They're here

[Sweet]

2 hours ago, Intelligent_Investor said:

Assuming that we are the only intelligent life out there is arrogant because you are assuming we are the ultimate outlier: there are over 200 billion stars in the Milky Way and there are over 200 billion galaxies in the known universe. That is 40 sextillion stars, if the possibility of life is even one in one trillion, then there are still over 40 billion star systems out there with life. The scale of the universe is so large that the probability of life would need to be so miniscule that we would have needed to overcome a greater than 1 in 40 sextillion chance for us to be the only life ever. If assuming we or our planet is special enough to overcome those odds isn't arrogant, then I don't know what is

 

You're assuming, without evidence, that you intuitively know the probability of life forming on a planet.  Is that not arrogant too?

 

40 sextillion habitual planets (assuming one per star) is a big number, it's 40e+21, but if the probability of life forming on a habitual planet is 1e-100 then it is more likely we are alone.  That's just how the maths works.

 

Since nobody knows the probability of life form, nobody knows if there is any life out there, never mind intelligent life.  So why can't we just say, 'I don't know'?  

 

We could be unbelievably special, is it not arrogant also to rule that possibility out? 

 

We might not special but why do we need to make an emotional appeal and insist that if a person disagrees with you its arrogance?  That's not a fact based argument.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Sweet

[maplevalue]

5 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

The conspiracy crowd seems to think that the onus is on science and now the government to debunk this stuff. That not how science works, you can’t really disprove something (in most cases)l the burden of proof is on those who make a claim.

 

The interesting thing in situations like this is who this burden should fall on. You have these credible witnesses report on seeing UAPs (plus some videos) plus indicating there is a secret crash retrieval program.

 

If we say the burden rests on the individuals claiming they are extraterrestrial, it is a pretty high bar to prove they were in fact extraterrestrial (here I suppose one needs an alien body or an extremely high resolution picture/video).

 

But if we say the burden rests on those claiming they are not extraterrestrial, it still is a very high bar to prove what the heck these things are. Sure there are theories (country that has advanced tech that has been kept secret, some sort of optical trick, etc) but have yet to see anyone offer solid concrete evidence beyond just conjecture/speculation of what the tic tac is.

 

The saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just that, a saying. The scientific method is based on reproducibility, but there are many things that are not reproducible (e.g. we can't just travel back in time and observe the tic tac). In cases where the evidence is incomplete and limited, I think it is incorrect to just assume there is no truth to be found in it. In the UAP case, sure we don't have anything yet that offers concrete proof the US government has extraterrestrial craft, but based on everything we have seen, I have a hard time not putting a non-zero probability (5%? 20%?) on us learning this is true. This is why I am following this so closely, because even if it is a low probability, the implications are so incredibly massive to humanity (and of course investing!).

Edited August 3, 2023 by maplevalue

[Thrifty3000]

6 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Brandolinis law always comes to my mind when I see these UFO theories. That stuff was popular since at least the 70‘s and flares up in popularity from time to time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

 

 

The conspiracy crowd seems to think that the onus is on science and now the government to debunk this stuff. That not how science works, you can’t really disprove something (in most cases)l the burden of proof is on those who make a claim.

 

But anyhow, I enjoy these things but regard them as entertainment.

Exactly. It’s pure entertainment

[Thrifty3000]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:55 AM, ValueArb said:

 

So what? There is also a strong stigma against reporting angels and ghosts, does that imply all three are real?

 

 

There is always congressional grand-standing. No one has offered any credible evidence there is billions in spending on this.

 

 

All of their evidence was hearsay and hearsay of hearsay. Beyond Gruch's self serving, vague and non-specific testimony you have a naval aviator talking about unidentified objects that are commonly witnessed by pilots, military and commercial. As I've pointed out, human vision and memory are inherently unreliable. An airliner 20 miles away can look like a silver tube, a disc, or to be rapidly changing shape, based on the lighting and weather conditions and your visual acuity and cleanliness and clarity of your windows and sun glasses. 

 

And Fravor's testimony is also a mix of hearsay (other pilots saw what I saw) and he could present no physical evidence of it. Again, what he thinks he saw and what he actually saw may be different things. And if the tic-tac was exactly as he described and performed as he claimed, it could not be a physical object due to the lack of sonic boom and atmospheric plasma trail.

 

 

And many of those videos have been debunked. Thats what the UFO cultists don't tell you.

 

 

Again UAP is no different than UFO. It's not an acknowledgment of aliens, its just an acknowledgment that we can't identify everything we see. Some UAPs may be advanced drones from other countries, we should always be open minded and investigate them so we don't end up being surprised by balloons overflying our military bases.

 

 

One turd in your soup means it's no longer soup. Mixing in crackpot with what is claimed to be evidence should make you very skeptical of their other "evidence". And "trying to make it public"? The internet has been around for decades, putting terabytes online has been trivial for most of it.

 

And we don't need even 7 terabytes more grainy footage of flying objects too far away to make out any specific detail on, so that they could easily be balloons, drones, airplanes, etc. The bar for "evidence" is so low in the UAP/UFO community its just tedious. 

 

 

A firing squad? Risking lives? Methinks you are not "the type who will be skeptical of UFOs until I’m personally beamed into a flying saucer and probed by aliens." as your bar for convincing seems incredibly low. 

 

Again to quote Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is all the physical evidence from all the crashes and all the bodies? Anyone who presents the first physical evidence of an alien encounter will win eternal fame and lucrative rewards, the risk reward of disclosure is massively weighted to rewards. Grusch hasn't' presented a shred of evidence yet he's going to have a very comfortable retirement doing paid appearances and writing UFO books.

 

Lastly, what every UFO fanatic ignores is there is already a significant scientific effort into finding and contacting aliens. It's called SETI. The only reason SETI scientists aren't invited to hearings is they will tell you that they can almost always find pretty mundane explanations for almost all UFO videos and haven't been able to find any physical evidence, ever, from these claimed encounters.

It sounds to me like you work for one of the agencies trying to keep aliens under wraps, further validating their existence.

[ValueArb]

1 hour ago, maplevalue said:

 

The interesting thing in situations like this is who this burden should fall on. You have these credible witnesses report on seeing UAPs (plus some videos) plus indicating there is a secret crash retrieval program.

 

The burden of proof first lies on those claiming there are crashes at all. 

 

 

1 hour ago, maplevalue said:

 

If we say the burden rests on the individuals claiming they are extraterrestrial, it is a pretty high bar to prove they were in fact extraterrestrial (here I suppose one needs an alien body or an extremely high resolution picture/video).

 

But if we say the burden rests on those claiming they are not extraterrestrial, it still is a very high bar to prove what the heck these things are. Sure there are theories (country that has advanced tech that has been kept secret, some sort of optical trick, etc) but have yet to see anyone offer solid concrete evidence beyond just conjecture/speculation of what the tic tac is.

 

There have been numerous experts that have demonstrated the Navy UAPs can easily be explained as tricks of perception.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-study-ufos-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why

 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-05-29/navy-ufo-videos-skeptics

 

 

 

1 hour ago, maplevalue said:

 

The saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just that, a saying. The scientific method is based on reproducibility, but there are many things that are not reproducible (e.g. we can't just travel back in time and observe the tic tac). In cases where the evidence is incomplete and limited, I think it is incorrect to just assume there is no truth to be found in it. In the UAP case, sure we don't have anything yet that offers concrete proof the US government has extraterrestrial craft, but based on everything we have seen, I have a hard time not putting a non-zero probability (5%? 20%?) on us learning this is true. This is why I am following this so closely, because even if it is a low probability, the implications are so incredibly massive to humanity (and of course investing!).

 

The saying has a very pertinent meaning. If you tell me you drank coffee this morning, and I have witnessed that you normally drink coffee every morning, I can accept that it is likely you are telling me the truth without further evidence. If you tell me an alien popped in through your window, drank your coffee, then teleported you back in time to witness the birth of Jesus Christ, I'm going to need a lot more evidence before I should accept it as likely true.

 

First, any true skeptic believes there is a non-zero probability of nearly any phenomena. We can't know everything, and can't rule out anything. So we have to use actual evidence as our guide to what is most likely true. What evidence do we have?

 

1) Videos that are easily debunked 

2) Witnesses that claim crash debris without physical evidence, and that don't even claim to have seen them, just complete hearsay that someone told them.

 

I can't imagine how you even get to 5% with that set of data.

[ValueArb]

23 minutes ago, Thrifty3000 said:

It sounds to me like you work for one of the agencies trying to keep aliens under wraps, further validating their existence.

 

Its true that everything I say could be because I'm being paid to hide the truth from the American public. Or that I'm being paid by the aliens, as part of a well funded alien effort to hide their existence. Or that the UAPs are really angels and I'm an emissary from god sent to downplay their visits in order to avoid a panic and outbreak of religious war.

 

The problem with believing my motive is only good skepticism is that its boring, its ruining the fun and killing the party. 

[Ulti]

 

[tede02]

Here's a really good discussion with one of the congressmen pursuing this issue, Jared Moskowitz. He brings up a key point that intrigues me...that being, there continues to be a major push-back by the department of defense and intelligence agencies against any inquiries into this issue. It begs the question, why? Most recently, one of the whistleblowers was subject to a major hit piece in the Intercept about his struggles with PTSD following service in Afhganistan. The author of the piece actually acknowledged that intel/defense sources guided him to the dirt so he could put it out there. Again, it raises THE big quesiton, why? If everything the whistleblower Grusch said (under oath by-the-way) was just a made up story, why would you try to not only stop the hearing from happening in the first place, but then go even further and attempt to smear his reputation in the press? It doesn't make any sense. There's clearly something that these organization are trying to protect. Maybe it has nothing to do with aliens. Perhaps it's some massive misappropriation of funds. Whatever it is, congress is getting closer. Like Burchett said, you know you're getting close to the target when they start shooting at you and that is exactly what's happening. 

 

 

. 

Edited August 21, 2023 by tede02

[Thrifty3000]

3 hours ago, tede02 said:

Here's a really good discussion with one of the congressmen pursuing this issue, Jared Moskowitz. He brings up a key point that intrigues me...that being, there continues to be a major push-back by the department of defense and intelligence agencies against any inquiries into this issue. It begs the question, why? Most recently, one of the whistleblowers was subject to a major hit piece in the Intercept about his struggles with PTSD following service in Afhganistan. The author of the piece actually acknowledged that intel/defense sources guided him to the dirt so he could put it out there. Again, it raises THE big quesiton, why? If everything the whistleblower Grusch said (under oath by-the-way) was just a made up story, why would you try to not only stop the hearing from happening in the first place, and then try to smear his reputation in the press? It doesn't make any sense. There's clearly something that these organization are trying to protect. Maybe it has nothing to do with aliens. Perhaps it's some massive misappropriation of funds. Whatever it is, congress is getting closer. Like Burchett said, you know you're getting close to the target when they start shooting at you and that is exactly what's happening. 

 

 

. 

^ Yup

[Sweet]

I’m fairly sure that the recent sightings are either sophisticated propaganda or US technologies.

 

There is a telling contrast between the response of the US government to the Chinese spy balloon and these unknown vehicles routinely intercepted in US airspace and which on at least one occasion nearly collided with a US fighter jet.

 

The US government don’t really seem to care that their airspace is violated by unknown objects on a regular basis.  There doesn’t appear to have been a serious attempt to find out what the objects are, who owns them, or to get their hands on one.  The Chinese spy balloon was shot down but there is no sign of any attempt to down these objects.

 

So I think the answer is sort of obvious.  The US government know exactly what the objects are because it’s their craft or their propaganda.

 

 

[ValueArb]

On 8/19/2023 at 10:41 AM, tede02 said:

Here's a really good discussion with one of the congressmen pursuing this issue, Jared Moskowitz. He brings up a key point that intrigues me...that being, there continues to be a major push-back by the department of defense and intelligence agencies against any inquiries into this issue. It begs the question, why? Most recently, one of the whistleblowers was subject to a major hit piece in the Intercept about his struggles with PTSD following service in Afhganistan. The author of the piece actually acknowledged that intel/defense sources guided him to the dirt so he could put it out there. Again, it raises THE big quesiton, why? If everything the whistleblower Grusch said (under oath by-the-way) was just a made up story, why would you try to not only stop the hearing from happening in the first place, and then try to smear his reputation in the press? It doesn't make any sense. There's clearly something that these organization are trying to protect. Maybe it has nothing to do with aliens. Perhaps it's some massive misappropriation of funds. Whatever it is, congress is getting closer. Like Burchett said, you know you're getting close to the target when they start shooting at you and that is exactly what's happening. 

 

 

. 

Maybe the pushback is because it’s such an idiotic waste of resources and attention when they have so much more important things to be working on?

[rkbabang]

 

1,000 year alien bodies with three fingers, metal implants displayed in Mexico

 

"A prominent UFO expert, Jaime Maussan, made a startling presentation at the Mexican Congress, unveiling two alleged "non-human" bodies that are said to be 1,000 years old, according to reports in the media."

 

 

[Paarslaars]

Wow, they find aliens that look exactly like E.T.? What are the odds man  

[rkbabang]

18 minutes ago, Paarslaars said:

Wow, they find aliens that look exactly like E.T.? What are the odds man  

 

 

Weird, I don't think they even had Reese's Pieces 1000 years ago.  I wonder what they ate?

[ValueArb]

On 9/13/2023 at 6:57 AM, rkbabang said:

 

1,000 year alien bodies with three fingers, metal implants displayed in Mexico

 

"A prominent UFO expert, Jaime Maussan, made a startling presentation at the Mexican Congress, unveiling two alleged "non-human" bodies that are said to be 1,000 years old, according to reports in the media."

 

 

 

So the guy responsible for the Nasca, Peru alien mummy hoax had the balls to try to run another one?

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alien-mummy-peru/

 

I've also read that some of the team associated with this new hoax were involved in the Alien Autopsy hoax.

 

https://time.com/4376871/alien-autopsy-hoax-history/

 

 

[Sweet]

“Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world”https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611.amp

[tede02]

On 9/13/2023 at 9:06 AM, Paarslaars said:

Wow, they find aliens that look exactly like E.T.? What are the odds man  

 

LMAO! I thought the exact same thing.  

[rkbabang]

 

https://x.com/SallyMayweather/status/1702652630814650418

 

[rkbabang]

You can’t talk about this topic with just anyone.

 

Cormac McCarthy's Ex-Wife Pulled a Gun Out of Her Vagina During an Argument About Aliens

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/cormac-mccarthys-ex-wife-pulled-gun-out-her-vagina-while-arguing-about-aliens/356822/

 

[rkbabang]

So 2024 starts off with people shooting at 10 ft tall shadow beings at a Miami mall, ending with a truly massive police presence and the authorities telling people later that it was just because of some kids fighting.

 

 

Edited January 5 by rkbabang

[Sweet]

Came across this the other day, a paper from Oxford Uni called ‘Dissolving the Fermi Paradox’.  Forgot to post it.  
 

Of course I’ve no idea how likely this is as the next person but seems well thought out:

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02404#:~:text=The Fermi paradox is the,universe we in fact observe.

 

Would be disappointing if it turned out to be the correct solution.

 

 

Edited January 5 by Sweet

[Ulti]

https://news.yahoo.com/congress-getting-classified-ufo-briefing-170757118.html

[ValueArb]

Uh, turns out they aren't here.

 

Quote

The Pentagon says it found no evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft, in a new report reviewing nearly eight decades of UFO sightings.

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237100622/pentagon-ufo-report-no-evidence-alien-technology

Edited March 13 by ValueArb

[Castanza]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

Uh, turns out they aren't here.

 

 

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237100622/pentagon-ufo-report-no-evidence-alien-technology

 

 

Who knew it was as simple as asking for a Pentagon report and then coverage by NPR 

[Hektor]

3 hours ago, ValueArb said:

Uh, turns out they aren't here.

Or they might be here, but we did not find them