With all the recent news surrounding UFO sightings (on radar by military aircraft, ships, pilot visuals) not to mention statements by high level government officials around the world, as well as astronauts, I cannot believe the relative lack of attention this is getting in the media. The implications of these events are potentially world changing.
Needless to say, I am fascinated and exited about the possibilities. So what are these vehicles? My list of possibilities are the following; would love to hear anyone else's ideas on this.....
(1) Hoax perpetrated on government/military
(2) Hoax perpetrated by U.S. Govt.
(3) U.S. technology.
(4) Foreign Govt. technology.
(5) Private Industry technology.
(6) Alien technology.
What else could it be?
Quote:
The Nephilim
I think bringing religious stuff into an essentially scientific discussion will turn a lot of people off. Sort of like bringing Creationism into a serious discussion of the details of evolution. Just saying. I like freedom of speech:
Science has been anti-religion anti paranormal forever. So there’s that.
I think it’s also worth noting that Elizondo sites differences in philosophy on the UFO topic within government, meaning religious dogma prevents serious investigations into these incursions.
Freedom of speech, separation of church and state, objective research and scientific processes are continually stymied they are on egotistical visions of “reality”
Great incident. NY post podcast Stephen greenstreet did a breakdown of that one with nick pope. Really fantastic story
Quote:
In comment 15289022 mattlawson said:
Quote:
The Nephilim
I think bringing religious stuff into an essentially scientific discussion will turn a lot of people off. Sort of like bringing Creationism into a serious discussion of the details of evolution. Just saying. I like freedom of speech:
Science has been anti-religion anti paranormal forever. So there’s that.
I think it’s also worth noting that Elizondo sites differences in philosophy on the UFO topic within government, meaning religious dogma prevents serious investigations into these incursions.
Freedom of speech, separation of church and state, objective research and scientific processes are continually stymied they are on egotistical visions of “reality”
Quote:
In comment 15289029 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 15289022 mattlawson said:
Quote:
The Nephilim
I think bringing religious stuff into an essentially scientific discussion will turn a lot of people off. Sort of like bringing Creationism into a serious discussion of the details of evolution. Just saying. I like freedom of speech:
Science has been anti-religion anti paranormal forever. So there’s that.
I think it’s also worth noting that Elizondo sites differences in philosophy on the UFO topic within government, meaning religious dogma prevents serious investigations into these incursions.
Freedom of speech, separation of church and state, objective research and scientific processes are continually stymied they are on egotistical visions of “reality”
I think that you can make a much better historical case that religion has been anti science.
As Al said, religion is anti-science.
Quote:
This was 1897 in Aurora Texas. There is a History Channel show on YouTube with details. Sadly, lots of details and some evidence, but no answers.
Great incident. NY post podcast Stephen greenstreet did a breakdown of that one with nick pope. Really fantastic story
Yep. Of all the incidents out there, this one stands out the most to me. Simply because there was nothing for the paper to really gain writing that story at the time. And the treatment of the pilot being given a proper burial and religious ceremony was really fascinating. It was just matter of fact.
As Al said, religion is anti-science.
One caveat Fat Man... "Real" science is truly agnostic. Unfortunately, there is so much garbage passing for science and "settled" science is its muzzle. Relating this to UFO's, there is something out there and we have no clues. Science and theology are both stymied.
As Al said, religion is anti-science.
To intertwine science and the three Abrahamic religions as something that can work together is asinine. There's a reason the Church has fought against science for centuries now. It essentially invalidates a lot of the core text. You can still use the texts as a philosophy to life, but when a core tenet is the Earth is 6,000 years old....yeah. Science is agnostic, it doesn't disprove God, just their ideas of it.
Quote:
In comment 15289079 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
This was 1897 in Aurora Texas. There is a History Channel show on YouTube with details. Sadly, lots of details and some evidence, but no answers.
Great incident. NY post podcast Stephen greenstreet did a breakdown of that one with nick pope. Really fantastic story
Yep. Of all the incidents out there, this one stands out the most to me. Simply because there was nothing for the paper to really gain writing that story at the time. And the treatment of the pilot being given a proper burial and religious ceremony was really fascinating. It was just matter of fact.
In true Disney Cars fashion - the only explainable rationale is that the town was going to be passed by and it was drummed up for the tourism. I’m not saying I believe that or it’s solid conclusion - but that’s the caveat
Quote:
In comment 15289088 mattlawson said:
Quote:
In comment 15289079 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
This was 1897 in Aurora Texas. There is a History Channel show on YouTube with details. Sadly, lots of details and some evidence, but no answers.
Great incident. NY post podcast Stephen greenstreet did a breakdown of that one with nick pope. Really fantastic story
Yep. Of all the incidents out there, this one stands out the most to me. Simply because there was nothing for the paper to really gain writing that story at the time. And the treatment of the pilot being given a proper burial and religious ceremony was really fascinating. It was just matter of fact.
In true Disney Cars fashion - the only explainable rationale is that the town was going to be passed by and it was drummed up for the tourism. I’m not saying I believe that or it’s solid conclusion - but that’s the caveat
Was tourism a revenue driver for small town America in 1894?
I think your conclusion is partially right. This new stuff they are releasing could very well be exactly what you’re saying. The older reports before we even had driving technology couldn’t possibly be that answer.
1- skeptics are not familiar with the data
2- the govt has covered up and lied through its teeth for decades, the data of studies conducted are incongruent with the press releases.
3- there’s a major fear of ridicule in the academic and scientific communities about this subject
4 - stigmas exist to avoid the subject in the scientific community
5- Studying radio signals is a waste of time
6- What’s going on here is akin to the cargo cults of New Guinea
7- noisy negativism is completely opposite of what the data shows
8 - UFOs are real, meaning some are ET
1- skeptics are not familiar with the data
2- the govt has covered up and lied through its teeth for decades, the data of studies conducted are incongruent with the press releases.
3- there’s a major fear of ridicule in the academic and scientific communities about this subject
4 - stigmas exist to avoid the subject in the scientific community
5- Studying radio signals is a waste of time
6- What’s going on here is akin to the cargo cults of New Guinea
7- noisy negativism is completely opposite of what the data shows
8 - UFOs are real, meaning some are ET
A quote;
“ Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science.”
Science has only been clearly “anti-religion” at most for the last 200 years. Maybe because science and religion come from the same basic human curiosity, trying to make sense of the natural world around us. Science has lapped religion, and has a higher hit rate, but that’s relatively recent.
Personally, I’m both religious and a firm believer there is intelligent life outside of the Earth.
The current crop of evidence is underwhelming. Great claims, great evidence and all that. If the Catholic Church rolled out a few blurry videos, and said “Who knows what that is (but wink wink pretty good chance it’s God), I’m pretty certain of the reaction we’d all have.
1- skeptics are not familiar with the data
2- the govt has covered up and lied through its teeth for decades, the data of studies conducted are incongruent with the press releases.
3- there’s a major fear of ridicule in the academic and scientific communities about this subject
4 - stigmas exist to avoid the subject in the scientific community
5- Studying radio signals is a waste of time
6- What’s going on here is akin to the cargo cults of New Guinea
7- noisy negativism is completely opposite of what the data shows
8 - UFOs are real, meaning some are ET
“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false.[2] In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In research, low-power experiments are subject to false negatives (there would have been an observable effect if there had been a larger sample size or better experimental design) and false positives (there was an observable coincidental effect). The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.[3][4]”
I also never heard of the Cargo Cult thing mentioned in 6.I found d it an interesting study of human psychology,
On the other hand, those Navy patents loom large in the background. If these things are real and not us (present day humans) all governments would be racing to copy the technology. Did the US get there?
Personally, I believe this most recent hype of UAPs leans more towards military tech than anything.
The incident that makes me justify this happened in 1980 and is known as the Cash-Landrum incident in Texas. Look it up to read an amazing tale of what was most likely a government test of technology that didn't go as planned and unfortunately had innocent victims.
Cash-Landrum incident - ( New Window )
Personally, I believe this most recent hype of UAPs leans more towards military tech than anything.
The incident that makes me justify this happened in 1980 and is known as the Cash-Landrum incident in Texas. Look it up to read an amazing tale of what was most likely a government test of technology that didn't go as planned and unfortunately had innocent victims. Cash-Landrum incident - ( New Window )
As a former Army helicopter pilot, that story is so full of factual holes to be non-credible. Just in numbers of aircraft and the purpose of such an armada is absurd. Secondly is the location. There would have to be a serious and very traceable effort to muster that many rotary wing aircraft. When I read the story about the Chinook landing and chatting it up with the pilot, I call BS.
To say a small 2 to 3% of anomalous on identified Ariel vehicles exist, when the data produced showed it was over 20% and the correlation was actually stronger with the owner identified cases of the other ones that could be explained…. Hard to logically spin that conclusion.
Science has only been clearly “anti-religion” at most for the last 200 years. Maybe because science and religion come from the same basic human curiosity, trying to make sense of the natural world around us. Science has lapped religion, and has a higher hit rate, but that’s relatively recent.
Personally, I’m both religious and a firm believer there is intelligent life outside of the Earth.
The current crop of evidence is underwhelming. Great claims, great evidence and all that. If the Catholic Church rolled out a few blurry videos, and said “Who knows what that is (but wink wink pretty good chance it’s God), I’m pretty certain of the reaction we’d all have.
The allegation is that there’s much more evidence that has not come forward yet.
Even if it IS secret tech it does not bode well for the paradigm we’re being kept in.
It’s a lose lose no matter what
He claimed they look the way they look due to human evolution, just as we look different today compared to first humans for similar reasons.
Michael P Masters has a book on this idea and theory and in his opinion satisfies all the markers of the probability of reasons notion.
He claimed they look the way they look due to human evolution, just as we look different today compared to first humans for similar reasons.
Michael P Masters has a book on this idea and theory and in his opinion satisfies all the markers of the probability of reasons notion.
I love the "time is a flat circle" theory. For some reason, it really resonates with me.
1- skeptics are not familiar with the data
2- the govt has covered up and lied through its teeth for decades, the data of studies conducted are incongruent with the press releases.
3- there’s a major fear of ridicule in the academic and scientific communities about this subject
4 - stigmas exist to avoid the subject in the scientific community
5- Studying radio signals is a waste of time
6- What’s going on here is akin to the cargo cults of New Guinea
7- noisy negativism is completely opposite of what the data shows
8 - UFOs are real, meaning some are ET
But even this post is riddled with bias and prejudice!
Each one of the points has bias throughout it.
Skeptics aren't familiar with the data would indicate that believers are familiar with the data
In fact, there's no conclusion to be drawn from the "data". And what is called "data" to some isn't really data at all. The only thing laughable is when somebody is presented with the information that is known now and concludes that it is clear that either aliens exist or that they absolutely do not. If you are concluding something from "data", you probably need a better understanding of that term.
This isn’t a math equation or a test someone ran in a lab. It’s essentially all speculative.
I’m not a believer nor a denier. I simply am comfortable saying I don’t know because I myself have never seen one. And that’s what it would take for me to believe - my own two eyes proving it.
What "data"?? And what does his conclusion mean or represent?
Of course UFO's are real. By definition, not knowing what something is classifies it as an UNKNOWN object. Saying some aren't earthly isn't conclusive. Unless he's looking at asteroids.
Everyone should believe in UFOs for the same reason as noted above...because they haven't or cannot been identified as of yet.
But given a clear picture or video or a somebody that doesn't live out in the middle of nowhere, I am pretty sure most, if not all, of the remaining UFO sightings would be converted to IFOs...
And I'm not sure what being a "foremost expert" on a subject like this has to do with anything. One of the "foremost experts" on Bigfoot validated that a hoax of a gorilla suit in a box was proof several years back.
There are "foremost experts" on ghosts, there have been hundred of thousands of ghost sightings over the years. They have been featured prominently in literature and film often with a similar appearance of being transluscent and wearing tattered clothing. There's even references to spirits in ancient works. And yet, their proof doesn't exist, nor is there data to suggest they do. There also isn't data to conclude they don't exist.
Quote:
He studied the data. Was one of the foremost experts on the planet. His conclusion: UFOs are real. SOME UFOs are not earthly.
And I'm not sure what being a "foremost expert" on a subject like this has to do with anything. One of the "foremost experts" on Bigfoot validated that a hoax of a gorilla suit in a box was proof several years back.
There are "foremost experts" on ghosts, there have been hundred of thousands of ghost sightings over the years. They have been featured prominently in literature and film often with a similar appearance of being transluscent and wearing tattered clothing. There's even references to spirits in ancient works. And yet, their proof doesn't exist, nor is there data to suggest they do. There also isn't data to conclude they don't exist.
“Friedman relied on the argument from ignorance fallacy and didn't understand the principle of Occam's razor and thought that the quantity of evidence was more important than quality of evidence.”
That Stanton guy did an AMA on Reddit a decade ago and it was a complete disaster. He didn’t answer any questions and plugged his book constantly.
“Nickell received the 2004 Isaac Asimov Award from the American Humanist Association[44] and was a co-recipient of the 2005 and the 2012 Robert P. Balles Prize in Critical Thinking, awarded by CSICOP, now called CSI.[45] In 2000 was presented with the Distinguished Skeptic award from CSI.[46]
He was also presented an award for promotion of science in popular media at the 3rd Annual Independent Investigative Group IIG Awards, held on May 18, 2009.[47]
In October 2011 asteroid 31451 (1999 CE10) was named JoeNickell in his honor by its discoverer James E. McGaha.[48]”
I tend to agree with this foremost expert.
I don’t think we have have seen any quantitative data. We have random, conflicting accounts and observations. We have hundreds of years of these accounts, but no frame of reference . In many ways our ‘science’ are cockroaches attempting to comprehend trigonometry.
I did an alien timeline, and did sort of Walt Disney-esque cartoon drawings of the different types of aliens, starting in 1947 with some little green men, and showing the sort of imaginative variety of alien types over the years, of hairy dwarves, and cyclopean figures, and robotic forms and blobs and just all manner. Just as people would imagine; if I asked someone to imagine an alien creature, it would be all over the place. But then, with the Betty and Barney Hill case, you began to get the little big-eyed, big-headed humanoid, and that type came back and back until now, if you go into a toy store and you look at aliens, you see pretty much that's the standard model. Very unlikely that if life developed on some distant planet, that it would look so much like us. We tend to make the various entities that we're interested in in our own image. And so Bigfoot is our big, stupid cousin from the past, and ET is our futuristic relative coming from the future back to save us. These are forms of us. Of course, ghosts are transparent forms of us; angels are us with wings, and of course, vampires are us with an attitude.[41]”
It's true that some leaders of organized "religion" have been anti science. And I don’t mean to offend any Catholics out there, but I think leaders of the Catholic Church have been doing more harm than good, for the faith, for several centuries. But that's a whole other topic.
I don’t agree, however, with the idea that belief in God or being a follower of Christ, is incompatible with belief in science. I'm a chemical engineer (retired). My wife is a molecular biologist (for one of the world's largest Pharmaceutical companies). One of the Pastors at our Church was a biologist before he became a theologian.
Many great scientists believed in God. Many were Christians, including Isaac Newton. A contemporary scientist, who might not be famous, (but maybe should be) is Dr. Francis Collins. He led the International Human Genome project and is an atheist turned Christian. He's a Neurologist MD with PhD in genetics. Was atheist through med school and gradually concluded that science and belief in God aren't incompatible and that science alone can't totally explain life. He says DNA is incredibly complex and calls it "the language of God".
Belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is NOT a "core tenet" of Christianity. A very small minority of people might believe that. Most do not believe the earth was created literally in 6 - 24 hour days. The Hebrew word used in Genesis, "yom" that is translated to "day", has multiple meanings, including era, age or period of unspecified time. Each "day" in Genesis could be tens of thousands, even millions of years. It's not important. Peter even said "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord".
As far as alien life, its existence would have no effect on my belief. It's commonly accepted that Moses authored the first 5 books of the Bible, including Genesis. It's not unreasonable to believe that God made known to Moses what was important for humankind. The creation and extinction of Dinosaurs or life on other planets didn't qualify as important.
I also wouldn't rule out the visitors being humans from the future.
It's kind of cray cray and I sure wish I knew what it was I saw that night in '98.
Peace, Love and Happy Father's day!
It's true that some leaders of organized "religion" have been anti science. And I don’t mean to offend any Catholics out there, but I think leaders of the Catholic Church have been doing more harm than good, for the faith, for several centuries. But that's a whole other topic.
I don’t agree, however, with the idea that belief in God or being a follower of Christ, is incompatible with belief in science. I'm a chemical engineer (retired). My wife is a molecular biologist (for one of the world's largest Pharmaceutical companies). One of the Pastors at our Church was a biologist before he became a theologian.
Many great scientists believed in God. Many were Christians, including Isaac Newton. A contemporary scientist, who might not be famous, (but maybe should be) is Dr. Francis Collins. He led the International Human Genome project and is an atheist turned Christian. He's a Neurologist MD with PhD in genetics. Was atheist through med school and gradually concluded that science and belief in God aren't incompatible and that science alone can't totally explain life. He says DNA is incredibly complex and calls it "the language of God".
Belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is NOT a "core tenet" of Christianity. A very small minority of people might believe that. Most do not believe the earth was created literally in 6 - 24 hour days. The Hebrew word used in Genesis, "yom" that is translated to "day", has multiple meanings, including era, age or period of unspecified time. Each "day" in Genesis could be tens of thousands, even millions of years. It's not important. Peter even said "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord".
As far as alien life, its existence would have no effect on my belief. It's commonly accepted that Moses authored the first 5 books of the Bible, including Genesis. It's not unreasonable to believe that God made known to Moses what was important for humankind. The creation and extinction of Dinosaurs or life on other planets didn't qualify as important.
I also wouldn't rule out the visitors being humans from the future.
It's kind of cray cray and I sure wish I knew what it was I saw that night in '98.
Peace, Love and Happy Father's day!
As with UFOs, there is something there that is real, but defies our understanding. It's another reminder to be humble and recognize there are so many things in our lives every day that defy explanation. I'm pretty happy we humans don't know everything... I love a good mystery.
The thing is, if you were to sum up the New Testament in one word, it would be "love". Love God and love your neighbors. Peace!
It's true that some leaders of organized "religion" have been anti science. And I don’t mean to offend any Catholics out there, but I think leaders of the Catholic Church have been doing more harm than good, for the faith, for several centuries. But that's a whole other topic.
I don’t agree, however, with the idea that belief in God or being a follower of Christ, is incompatible with belief in science. I'm a chemical engineer (retired). My wife is a molecular biologist (for one of the world's largest Pharmaceutical companies). One of the Pastors at our Church was a biologist before he became a theologian.
Many great scientists believed in God. Many were Christians, including Isaac Newton. A contemporary scientist, who might not be famous, (but maybe should be) is Dr. Francis Collins. He led the International Human Genome project and is an atheist turned Christian. He's a Neurologist MD with PhD in genetics. Was atheist through med school and gradually concluded that science and belief in God aren't incompatible and that science alone can't totally explain life. He says DNA is incredibly complex and calls it "the language of God".
Belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is NOT a "core tenet" of Christianity. A very small minority of people might believe that. Most do not believe the earth was created literally in 6 - 24 hour days. The Hebrew word used in Genesis, "yom" that is translated to "day", has multiple meanings, including era, age or period of unspecified time. Each "day" in Genesis could be tens of thousands, even millions of years. It's not important. Peter even said "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord".
As far as alien life, its existence would have no effect on my belief. It's commonly accepted that Moses authored the first 5 books of the Bible, including Genesis. It's not unreasonable to believe that God made known to Moses what was important for humankind. The creation and extinction of Dinosaurs or life on other planets didn't qualify as important.
I also wouldn't rule out the visitors being humans from the future.
It's kind of cray cray and I sure wish I knew what it was I saw that night in '98.
Peace, Love and Happy Father's day!
What a great post. Well done Dr.D.
👍
The thing is, if you were to sum up the New Testament in one word, it would be "love". Love God and love your neighbors. Peace!