OT: UFO Bombshell: US Government Has Wreckage Material

[dasboot1960]

I got fired once for telling my boss his panties were all in a wad, he started screaming that I was fired... What could I say? His panties were obviously all wadded up. It was good for me...

[dasboot1960]

BUT... I gotta wonder. Just exactly WHAT did those highly trained naval aviators see? Good thing they had visual backup, who knows what might have happened to their careers otherwise?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Dante Fierro

Since you want to be insulting, I will no longer respond to you.

Are you going to do the same for the other people on this forum that also posted derogatory memes? Somehow I doubt it.

I see how this works. You guys on this forum can post a bunch of ridiculing memes to anyone you want. But if they try to respond with a meme, then they are being rude.

What a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites.

I'm outta here.

ps: Blocking the lot of you as well, starting with RangerJoe.

Disappointed to hear this. I read back over the comments and although a number of people used humour in their response, the upshot of it was that they did not see good enough evidence to convince them that something remarkable happened. I didn't see any attacks on you personally, just on the evidence you were offering.
Posting anything subject to interpretation on the Internet is going to garner various messages pro and con what you may have expressed. Having a "thick skin" is a requirement if you want to stick it out. There have been people on the forums who annoyed me greatly but I never used the green button, I just ignored their input. That was sufficient.

[Ian R]

Well dante won't see this, so can't complain.

What a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites.

I'm outta here.

ps: Blocking the lot of you as well, starting with RangerJoe.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Well dante won't see this, so can't complain.

What a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant hypocrites.

I'm outta here.

ps: Blocking the lot of you as well, starting with RangerJoe.

[Treetop64]

Guess he took it personally that no one went full tinfoil mode and, in fact, made fun of the subject. [:D]
Well, not so much the root subject itself, as much as the YouTube dude's content and using that as some kind of source.

Should we apologize? [:D]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Guess he took it personally that no one went full tinfoil mode and, in fact, made fun of the subject. [:D]
Well, not so much the root subject itself, as much as the YouTube dude's content and using that as some kind of source.

Should we apologize? [:D]

What would the purpose be for that?[&:]

[pmelheck1]

I have heard when still dealing with military maters of a new air frame with some new propulsion system. An F-18 could see it in some odd way that looks like lights and report UFO. I have no doubt that new frames and propulsion are under development all the time and anyone who sees them will have no clue what that are. I have been on many military airfields where you couldn't see an aircraft but just balls of lights moving unnaturally. I am especially skeptical from an encounter with a self proclaimed master UFOologist who proclaimed he had the smoking gun that was so overwhelming the government would have to admit it was lying to us all along. After reading it, I still haven't stopped laughing and apparently so are all the people he turned his "evidence" over to. I have no problem talking about said evidence just didn't post as it's was a rather long paper and really good for a laugh.

[Treetop64]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Guess he took it personally that no one went full tinfoil mode and, in fact, made fun of the subject. [:D]
Well, not so much the root subject itself, as much as the YouTube dude's content and using that as some kind of source.

Should we apologize? [:D]

What would the purpose be for that?[&:]

It was a rhetorical question.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Guess he took it personally that no one went full tinfoil mode and, in fact, made fun of the subject. [:D]
Well, not so much the root subject itself, as much as the YouTube dude's content and using that as some kind of source.

Should we apologize? [:D]

What would the purpose be for that?[&:]

It was a rhetorical question.

Ah, a philosopher . . . [:'(]

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Guess he took it personally that no one went full tinfoil mode and, in fact, made fun of the subject. [:D]
Well, not so much the root subject itself, as much as the YouTube dude's content and using that as some kind of source.

I well recall the frenzy over UFOs back in the 1970s and 80s. Everything from Chariots of the Gods, Close Encounters of the Third Kind to the TV series Project Blue Book seemed to reflect the manic popularity of belief in alien visitation. Then of course you had the X-files in the 1990s which many people mistook for some sort of documentary series.

However, it seems like the very moment every citizen was armed with a mega-pixel camera far easier and quicker to use than any vintage 35mm model, the sightings began to dry up. We have more motion video of large meteorites streaking across Russian skies caught live than I though possible. But so far no video of Billy Bob live streaming a saucer landing in his back forty through Twitch through his I-phone, and also posting videos of his hanging out with the aliens on his YouTube page, garnering millions of hits. I also noticed that Bigfoot has also taken to being camera shy lately. (Which has led to Bigfoot enthusiasts claiming he has some sort of natural invisibility)

One common explanation is that that E.T. is just plain done with us. They've abducted enough folks to satisfy their curiosity about our anatomies. The Cold War has ended, and so has their fascination with our nuclear missile silos. So maybe they've just declared "mission accomplished," and gone away. That would be analogous to Charles Darwin's visit to the Galapagos Islands. After he probed, bottled, and cataloged some of the natives, he weighed anchor and withdrew.

However, I think what is more likely is as technology improved, the number of enticing candidate sightings went down. In science-speak, the false alarm rate decreased. It wasn't because any aliens stopped visiting or broadcasting. It was because we stopped being as easily duped or mistaken.

Call me cynical and skeptical, but barring a bigger breakthrough (which these Navy videos aren't) I'm done with it.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Guess he took it personally that no one went full tinfoil mode and, in fact, made fun of the subject. [:D]
Well, not so much the root subject itself, as much as the YouTube dude's content and using that as some kind of source.

I well recall the frenzy over UFOs back in the 1970s and 80s. Everything from Chariots of the Gods, Close Encounters of the Third Kind to the TV series Project Blue Book seemed to reflect the manic popularity of belief in alien visitation. Then of course you had the X-files in the 1990s which many people mistook for some sort of documentary series.

However, it seems like the very moment every citizen was armed with a mega-pixel camera far easier and quicker to use than any vintage 35mm model, the sightings began to dry up. We have more motion video of large meteorites streaking across Russian skies caught live than I though possible. But so far no video of Billy Bob live streaming a saucer landing in his back forty through Twitch through his I-phone, and also posting videos of his hanging out with the aliens on his YouTube page, garnering millions of hits. I also noticed that Bigfoot has also taken to being camera shy lately. (Which has led to Bigfoot enthusiasts claiming he has some sort of natural invisibility)

One common explanation is that that E.T. is just plain done with us. They've abducted enough folks to satisfy their curiosity about our anatomies. The Cold War has ended, and so has their fascination with our nuclear missile silos. So maybe they've just declared "mission accomplished," and gone away. That would be analogous to Charles Darwin's visit to the Galapagos Islands. After he probed, bottled, and cataloged some of the natives, he weighed anchor and withdrew.

However, I think what is more likely is as technology improved, the number of enticing candidate sightings went down. In science-speak, the false alarm rate decreased. It wasn't because any aliens stopped visiting or broadcasting. It was because we stopped being as easily duped or mistaken.

Call me cynical and skeptical, but barring a bigger breakthrough (which these Navy videos aren't) I'm done with it.

Which takes us back to needing really compelling evidence that no one is trying to suppress before we can say for sure that it happened. Of course, one could always claim that time travel makes it possible for aliens to revisit the planet and remove any evidence they previously left behind ... [;)]

[offenseman]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Guess he took it personally that no one went full tinfoil mode and, in fact, made fun of the subject. [:D]
Well, not so much the root subject itself, as much as the YouTube dude's content and using that as some kind of source.

Should we apologize? [:D]

I for one, am not offended by the tinfoil reference...

[Shellshock]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Of course, one could always claim that time travel makes it possible for aliens to revisit the planet and remove any evidence they previously left behind ... [;)]

You mean moving the goal posts so to speak? Nyaah. That'd never happen. [:D]

[RangerJoe]

My kittens keep seeing UFOs but I tell them that they can't get them because they are on the other side of the screen/window.

[Rob322]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I always like how people lean on "these pilots were really experienced." Well I'm a fan of "Air Disasters" on the Smithsonian Channel. What's striking to my wife and I is each and every time a new crash is shown in an episode we learn the pilots had many thousands of hours of experience, etc. Tons of experience over multiple years on the very type of aircraft that crashed. We never hear about the crash where the whole flight crew was a batch of rookies. And yet, in many cases, the cause of the crash was either solely due to pilot error or was at least an important contributor to it. Heck, the Tenerife disaster was caused by a KLM pilot who was also the chief trainer for the airline and whose face was plastered in all their advertising! He was considered to be their best pilot and yet he got hundreds of people killed due to an impatient mistake. This sort of thing was typical. Experience can be very helpful at times but at others it can blind you. Therefore I don't assume just because a USN pilot sees something weird, it doesn't mean aliens, the pilot is still human and no amount of training or experience alters that.

[Bodei]

I always like the "Well it was in the NY Times!" argument. The paper that predicted 91% chance of a Hillary win, well I guess they left 9% wiggle room?

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Bodei

I always like the "Well it was in the NY Times!" argument. The paper that predicted 91% chance of a Hillary win, well I guess they left 9% wiggle room?

Unfortunately for Dante, if you actually read the NYT article - and traced back its references to the 23 July NYT article - it does not say what the guy on the video says it says. I infer Dante only watched the video, and accepted it as gospel.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Bodei

I always like the "Well it was in the NY Times!" argument. The paper that predicted 91% chance of a Hillary win, well I guess they left 9% wiggle room?

Unfortunately for Dante, if you actually read the NYT article - and traced back its references to the 23 July NYT article - it does not say what the guy on the video says it says. I infer Dante only watched the video, and accepted it as gospel.

The "If it is on the internet it must be true!" apparently also goes for youtube. As far as the NYT, there is always a use for it - in an outhouse.

[alimentary]

We know that time is affected by/interchangeable with speed. So if we can manipulate the particles to slow time to a crawl, we may achieve close to light speed. We might even be able to get to a time warp which takes us thousands or millions of light years across space.

This is not at all an accurate understanding of special relativity. Nothing you do to particles can change the rate at which time passes for yourself. Despite what pop-science videos might lead you to think.

If you want a "time warp" then you need something more exotic than rapidly moving particles. You need negative energy density. Dark energy and dark matter (if they exist) have positive energy density. You also have to get past the hurdles of manipulating stuff that interacts so weakly that we cannot even see it, assembling enough of it to matter, doing so on a budget and doing so without any global causality violations.