Support NeoGAF

[Smoke6]

The number of planets in our galaxy is around 200 billions I believe? And I think that in the universe that we know about so far, it's in the 500+ quitillions? Chances of alien life? Extremely likely.

Chances of alien civilization sending drones here? About 0%.

Chances of us meeting another sentient species, from another planet? Also around 0%

If the government came out tomorrow and said we have been in contact with an alien species what would you say then?

A better question would be why would you think these beings would have to be far away from us? You do know there’s evidence to a planetary system or planet right here by earth correct?

 

[F0rneus]

If the government came out tomorrow and said we have been in contact with an alien species what would you say then?

A better question would be why would you think these beings would have to be far away from us? You do know there’s evidence to a planetary system or planet right here by earth correct?

You might be aware that there's this little known fact : There ain't effing life in our planetary system but us dawg. Unless you think, microbes from Europa are sending us drones or something.

 

[22:22:22]

You might be aware that there's this little known "fact" : There ain't effing life in our planetary system but us dawg.

You might be aware you're operating from our current science regarding "knowing" there ain't no life in our planetary system dawg.

And hey, if science is the only approach you deem as the end all be all way of approach then fair enough. No disrespect intended.

But if one steps out of this mostly inductive procedure and entertains other possibilities there's a plethora of ways that'll broaden your approach regarding this matter.

You're most likely also aware it's been relatively not that long ago we've discovered a massive bio system living all around us which we can not see.

History of Microscopes

Buy stereo, digital and compound microscopes from Dino-Lite, Meiji Techno, Motic and Omano.

www.microscope.com

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I personally think it's pretty narrow minded, sharing an almost religious paradigm to approach this phenomena from within such a POV.

That's just my momentary opinion.

Nothing personal and neither disrespectful towards science and religion in general.

They both serve their positive purposes well.

 

[PaNaMa]

Nobody’s using Rogan as a metric for reality you half bright reject. The point is that Greer is such a lying jackass even someone like Rogan who was all in on the alien stuff wasn’t buying Greer’s shit.

Greer is an ace con man. When vlad pressed Greer for documentation to back up his claims of numerous 4 star generals and colonels being threatened with loss of rank, or personal safety etc by shadow figures for asking to be "read in" on these off book alien secret programs, his response to Vlad was "Oh I have it all documented, 8 tera bytes!". Vlad tries pressing Greer for actual written statements, interviews, reports or anything at all from these alleged Generals that would lend credence to what Greer said, and Greer was like "Oh no we don't have anything like that, they were afraid to go on record.... I just use these examples to put meat on the bones of the story"

When pressed for real evidence, he always deflects or comes up empty. It's just anecdotes. The only thing i believe is that the Navy truly cannot explain some of these UAPs. Until the cigarette fucking smoking man himself comes forward and admits it all on record, we have nothing but the Navy UAP videos. Greer is just social engineering his way through, to get as deep as he can, to see if he can validate his beliefs

 

[22:22:22]

Rogan hasn't got a clue.

 

[22:22:22]

Regarding the UAP phenomena #Grush & Greer

Grush:



Greer:



Lol Rogan.

 

[Rentahamster]

If the government came out tomorrow and said we have been in contact with an alien species what would you say then?

Show me the evidence. If such evidence is sufficient to warrant belief, then I would accept it, and my understanding of the universe will be adjusted accordingly.

And hey, if science is the only approach you deem as the end all be all way of approach then fair enough. No disrespect intended.

But if one steps out of this mostly inductive procedure and entertains other possibilities there's a plethora of ways that'll broaden your approach regarding this matter.

Are you suggesting that "science" is mostly a result of inductive reasoning? I don't think that's accurate. The scientific method, broadly speaking, employs both deductive and inductive reasoning in order to eliminate bias. It even employs abductive reasoning too, when useful. Abandoning science to "broaden your approach", if I understand your point correctly, is not a useful pathway to truth because you are probably going to be starting with premises that are unsubstantiated which means that your conclusions are similarly unjustified.

I personally think it's pretty narrow minded, sharing an almost religious paradigm to approach this phenomena from within such a POV.

There's nothing narrow minded about it, unless your definition of "open mindedness" necessarily includes having to seriously entertain unjustified conclusions. I consider myself open minded in the sense that my mind is open and willing to be changed about any topic - as long as there is enough strong evidence to warrant that change. If there is not, then I will place that idea or concept in the category of "interesting food for thought, but should not be taken seriously until it demonstrates that it should be". There is also nothing "religious" about it. No dogma, no worship, no belief in a higher power. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

 

[22:22:22]

I'll respond later. Did you listen to my that which i posted? You're open minded after all.

40 min of the Ethical Skeptic will do.

 

[Ishma3L]

Flat Earthers: Part Deux

 

[Romulus]

Flat Earthers: Part Deux

Who are the Flat Earthers though considering most modern developed nations have UAP programs? How are they all mistaken and UFO wackos?

There are no congressional hearings about flat earth in any nation. There are no NASA programs to study flat earth, but they're actively investigating this phenomenon.

We might just have to accept one day that we don't know everything and we're not "the best/center of the universe/chosen ones."

Scary!

 

[Ishma3L]

Government skunkworks and extraterrestrials are two very different things.

Not going to waste my time worrying about it. Plenty of alligators closer to the boat.

 

[Raonak]

Extremely unlikely.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

If the government came out tomorrow and said we have been in contact with an alien species what would you say then?

A better question would be why would you think these beings would have to be far away from us? You do know there’s evidence to a planetary system or planet right here by earth correct?

Because space is REALLY REALLY BIG and intelligent life needs lots and lots of time to evolve and survive

Us human beings have only been around for 0.002% of the Universe's age which is 13 billion years. We're a couple of Nukes or a huge natural distaster like a planet destorying astreroid from wiping us quite literally off the face of the earth. So we need to avoid all that and other factors to continue to survive, which comes back to the main point = TIME.

Also I'd like to hear about the bolded part of your comment. What evidence are you referring to?

 

[Romulus]

Government skunkworks and extraterrestrials are two very different things.

Not going to waste my time worrying about it. Plenty of alligators closer to the boat.

Right, skunkworks. All other black projects keep their distance from fighter aircraft, but these do the exact opposite. Just miles and miles of testing grounds but these "skunkworks" decided to be a flight hazard every day for years.

 

[Smoke6]

Because space is REALLY REALLY BIG and intelligent life needs lots and lots of time to evolve and survive

Us human beings have only been around for 0.002% of the Universe's age which is 13 billion years. We're a couple of Nukes or a huge natural distaster like a planet destorying astreroid from wiping us quite literally off the face of the earth. So we need to avoid all that and other factors to continue to survive, which comes back to the main point = TIME.

Also I'd like to hear about the bolded part of your comment. What evidence are you referring to?

Bob lazar was the first to sleazy of this in a briefing he received. The planet is also compatible for human life if I’m not mistaken.

What I think it is is that you can’t think outside of ourselves as human beings when these things have been here since forever and that scares you

 

[Rentahamster]

What I think it is is that you can’t think outside of ourselves as human beings when these things have been here since forever and that scares you

What in the world does this mean

 

[MidGenRefresh]

OP:

 

[Romulus]

Because space is REALLY REALLY BIG and intelligent life needs lots and lots of time to evolve and survive

Us human beings have only been around for 0.002% of the Universe's age which is 13 billion years. We're a couple of Nukes or a huge natural distaster like a planet destorying astreroid from wiping us quite literally off the face of the earth. So we need to avoid all that and other factors to continue to survive, which comes back to the main point = TIME.

Also I'd like to hear about the bolded part of your comment. What evidence are you referring to?

It could be as simple as chimps and their more peaceful cousins. I forget their name but essentially they evolved much more relaxed.
Humans are essentially chimps with nukes unfortunately.

On the time side that's a valid point, but I also believe there are billions of potential chances. I mean look how many times earth has had different forms of life emerge. Mars isn't even out of the question either and thats next door. 75% of scientists believe it had life.

Essentially our two closest options to get a close look at probably had life, Mars and Earth for sure.

There have to be billions of solar systems that are less hostile than ours based on chance and more violent.

Based on our neighbors and the planet we're standing on it has to be billions of life producing planets considering the mind blogging scale of the known universe, keyword known. It could be exponentially larger than we realize.

The idea that we're special is a human condition mindset in my opinion. Basically every culture thinks their chosen ones/best as do most every religion since the dawn of mankind.

 

[22:22:22]

OP:

Waarom was dit nodig?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Psyops.

 

[22:22:22]

Are you suggesting that "science" is mostly a result of inductive reasoning? I don't think that's accurate. The scientific method, broadly speaking, employs both deductive and inductive reasoning in order to eliminate bias. It even employs abductive reasoning too, when useful. Abandoning science to "broaden your approach", if I understand your point correctly, is not a useful pathway to truth because you are probably going to be starting with premises that are unsubstantiated which means that your conclusions are similarly unjustified.



There's nothing narrow minded about it, unless your definition of "open mindedness" necessarily includes having to seriously entertain unjustified conclusions. I consider myself open minded in the sense that my mind is open and willing to be changed about any topic - as long as there is enough strong evidence to warrant that change. If there is not, then I will place that idea or concept in the category of "interesting food for thought, but should not be taken seriously until it demonstrates that it should be". There is also nothing "religious" about it. No dogma, no worship, no belief in a higher power. I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I shouldn't have said mostly. Good point.

No, I've never said to abandon science. Period.

And as such you misinterpreted my intention, although my english isn't the best and reading back I can see why.

I respect your perspective regarding being open minded and able to adapt your paradigm when new scientific research presents it self.

I guess our view of open mindedness differs in such that I don't necessarily need scientific proof for myself to entertain certain possibilities.

Hence my narrow minded remark which in retrospect sounded way more derogatory than I initially meant.

Regarding the science is the new religion part of our conversation; I'm not going to further expand on that, I'd rather not get banned for many MANY cross referenced anecdotal evidence. Altough you're coming across pretty naive in my eyes regarding that part.

Seems I pressed a button seeing your response came across quite defensive while I gave respect no matter once viewpoint.

Also quite funny how you ignored the microscope part seeing as it ties in with an "unjustified conclusion" while it was there all along. Thus entertaining "unjustified" in my personal case certain "views" shouldn't be so unjustified, your words.

Are you aware that Alchemists were the first scientists? Although a lot (and highly important) of their aspects of their work has been dismissed and laughed at in present times.


Did you give a try at listening to the Ethical Skeptic?

 

[Rentahamster]

I guess our view of open mindedness differs in such that I don't necessarily need scientific proof for myself to entertain certain possibilities.

It doesn't differ in that regard. I too don't necessarily need scientific proof for myself to entertain certain possibilities. All you need is imagination and a curious personality to entertain possibilities. However, I DO require strong evidence (doesn't even need to be scientific if it's strong enough) in order to accept certain possibilities as being true.

Regarding the science is the new religion part of our conversation; I'm not going to further expand on that, I'd rather not get banned for many MANY cross referenced anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure what you're referencing, but science and religion are two very separate concepts and trying to equivocate the two either betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what either of them are, or a misguided attempt at forming a narrative.

Altough you're coming across pretty naive in my eyes regarding that part.

I don't believe I am, but I can't accept your criticism as relevant unless you actually make a reasonable case for it.

Seems I pressed a button seeing your response came across quite defensive while I gave respect no matter once viewpoint.

I also gave respect, and my response is not "quite defensive". I am merely adding my point of view and trying to illuminate common misconceptions about what science is.

Also quite funny how you ignored the microscope part seeing as it ties in with an "unjustified conclusion" while it was there all along. Thus entertaining "unjustified" in my personal case certain "views" shouldn't be so unjustified, your words.

I didn't address it because it wouldn't have changed my overall point, but if you want me to address it, I will.

You're most likely also aware it's been relatively not that long ago we've discovered a massive bio system living all around us which we can not see.

History of Microscopes

Buy stereo, digital and compound microscopes from Dino-Lite, Meiji Techno, Motic and Omano.

www.microscope.com

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yes, I am aware that we didn't know about the microverse until we developed tools to actually observe it. Until then, we merely had educated guesses about how it works. This is why science works - you can take all of your hypotheses, and when you can verify them with observation and empirical data, you can then integrate them into your current best understanding of how the world works, while discarding the ones that don't work. For example, accepting and refining the germ theory of disease and rejecting the miasma theory of disease.

Are you aware that Alchemists were the first scientists?

No, because they're not. I see what you're trying to do in that they were the early beginnings of a field of study that eventually transformed into an actual scientific field, but no, alchemists are not chemists. That's why they're called "alchemists". They did not employ the scientific method.

Did you give a try at listening to the Ethical Skeptic?

No. I'm listening to you and engaging with you. The Ethical Skeptic is not a member of NeoGAF.

 

[22:22:22]

Well text based communication comes inherently with it's downsides.

Thank you for your response but seeing the subject matter and me being on mobile I'll choose on keeping it as is.

No cop out. Just not interested in discussing this forward. For a variety of reasons.

 

[22:22:22]

No, because they're not. I see what you're trying to do in that they were the early beginnings of a field of study that eventually transformed into an actual scientific field

I didn't mention chemists, so yes they were the first 'as we call now' scientists.

 

[Rentahamster]

I didn't mention chemists

I know you didn't. I did.

You keep using the rhetorical tactic of "I didn't mention X" in your responses to me as a means of critiquing what I say or implying that I didn't understand what your original point is. Just because you didn't literally write "chemists" or "abandoning science" in your posts doesn't mean that those objects or ideas are not relevant to the discussion. They are relevant to the discussion, which is why I am mentioning them in my reply to you.

 

[22:22:22]

I know you didn't. I did.

You keep using the rhetorical tactic of "I didn't mention X" in your responses to me as a means of critiquing what I say or implying that I didn't understand what your original point is. Just because you didn't literally write "chemists" or "abandoning science" in your posts doesn't mean that those objects or ideas are not relevant to the discussion. They are relevant to the discussion, which is why I am mentioning them in my reply to you.

That's your right and plays right into my issues with text based conversations.

 

[Trilobit]

What makes me laugh is when UFO nuts try to convince people that there are aliens, but that the US government keeps it under wraps. Like as if that would be possible.

The simplest explanation is that there are no aliens visiting us, neither from our planet or from the stars. But some atheists still have this longing for something greater than us. Which is why you hear "oh if there are aliens they must be so enlightened and far beyond us". It's ridiculous.

 

[22:22:22]

Well i didn't wrote chemists and abandoning science. That were your assumptions.

 

[PSYGN]

Is this the new UFO thread?

 

[22:22:22]

Is this the new UFO thread?

Not for me. I'll get banned overnight.

Apologies Grildon Tundy

I promised not to participate

 

[Rentahamster]

Well i didn't wrote chemists and abandoning science. That were your assumptions.

Yes I know you didn't and I'm not claiming you did, nor am I assuming that you did. This is not a rebuttal to my post.

I am the one mentioning those things because I am adding them to the discussion because they provided needed context.

 

[Golgo 13]

Not for me. I'll get banned overnight.

Apologies Grildon Tundy

I promised not to participate

Why would you be banned? What am I missing here? Also is discussion of UFOs even allowed on GAF anymore? I know the other thread was closed.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I'm sincerely interested in hearing other theories of what people think the object as reported on in the New York Times back in 2017 actually was. I don't say this in a "come at me" way, but because I do not know what to make of that video. It's the first UAP evidence that ever successfully passed my BS detector, given the credentials of the NYT and the eyewitness testimony of a Navy Commander, but maybe your thresholds are different:

2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ (Published 2017)

What began as a training mission took a bizarre turn in 2004, an encounter that caught the attention of a Pentagon program investigating U.F.O.s.

www.nytimes.com

That object being of alien origin is just one theory that has been posited, and my intention with the OP was to explore the logistics of that one theory because I hear people say (paraphrasing) "Oh, it's definitely alien" and "Oh, there's no way it's alien", but hadn't seen any analysis on it, even with ballpark numbers. Just general comments like "Aliens could go faster-than-light" or "Space is way too big". Ok, how fast could an object go? How big is our section of the universe?

That craft is still a known unknown for now, so why not have a little fun with it? They say tech sufficiently advanced enough appears like magic, and it's fun to think about "magic" being real. For me, at least.

 

[Puscifer]

If the government came out tomorrow and said we have been in contact with an alien species what would you say then?

A better question would be why would you think these beings would have to be far away from us? You do know there’s evidence to a planetary system or planet right here by earth correct?

I have a stance on aliens/UAP that I believe in them too an extent, especially considering the coordination of Obama saying he wanted to disclose what we knew before he left office and the almost immediate formation of Space Force, additionally, Space Force requires Top Secret clearance for even some of the most mundane positions which is bizarre and the only reason I can think is they took over the actual "space" portion from the Air Force.

But I'll still say this regardless of anything, show me proof. That burden is on them, not me.

 

[sono]

That craft is still a known unknown for now,

Yes and very interesting it is



There are two possibilities.

• It is human made.
• It is not human made.

Either possibility is very uncomfortable.

In terms of evidence it does not get more credible. 3 US Navy ships have it on radar recordings etc.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

What makes me laugh is when UFO nuts try to convince people that there are aliens, but that the US government keeps it under wraps. Like as if that would be possible.

The simplest explanation is that there are no aliens visiting us, neither from our planet or from the stars. But some atheists still have this longing for something greater than us. Which is why you hear "oh if there are aliens they must be so enlightened and far beyond us". It's ridiculous.

What?

If aliens had travelled here, they would be far beyond us because of that simple fact. That’s where that idea comes from, not because atheists need to imagine something greater to fill a void. You’re projecting the embarrassing religious need to manufacture a god onto atheists.

It would make sense to imagine that there’s aliens both behind our own development, and also alien civilizations far beyond, and if they ever came here they would certainly have magic level tech we can’t even comprehend.

Does your belief not allow for aliens more advanced than humans or something? What a strange direction to take on this topic. I totally agree UFO nuts are nuts, it just has less than nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Smoke6]

What I don’t get from the skeptics is that fact that WE’RE sending objects in space trying to see why we can find with just our limited technology and yet we can see far beyond anything we’ve seen before. We just can’t get to it but they can obviously!

So what them visiting us such a major question when we’re doing the same shit?

 

[MrMephistoX]

What I don’t get from the skeptics is that fact that WE’RE sending objects in space trying to see why we can find with just our limited technology and yet we can see far beyond anything we’ve seen before. We just can’t get to it but they can obviously!

So what them visiting us such a major question when we’re doing the same shit?

I have no problem admitting UAP exist and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest they do but no one has provided compelling evidence to prove they are extra terrestrial definitively. I think the testimony in congress was great and credible that these craft are beyond our capabilities from their perspective but that still doesn’t disprove the fact it could be man made. We simply don’t know what they are and it’s fine to speculate but the more specific the speculation gets without video or photographic evidence that’s where I tune out.

I also wonder sometimes what’s easier to cover up aliens or avionics breakthroughs that they just don’t want enemies to see? But then again if they don’t want them to be seen why test pilot them around US military installations something definitely doesn’t add up but we just don’t know enough to make an assessment on what UAP are.

 

[Romulus]

What makes me laugh is when UFO nuts try to convince people that there are aliens, but that the US government keeps it under wraps.

So you're saying the government has never been successful at keeping things under wraps?

It's highly likely that even if they do know something, or even possess something, they don't know what it is exactly.

It would be like someone giving an 1820s scientist a land rover. They know it's for travel but the engine components and tech would be mind boggling. That would be worth studying in private and reaping whatever rewards may come from future discoveries.

 

[Smoke6]

It’s just odd to me that what’s really going on in our world to where they’ve pulled the ultimate trump card (outside of JFK assassin) and nobody is really batting an eye to this?

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm sincerely interested in hearing other theories of what people think the object as reported on in the New York Times back in 2017 actually was. I don't say this in a "come at me" way, but because I do not know what to make of that video. It's the first UAP evidence that ever successfully passed my BS detector, given the credentials of the NYT and the eyewitness testimony of a Navy Commander, but maybe your thresholds are different:

2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ (Published 2017)

What began as a training mission took a bizarre turn in 2004, an encounter that caught the attention of a Pentagon program investigating U.F.O.s.

www.nytimes.com

That object being of alien origin is just one theory that has been posited, and my intention with the OP was to explore the logistics of that one theory because I hear people say (paraphrasing) "Oh, it's definitely alien" and "Oh, there's no way it's alien", but hadn't seen any analysis on it, even with ballpark numbers. Just general comments like "Aliens could go faster-than-light" or "Space is way too big". Ok, how fast could an object go? How big is our section of the universe?

That craft is still a known unknown for now, so why not have a little fun with it? They say tech sufficiently advanced enough appears like magic, and it's fun to think about "magic" being real. For me, at least.

There's nothing wrong with having a little fun with thought experiments. They key concept to remember here is:

I do not know what to make of that video.

You don't know. I don't know. No one knows. And that's fine. Credentials are great, but ultimately they don't know any more than you or I do. There's a reason the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

Some people are very uncomfortable with "I don't know" and want to jump to conclusions. That would be illogical.

 

[Rentahamster]

What I don’t get from the skeptics is that fact that WE’RE sending objects in space trying to see why we can find with just our limited technology and yet we can see far beyond anything we’ve seen before.

We can see far beyond what we've seen before thanks to JWST's infrared capabilities. That doesn't mean we have any more capability of getting there. If anything, we've only become more aware of just how incredibly difficult it would be to get anywhere given our current understanding of physics and our current technology.

We just can’t get to it but they can obviously!

There is no "they". "They" are not a candidate explanation that is substantiated by evidence. If you assume a "they" you are erroneously validating an unjustified assumption.

So what them visiting us such a major question when we’re doing the same shit?

In no way are we "doing the same shit". Not even close.

 

[Rentahamster]

So you're saying the government has never been successful at keeping things under wraps?

Wrong evaluation. What he's saying is that it's illogical to make two very unlikely assumptions as if they were reasonable to make and thinking that this is a normal method of epistemology.

 

[MilkyJoe]

Flat Earthers: Part Deux

Ontological shock post

 

[Romulus]

Wrong evaluation. What he's saying is that it's illogical to make two very unlikely assumptions as if they were reasonable to make and thinking that this is a normal method of epistemology.

I'll wait for his response. I'm addressing a specific point he made and I don't need policing on what's right and wrong.

 

[Trilobit]

So you're saying the government has never been successful at keeping things under wraps?

It's highly likely that even if they do know something, or even possess something, they don't know what it is exactly.

It would be like someone giving an 1820s scientist a land rover. They know it's for travel but the engine components and tech would be mind boggling. That would be worth studying in private and reaping whatever rewards may come from future discoveries.

I just can't see every government in the world being able to put it under wraps.

So you're saying the government has never been successful at keeping things under wraps?

It's highly likely that even if they do know something, or even possess something, they don't know what it is exactly.

It would be like someone giving an 1820s scientist a land rover. They know it's for travel but the engine components and tech would be mind boggling. That would be worth studying in private and reaping whatever rewards may come from future discoveries.

It would be weird if they were able to intercept every single one. Also if every government around the Earth managed to do the same. The most logical option is that there has never been any crash-landed vessels, but if some want to believe that's their right.

 

[22:22:22]

Yes I know you didn't and I'm not claiming you did, nor am I assuming that you did. This is not a rebuttal to my post.

I am the one mentioning those things because I am adding them to the discussion because they provided needed context.

The context I can provide won't be accepted by yours truly so i won't bother. Not at all meant in a derogatory way I'll assure you.

Why would you be banned? What am I missing here? Also is discussion of UFOs even allowed on GAF anymore? I know the other thread was closed.

Perhaps because my dynamic personal "narrative w/e" that's in a constant state of suspension of disposition doesn't bode well with those interested in said topic. Even though it's 25+ years I've been interested in said topic.

 

[Romulus]

I just can't see every government in the world being able to put it under wraps.


It would be weird if they were able to intercept every single one. Also if every government around the Earth managed to do the same. The most logical option is that there has never been any crash-landed vessels, but if some want to believe that's their right.

I've never heard anything about "every" country having one. I've heard there are several and the US has a program to retrieve them. Not only that supposedly some are very old, even ancient. Grusch claims that a few govs have been trying to get a handle on what they are, but no one has made any real progress and people have even been hurt reverse engineering them.

That's not a compelling argument that some guy said things under oath. It's interesting to me, but that could easily be total bullshit or exaggerated. It's difficult to imagine why he would lie, but there could be some reason I'm not seeing.

The most compelling argument for me is we have independent UAP programs(even Nasa) that study this and outright admit things are flying their airspace and they have no idea how they perform the way they do. That's a fact.
If you look into the Nimitz encounter where multiple sensors recorded the objects and 4 pilots, radar operator, and sonar tech, are on record saying it is far beyond our tech, it doesn't stop there. The Belguims, Russians, Brazilians, etc have cases that mirror this event but from decades ago. They all share the "erratic instant acceleration" description. And oftentimes the shapes are very similar. For them to be all lying/mistaken about it for decades across different nations?

Even going back to ww2 this behavior is described in the Foo Fighters cases. This was reported on by the NYT Times, but back then people wrote it off as "nazi secret tech." But I guess the Nazis didn't use the tech and lost the war. Now it's 80 years later--Russian/US/china drones! We just pivot over the years to whatever aligns with our biases or fears. Keep in mind black projects stay far away from fighter pilots and training areas. Graves testified they had to include UAP as preflight briefings because they were having close encounters "every day for years." That's not a black project from any country. No ally would risk a mid-air crash and no enemy would risk a mishap where they lost their technology in enemy waters. That's a disaster both ways.

 

[VN1X]

Waarom was dit nodig?

Pls no German.

 

[22:22:22]

Pls no German.

Lol. Geen Duits vriend.

And the one i quoted knows what i mean.