relativity overthrowing Newtonian physics. You are completely abusing these ideas.

 

Again, we have the Fravor incident, and you still did not contend at all with it. What does that mean "It is a possibility!", that's the most laziest non-answer possible. Give me some good account of what conventional explanation would fit the data here. This isn't about agnosticism, this is about your previous claims that it's somehow more likely that your pet theory is correct while you have not provided any reasoning for it at all that is solid.

 

Again, we have an object described that behaved intelligently, that did active jamming, that moved in a way that fits no technology we know of. We have radar data and other witness accounts all corroborating this. And you basically treat this the same way like some image made by a smartphone from some random dude on the internet where "it's a possibility that this is aliens".

And now you are even moving the conversation to agnosticism because you have talked yourself into a corner. This has never been about agnosticism.

 

1 minute ago, Blackhawk said:

Lmao, funny how you think you are smart, and even talking about epistemic work.

I have more reasoning than you. It's you who have dogma which tells you to believe in any woo-woo stuff which you wish is true.

It's claimed that 4 fighter jet pilots saw the thing, but only one of them have talked infront of a camera about his experience (David Fravor).

There's a million red flags about the Nimitz incident. One is that the witnesses disagree with each other.

You realize that 3 of the pilots were on national television like a week ago? You don't even know what you are talking about yet you have strong opinions about this. That fact alone tells me everything I need to know about you in terms of how you approach this.

 

 

Here, this is actually a solid degree of open mindedness coming from a scientist:

 

[Blackhawk]

@Scholar You're showing us videos of stuff which has been debunked. The thing on the first video is a batman balloon.

https://www.space.com/amp/26035-google-ufo-was-rogue-balloon.html

Edited May 28, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

@Scholar You're showing us videos of stuff which has been debunked. The thing on the first video is a batman balloon.

That's literally completely irrelevant to the video. I am done engaging with you, this is getting to levels of cringe I have no time for.

[DocWatts]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

No, this is not how any of this works.

There is no scientific paradigm that tells you aliens were never here, or couldn't visit us, or are unlikely to visit us. That's all just nonsense people make up to sound reasonable. None of this is scientific, none of this is rational, none of this has anything to do with evidence.

This is not like we have an established theory if evidence supporting it that can make scientific predictions, and that if aliens exist all of that will turn out to be wrong. This isn't like Relativity overthrowing Newtonian physics. You are completely abusing these ideas.

Again, we have the Fravor incident, and you still did not contend at all with it. What does that mean "It is a possibility!", that's the most laziest non-answer possible. Give me some good account of what conventional explanation would fit the data here. This isn't about agnosticism, this is about your previous claims that it's somehow more likely that your pet theory is correct while you have not provided any reasoning for it at all that is solid.

Did I at any point compare verification of these sorts of claims to the world of physics, or insinuate that Laboratory experimentation is the only way to 'prove' something?

It seems obvious that you're projecting an expectation of someone with a Materialist Reductionism worldview, when that's not the case, nor is it what I'm arguing.

No one can 'prove' that alien craft aren't visiting us, any more than someone can 'prove' that an undiscovered species of Shark doesn't exist in the Pacific ocean.

In either case there's a Verification process that would need to happen before said Discovery is endorsed by the wider community. If you're right, then no doubt that will likely happen at some point.

[Blackhawk]

31 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You realize that 3 of the pilots were on national television like a week ago?

Then give me a link to that.

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Did I at any point compare verification of these sorts of claims to the world of physics, or insinuate that Laboratory experimentation is the only way to 'prove' something?

It seems obvious that you're projecting an expectation of someone with a Materialist Reductionism worldview, when that's not the case, nor is it what I'm arguing.

No one can 'prove' that alien craft aren't visiting us, any more than someone can 'prove' that an undiscovered species of Shark doesn't exist in the Pacific ocean.

In either case there's a Verification process that would need to happen before said Discovery is endorsed by the wider community. If you're right, then no doubt that will likely happen at some point.

You are missing the point completely. You were misusing a cultural standard we use in science and misapplying it to this instance. This has nothing to do with materialistic reductionism, I have no idea how you even got this idea. You could be a materialist reductionist or a complete idealist, it wouldn't change anything I was adressing. This isn't about proving aliens, this is about pointing out flaws in your approach.

 

I don't care about the aliens, the reason why I view discussing this as so useful is because it actually illustrates how people approach truth. Look at some of the first statements you made addressing me, it was never about whether you are agnostic or not, I am trying to focus in on how exactly you are thinking about these issues, because they reveal alot about how your mind works. And you keep avoiding all of the questions, and when I point something out you keep making this about a singular claim like whether or not you should be agnostic. No, that's not the only claim you made, and that's not the claim I was arguing with.

 

This is very similar to how people approach incest. Ask them whether incest is moral or not and then investigate how they came to conclude that. In most cases it will reveal that people are utterly shallow in how they determine something to be moral or not and all they do is rationlize an intuition they already hold. You and that other guy are basically doing the same here, and it's so obvious when I keep pointing out how you do that.

But you keep escaping it, so much so that now you pretend as if all you said was "I am agnostic about this".

[Blackhawk]

On 2021-04-17 at 9:57 AM, Leo Gura said:

So everyone is just ignoring this now?

These bastards are out there flyin' around.

This is a perfect example of not being skeptical enough, and of having confirmation bias. Because even a child can see that the first object in that video is a airplane or maybe a helicopter, yet somehow people manage to think it's aliens.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Blackhawk]

Another example is this: 

Everyone immediately thought it was a mahasamadhi, without being skeptical at all. And later it turned out that it was fake, or at least not mahasamadhi.

[DocWatts]

@Scholar Okay then, I'll bite. From an epistemological standpoint, explain to me why reserving judgement pending further study informed by a scientific cultural standard is a mistake in this instance? 

Let's restrict this to the vast majority of people who don't claim to have Direct Experience with these phenomena:

1 ) Whether or not aliens are visiting us is an Empirical (rather than a Subjective or Metaphysical) claim. To the best of my knowledge the claim isn't that these are ethereal experiences akin to DMT entities, but are something that exists and is experienced as a part of 'physical reality' (however you interpret that).

2 ) Even if it's not the 'Last Word' on what is ontologically true, from a pragmatic viewpoint science is extremely useful when set to examining the merits of Empirical claims.

3) Science has helped bolster the claims of diverse fields of study such as History and Anthropology, and in a sense isn't totally separate from them. Likewise, applying Scientific scrutiny to video footage and eyewitness accounts can be clarifying, as it can help account for false positives. Seems like using out knowledge of things like Optics and Psychology should be useful in that regard, no?

4) Unlike say Climate Change, there isn't an obvious downside or Opportunity Cost to withholding judgement on these matters for the time being.  

5) Pointing out that an object has unconventional properties that can't be accounted for with conventional explanations doesn't definitively prove that said object is what you claim it is; namely that it's alien in origin; it very well could be, but you're not going to be able to make a definitive statement about that using only Negatives (ie it's not definitely this or that type of thing, so therefore...). Which is sufficient for making more Limited and Modest claims, but seems premature to come to definitive judgements based on that.

6) Agnosticism as to the definitive explanation for seemingly strange phenomena that's yet to be fully explored is I would argue the position of Intellectual Humility.

I'd posit that at least some of these objects being extraterrestrial in origin is a not unreasonable Interpretation; going beyond that and claiming anything definitive without some sort of verification process seems grossly premature.

If this were an incoming message from SETI or the possible discovery of microbes on one of the moons of Jupiter, there are lengthy verification protocols in place to make pretty damn sure that it was the real deal before saying anything definitive about it.

Edited May 28, 2021 by DocWatts