UFOs Are Here

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

We have video footage released by the US Navy of real UFOs.

These are not ghost stories. Real Navy pilots. Real Navy videos.

Yeah, I’ve seen those grainy grayscale videos. When you look into the tech and the artifacts they produce and the conditions under which the videos are taken, it doesn’t look good for your case. A black and white video with nebulous shapes taken by a camera strapped to a jet traveling god knows how fast, tracking objects thousands of feet away in the dark. Lol. Fuckin aliens bro. I’ve thoroughly debunked this before but can’t recall the most damning bit. 

Have you looked deep into the technical aspects? Try to find all non-magical explanations first and see how plausible they are compared to the alternative. I think you’ll find that they’re not only plausible, but likely. A microscopic bug might have been on his camera lens doing weird shit for all you know. A jet pilot is also a human who can misperceive things. And let’s not discount the fact that the government has used UFOs in the past to serve some hidden agenda. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Joshe

[Joshe]

31 minutes ago, Hojo said:

This is a ufo drawing that someone from the navy said they saw. Its the coolest one.

Its like a bubble of conciousness.

lol. That’s some cool art. 

[LoneWonderer]

25 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Yeah, I’ve seen those grainy grayscale videos. When you look into the tech and the artifacts they produce and the conditions under which the videos are taken, it doesn’t look good for your case. A black and white footage with nebulous shapes taken by a camera strapped to a jet traveling god knows how fast, tracking objects thousands of feet away in the dark. Lol. Fuckin aliens bro. I’ve thoroughly debunked this before but can’t recall the most damning bit. 

Have you looked deep into the technical aspects? Try to find all non-magical explanations first and see how plausible they are compared to the alternative. I think you’ll find that they’re not only plausible, but likely. A microscopic bug might have been on his camera lens doing weird shit for all you know. A jet pilot is also a human who can misperceive things. And let’s not discount the fact that the government has used UFO shit in the past to serve some hidden agenda. 

Some not knowing would do you good. You haven't gone deep enough into the material to see or recognize what people here are talking about. Do you really think you're the first one  to come up with these conclusions? Anyways last I mention this because you can't argue with fools, they already believe they know the truth!

[Jehovah increases]

17 hours ago, Hojo said:

This is a ufo drawing that someone from the navy said they saw. Its the coolest one.

Its like a bubble of conciousness.

17 hours ago, Joshe said:

lol. That’s some cool art. 

17 hours ago, Joshe said:

 

On 7/26/2026 at 8:59 PM, LoneWonderer said:

Kinda looks like a hypercube inside a sphere. Awesome picture. That's what I said what the flop?? WHO IS LONEWanderer THIS SYSTEM IS BROKEN.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Jehovah increases

[Joshe]

11 hours ago, LoneWonderer said:

Some not knowing would do you good.

Sounds like it's doing you harm.

Not-knowing is meant to be provisional, not something you mire in indefinitely.

Many here don't seem to understand the point of good epistemology.

The point is to arrive at the most accurate conclusions given the data.

And what's the point of arriving at conclusions?

ACTION, or maybe better "Non-action"

Good epistemology is a filter. What is the job of a filter? To collect clean outputs by discarding pollutants. 

It's meant to be a tool, not an identity. Not a badge of honor. Not something you parrot, but something you actually fucking employ.

12 hours ago, LoneWonderer said:

Anyways these are all just my crackpot theorizing because I got nothing better to do. All other theories are equally valid in the realms of unknows! 

Or here's another possibility...I'm just spinning a web of bullshit based on stories and people's annecdotes. Can't rule that out either.

You say it's possible you're just spinning webs of bullshit. How about you elaborate on that in the same loving detail you apply to your alien project? You don't build a detailed classification of things you think you're inventing. You're making this shit up and believing in their possibilities to a large degree. Then, at the end, you build an escape hatch. 

The flat-earther has done at least one thing epistemology requires. They've stuck their necks out. 

Perpetual one-line hedges that you could be full of shit, then not making any gains in one direction or the other isn't what good epistemology looks like. You work toward a conclusion of what is most likely, then you state your position. You falsify and weigh evidence until something gives. At least Q'Anon and flat-earthers have the balls to make falsifiable statements.

"I could be wrong" disclaimers and while not updating is a tell that you're not trying to be right or wrong at all. And that's the point of these alien projects. They're pure entertainment for you and most everyone who indulges. To prove them bullshit would bring your fun time to an end. To never arrive is the point. Which is why you spend the majority of your time consuming content aimed at their truthfulness rather than content calling out the bullshit. 

11 hours ago, LoneWonderer said:

You haven't gone deep enough into the material to see or recognize what people here are talking about. Do you really think you're the first one  to come up with these conclusions?

Do you realize this is the same exact thing flat-earthers say. The same exact thing Q'Anon, astrology, ghost believers, and Scientologists say? 

When your best defense against a serious critic maps 1:1 to the best defense of Q'Anon and the like, that's a strong signal worth paying attention to. 

Aliens almost certainly exist in our universe, but your 70-80% or whatever conviction that they're visiting us on earth is an unfounded, fantastical leap.

Every piece of evidence anyone has presented, when put under a critical rigorous analysis, has mundane explanations none of you can refute. Yet you all are making gigantic leaps, dismissing those analyses, and saying "I still think it's true, we just can't know", and it's all licensed by Leo, your epistemic authority, because hey, he's the most epistemically responsible human alive, right? 

Leo would get torn to shreds in an actual debate on this. His "high volume reporting - not everyone is full of shit", his 1930's Italy, his Navy video, all of these have very good explanations that you're all dismissing in favor of something more exciting. 

Typically, that's fine, but it's maximally hypocritical for this specific community.

Edited 9 hours ago by Joshe

[Sandroew]

23 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Not-knowing is meant to be provisional, not something you mire in indefinitely.

Many here don't seem to understand the point of good epistemology.

The point is to arrive at the most accurate conclusions given the data.

And what's the point of arriving at conclusions?

ACTION, or maybe better "Non-action"

 

I disagree with this.

If the most accuate conclusion is that you dont know, then thats it.

You are falsely conflating the application of science to a practical problem with UFOs.

[Joshe]

4 hours ago, Sandroew said:

I disagree with this.

If the most accuate conclusion is that you dont know, then thats it.

I'm not saying to never rest at "I don't know". I'm saying people are avoiding moving away from "I don't know" because they prefer not to. Not because they're thinking clearly and staying humble. They're prefer exotic explanations over mundane ones. 

Also, I botched my idea with action/non-action. The point I was trying to drive home was that the whole purpose of epistemology is to arrive at a conclusion, and the point of arriving at a conclusion is to provide you with direction in thought or action. Moving in the right direction is what it's for.

4 hours ago, Sandroew said:

You are falsely conflating the application of science to a practical problem with UFOs.

I'm advocating for the application of sound reasoning, critical thinking, and honest updating.

To critically test every claim and to objectively weigh the evidence. That's all. For each incident, exhaust the mundane before reaching for the miraculous. If you do an honest accounting and still find the mundane explanations lacking, fine. But you have to do the honest accounting first. Otherwise you're just doing what Q'Anon and flat-earthers do except you're wearing an "I don't know" humility costume, thinking it buys you cover. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Joshe

[Sandroew]

@Joshe i think you formulated it pretty clearly.

I also think you are not giving a fair chance for the possibility that UFOs could be on Earth.

At any rate - and this is no offence to your person - im not willing to invest energy in arguing this time.

(gotta try to catch some sleep)

[Natasha Tori Maru]

23 minutes ago, Joshe said:

IAlso, I botched my idea with action/non-action. The point I was trying to drive home was that the whole purpose of epistemology is to arrive at a conclusion, and the point of arriving at a conclusion is to provide you with direction in thought or action. Moving in the right direction is what it's for.

Marked up in red is not necessarily universally true - and if we are to really probe into this, we will find this is not an honest investigation of the matter.

The claim has hidden assumptions about what knowledge is for.

There are at least three major positions that could come to mind via brainstorming behind what we use knowledge for. Pragmatism - which would be searching for knowledge as it is valuable to guide action. Then, there is embarking on a search for truth for its own sake. A much more Leo-esc / INTP sort of position. Third would be virtue epistemology - the aim is intellectual excellence. I am sure there are more, these are just a few I can think of on the spot. The overall point is that you make a big assumption which covers over a weakness in the above argument.

Case in point - it is my understanding Leo's search for truth is itself a terminal value. This is an example of an epistemology that isn't centred around seeking just for application. And while people embark on epistemic rigor for any combination of the above (application, virtue or just intellectual excellent etc) at seperete times, in different ways:

Do you think users here want to understand the UFO topic to apply the knowledge in application, or because of truth for its own sake?

tl;dr truth and utility are related, but not identical

Rounding back to "not knowing"  - investigating if you earnestly understand the true meaning of the concept and being honest with yourself is key. It appears to remain a conceptual understanding if it is reduced to "it is needed provisionally to find some truth for action". Although, perhaps you are purely approaching it in this way to make a point - which isn't very sound as it is based on the assumptions (hence, weaknesses in the claim) above. 

I highly recommend this book:

Peter Ralston - The Book of Not Knowing

It is an excellent way to truly deconstruct knowing, beliefs - and - as a byproduct, where we are filling in gaps to match patterns and narratives we are identified with. It will assist with assumptions, inferences and facilitate a deep self honesty through connection to what is unlimited.

 

[LoneWonderer]

@Joshe

Hey Joshe sorry about my rude post the other day I don't tend to act out on posts and try to be respectful of people. Having said that:

I do not reach conclusions on the UAP topic like you have because I truly do not know. I'm at the same time super weary of the subject and don't take anything for granted. I have my own crackpot theories, but they remain just that...theories. If tommorow we find out it's all BS then cool I move on. However as I've stated here before, lots of good supportive evidence on the subject and an open mystery atm. A good bit of fun if you will (if you don't take yourself too seriously of course! 🤪).

Btw dig deeper, most of your given reasons are good, but most have already had holes poked in by very credited scientists and experts in fields of imaging as well as army. Could all them be deluded too? Yes could be, I'm not ruling it out either. This subject is wrought with epistemic landmines left right and center.

Also you can't ground reality in anything mate, reality is literally infinite. Your sense of sanity at one level is insanity at another. Take some phsycs, you'll instantly see what I just said making perfect sense.

Note you assume I'm making the same mistake as flat earthers, cult members etc to your own detriment, I was studying simple self deception like this at 12-13 years old 😂. Mate who do you take me or the memebers of this community to be? Sorry this is my ego acting out 😍

Edited 1 hour ago by LoneWonderer

[LoneWonderer]

@Natasha Tori MaruI remember you mentioning you didn't trust Lue several times now. I haven't watched it yet but the title is eearly similar to your comments in this latest drop 😨:

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by LoneWonderer

[Natasha Tori Maru]

16 minutes ago, LoneWonderer said:

@Natasha Tori MaruI remember you mentioning you didn't trust Lue several times now. I haven't watched it yet but the title is eearly similar to your comments in this latest drop 😨:

 

This alone is what makes this topic so difficult for me - there is as much disinformation as potential legitimate information floating around.

As old Trumply boy said "The only way to deal with them, is to flood the zone with shit (information)". He wasn't referring to the UFO / UAP phenomenon per se - but it applies.

I think we should also distinguish between UFO / UAP and aliens / NHI. The two topics are being mixed together when we are talking epistemology. Equivocating UAP / NHI is a domain/category error - as there are varying levels of evidence for each. And while the phenomenon's appear (or could) be linked, mixing the two when we debate epistemology is not assisting with clarity on the matter.

The only reason I come from more conclusive certainty than yourself (and others here) is because of my unique experiences (as spoken about previously in this thread). 

Anyway - thanks for the shares on the topic  

I still think this topic brings in all the most open minded, charitable and interesting characters on the forum !!

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[LoneWonderer]

8 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This alone is what makes this topic so difficult for me - there is as much disinformation as potential legitimate information floating around.

As old Trumply boy said "The only way to deal with them, is to flood the zone with shit (information)". He wasn't referring to the UFO / UAP phenomenon per se - but it applies.

I think we should also distinguish between UFO / UAP and aliens / NHI. The two topics are being mixed together when we are talking epistemology. Equivocating UAP / NHI is a domain/category error - as there are varying levels of evidence for each. And while the phenomenon's appear (or could) be linked, mixing the two when we debate epistemology is not assisting with clarity on the matter.

The only reason I come from more conclusive certainty than yourself (and others here) is because of my unique experiences (as spoken about previously in this thread). 

Anyway - thanks for the shares on the topic  

I still think this topic brings in all the most open minded, charitable and interesting characters on the forum !!

Thank you for championing epistemic responsibility for all of us. Yes, I have often been quite sloppy with this. 🙏

Edited 1 hour ago by LoneWonderer