UFO Evidence that demands a verdict ...

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,931
7,169
1
It's the offseason and I think we need some interesting things to discuss.

My first link is a couple of years old (about a West Coast incident in 2004). I don't know if it was discussed here at the time.


I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who think UFOs are something other than alien spacecraft. Please offer a hypothesis that fits the evidence.

Here's a more recent (2015) incident that occurred off the East Coast:


And a New York Times article that some consider "disclosure" ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html

Some Ufologists believe that the older incidents, before the digital age of being able to easily doctor photographs and video, provide more compelling evidence. To me some of the strongest "evidence" is the witness testimony -- when those witnesses are independent, a large group, and seeing essentially the same thing from different angles. This would be true of the Chicago O'hare incident, the "Phoenix Lights," and some others outside of the U.S., such as the Westall UFO(s) at an Australian school. What's interesting about the school incident is that "men in suits" arrived shortly afterwards to confiscate any photography and silence/threaten witnesses.

Here is some discussion on Westall by Richard Dolan (with his hot, much younger wife), beginning at about 37 minutes. There are some other compelling incidents discussed in this program, but with fewer witnesses.


Some of the better "testimony," in my opinion, is in not just the account of the incident, but in the human reactions that occurred during the incident, as well as the emotions when revisiting the topic afterwards. Let's be clear. There is a difference between testimony and evidence. For testimony we are left to decide whether it is credible based on witness factors -- stature, reputation, motives, number of witnesses, reactions, etc.

I do have opinions on some of the more recent UFO researchers that you might find appearing in online videos and documentaries. My opinions cover a range, from those I see as outright shysters to those that I think get some things right and others wrong. With Dolan I am mixed. I'll leave further comment in this area to a later post.

The bottom line is that there is considerable evidence that supports the notion that we are not the most intelligent form of life currently inhabiting this planet. That should be very compelling in itself. The problem is that this topic tends to get dominated by charlatans and scammers. If we include those charged with debunking the evidence, it's no wonder that the issue never gains the traction that it deserves. In some ways, the forces at work are very similar to those that sustained the False Narrative at PSU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile

poker1

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2019
330
167
1
It's the offseason and I think we need some interesting things to discuss.

My first link is a couple of years old (about a West Coast incident in 2004). I don't know if it was discussed here at the time.



I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who think UFOs are something other than alien spacecraft. Please offer a hypothesis that fits the evidence.

Here's a more recent (2015) incident that occurred off the East Coast:



And a New York Times article that some consider "disclosure" ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html

Some Ufologists believe that the older incidents, before the digital age of being able to easily doctor photographs and video, provide more compelling evidence. To me some of the strongest "evidence" is the witness testimony -- when those witnesses are independent, a large group, and seeing essentially the same thing from different angles. This would be true of the Chicago O'hare incident, the "Phoenix Lights," and some others outside of the U.S., such as the Westall UFO(s) at an Australian school. What's interesting about the school incident is that "men in suits" arrived shortly afterwards to confiscate any photography and silence/threaten witnesses.

Here is some discussion on Westall by Richard Dolan (with his hot, much younger wife), beginning at about 37 minutes. There are some other compelling incidents discussed in this program, but with fewer witnesses.



Some of the better "testimony," in my opinion, is in not just the account of the incident, but in the human reactions that occurred during the incident, as well as the emotions when revisiting the topic afterwards. Let's be clear. There is a difference between testimony and evidence. For testimony we are left to decide whether it is credible based on witness factors -- stature, reputation, motives, number of witnesses, reactions, etc.

I do have opinions on some of the more recent UFO researchers that you might find appearing in online videos and documentaries. My opinions cover a range, from those I see as outright shysters to those that I think get some things right and others wrong. With Dolan I am mixed. I'll leave further comment in this area to a later post.

The bottom line is that there is considerable evidence that supports the notion that we are not the most intelligent form of life currently inhabiting this planet. That should be very compelling in itself. The problem is that this topic tends to get dominated by charlatans and scammers. If we include those charged with debunking the evidence, it's no wonder that the issue never gains the traction that it deserves. In some ways, the forces at work are very similar to those that sustained the False Narrative at PSU.
Why does it demand a verdict? Modern psychology has proved even the most sophisticated observer is very easily fooled by their own eyes. Then there are all the con artists who make a cottage industry of conspiracy theories (e.g., Dolan). Putting the onus on the doubters to disprove odd coincidences is intellectually dishonest and unscientific. The most compelling argument is that there are so many worlds out there, not some unexplained phenomena or conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,931
7,169
1
Why does it demand a verdict? Modern psychology has proved even the most sophisticated observer is very easily fooled by their own eyes. Then there are all the con artists who make a cottage industry of conspiracy theories (e.g., Dolan). Putting the onus on the doubters to disprove odd coincidences is intellectually dishonest and unscientific. The most compelling argument is that there are so many worlds out there, not some unexplained phenomena or conspiracy theory.

Not sure what you are saying in this response. Are you saying that the aircraft in the first video (often called the "Tic Tac" UFO) is an optical illusion or something "psychological" (i.e., not physically there but imagined)? If so, how did it get on the fighter jet's high-tech video? What does "odd coincidence" mean?

This naval pilot (among others) observed its movement. The craft, on video, shows no evidence of known methods of propulsion. We can even see the object reorient itself, in our atmosphere, without things like wings, airfoils, rudders, and so forth. This wasn't just "lights in the sky."

There has to this point been well over 600 views of this thread -- addressing one of the most important questions of our time -- yet only two people have commented. Why?

This is pretty strong evidence that we are not the most advanced form of life -- either living on this planet, or probing it from a great distance. Whether that life originated here or some other star system is unknown, so in that regard the word "alien" is rather loosely applied.

Let's be clear. I am not in agreement with everything Dolan says or does, nor do I agree with many others, particularly those profiteering in some way from this. But that doesn't justify ignoring or discarding a lot of good evidence.
 

BrucePa

Well-Known Member
Sep 23, 2001
3,353
2,262
1
Going to 11
I'm not an expert on this by any means, and when I look at the Egyptian pyramids and Stonehenge and the Mesoamerican pyramids, an extraterrestrial source of knowledge and capability makes sense....but when considering how far away potentially inhabitable planets are, and the light years of travel required to reach any of them, I can't imagine any realistic possibility of UFOs....
 

LionJim

Well-Known Member
Oct 8, 2003
37,802
19,337
1
Levittown, PA to Olney, MD
With the universe as infinite as it is, it’s naive to think earth is the only source of intelligent life, and it’s just as naive to think that we are the most advanced.
That’s different from saying that we’ve been visited by aliens. As Bruce says, it’s a long trip to Earth if you aren’t already here.
 

Ranger Dan

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 31, 2003
19,928
10,642
1
York PA
That’s different from saying that we’ve been visited by aliens. As Bruce says, it’s a long trip to Earth if you aren’t already here.
I’ve never seen or heard convincing evidence, but am open to the possibility. What if the beings in a far away planet started their journey millions of years ago, or maybe the6 no how to defy time and distance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LionJim

83wuzme

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2005
13,276
12,449
1
I actually witnessed something reported in the CDT as a UFO back in 1974. From what I can recall, it might well have been a military aircraft.
This is a subject that attracts a lot of cranks and kooks, which is a shame because it is an important question. I would say there is a significant amount of evidence involving trained military personnel, often occurring at nuclear facilities, that is hard to dismiss as mass hallucinations. On the other hand, the microbiological evidence probably argues against us being visited.
 

ILLINOISLION

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
50,812
20,703
1
Do aliens need a REAL ID to visit us?

Seriously, if you think of the earth’s history as a year and recorded known history is maybe only the last second or two before New Year, we could have had visitors in the past that saw an earth that was of no or little interest to them.

Visitors since WWII? Someone somewhere said perhaps the energy of atomic and nuclear bombs caught their attention.

Scary to think if there is other life out there that we are the most intelligent. It’s much more likely if we are visited that the visitors are leaps and bounds more advanced than we are.....and might look upon earthlings as a disease or plague that must be eliminated.
 

ouirpsu

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2018
1,715
1,719
1
North Carolina
Do aliens need a REAL ID to visit us?

Seriously, if you think of the earth’s history as a year and recorded known history is maybe only the last second or two before New Year, we could have had visitors in the past that saw an earth that was of no or little interest to them.

Visitors since WWII? Someone somewhere said perhaps the energy of atomic and nuclear bombs caught their attention.

Scary to think if there is other life out there that we are the most intelligent. It’s much more likely if we are visited that the visitors are leaps and bounds more advanced than we are.....and might look upon earthlings as a disease or plague that must be eliminated.
Maybe traveling to earth from other planets with advanced life is like driving from NC to NJ and back on I-95 over Thanksgiving. You might see some interesting people, but it's just not worth the hassle.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,931
7,169
1
We now have about 1400 views of this thread, and not one comment specific to the Tic Tac UFO, or any of the other examples that were posted. All I see is speculation about whether it is probable to have life more advanced than our own, and whether it is probable that we are being visited.

Ranger Dan wrote "I've never seen or heard convincing evidence..." To those with a similar view, how would you characterize the Tic Tac video and eye-witness testimony? That video fits well with the description of many other incidents.

It is interesting to me to see the standard people apply before something is believed, or discarded for lack of evidence. Belief in humans appears to be a function of comfort. If something makes us uncomfortable the evidence is held to a higher standard before we become "convinced." In this case, my guess is that it will require an alien life form to land, go for a stroll, and maybe offer a handshake in front of TV cameras.

The usual argument against visitation, despite the evidence, is that the distances are insurmountable. The evidence must therefore be flawed. With our current understanding of physics this is true. Distances are too far. But we don't really even know for sure if these craft are extraterrestrial. Something not guided by humans does not necessarily mean interstellar. There are other possibilities.

Human understanding of physics is still in its infancy. We cannot, for example, explain the Tic Tac's movement using current forms of propulsion. And yet there it is, recorded on some of our most advanced high-tech equipment, by the best people we have to do so.

If we could go back 1000 years --- a relative spec in time -- and ask the most advanced human minds whether it would be possible to travel to the moon, they would most likely say "no." The few who might say "yes" would nevertheless be unable to describe how it could be done. So it is with our current understanding of interstellar travel. In another 1000 years perspectives may well be different.
 

poker1

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2019
330
167
1
We now have about 1400 views of this thread, and not one comment specific to the Tic Tac UFO, or any of the other examples that were posted. All I see is speculation about whether it is probable to have life more advanced than our own, and whether it is probable that we are being visited.

Ranger Dan wrote "I've never seen or heard convincing evidence..." To those with a similar view, how would you characterize the Tic Tac video and eye-witness testimony? That video fits well with the description of many other incidents.

It is interesting to me to see the standard people apply before something is believed, or discarded for lack of evidence. Belief in humans appears to be a function of comfort. If something makes us uncomfortable the evidence is held to a higher standard before we become "convinced." In this case, my guess is that it will require an alien life form to land, go for a stroll, and maybe offer a handshake in front of TV cameras.

The usual argument against visitation, despite the evidence, is that the distances are insurmountable. The evidence must therefore be flawed. With our current understanding of physics this is true. Distances are too far. But we don't really even know for sure if these craft are extraterrestrial. Something not guided by humans does not necessarily mean interstellar. There are other possibilities.

Human understanding of physics is still in its infancy. We cannot, for example, explain the Tic Tac's movement using current forms of propulsion. And yet there it is, recorded on some of our most advanced high-tech equipment, by the best people we have to do so.

If we could go back 1000 years --- a relative spec in time -- and ask the most advanced human minds whether it would be possible to travel to the moon, they would most likely say "no." The few who might say "yes" would nevertheless be unable to describe how it could be done. So it is with our current understanding of interstellar travel. In another 1000 years perspectives may well be different.
Modern psychology has proved that the perceptions of even the most experienced observers are extremely prone to error. Why are these super- aliens so bashful yet so readily observed? Which of the hundreds of stories about extra-terrestrials should we believe?
I'm not going to believe any of this stuff until an ET holds a press conference.
 

BlueBand

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
8,920
9,771
1
For those concerned about distances... if wormholes exist as theorized, that could explain how one could cover vast distances. In the movie Contact, that’s how Jodie Foster’s character travelled to make contact. The machine either created a new, or opened up access to an existing, wormhole.

But let’s say the solution to Einstein’s equations are wrong and there are no wormholes. Why do we assume all life forms are like us? If a civilization is advanced enough for interstellar travel, presumably their medicine is also advanced. Maybe through regeneration or replacement of body parts, and treating all diseases, other beings can live hundreds or thousands of years. Or maybe they are alien/machine hybrids that allow them much longer lifespans. A species like that could travel across galaxies in a generation or two or three in a large mothership. And since the odds that they are using rockets is virtually nil, sources of energy could be much more sophisticated. Maybe the energy source is the ship itself, which generates more energy as it’s used up, so you don’t need large fuel reserves.

Especially if they have mastered travel at or near the speed of light. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light, relative to objects traveling much slower. So, if you’re traveling near the speed of light, a year in the spaceship could be 10+ years on earth. Combine that with longer lifespans, and suddenly crossing large swaths of space becomes more practical, even without wormholes.

There are a number of things I’ve read/heard over the years that raise interesting questions about our history, if they’re true. There’s supposedly evidence, in India, of nuclear blasts that occurred thousands of years ago. There’s supposedly evidence underwater and in Antarctica of advanced civilizations that existed during the ice age, that were buried when the ice melted and the oceans rose.

More interesting is that some scientists say the asteroid belt exists where a planet should be, if you look at how the planets are arranged. Mars used to have an atmosphere, and probably life. Was there a war between Mars and a neighboring planet that blew one up and ruined the other? On top of that, our circadian rhythm supposedly resets to 23.5 hours in space, instead of 24. Guess how long a day is on Mars? And if we evolved on earth, why are our eyes and skin so sensitive to the sun? It’s almost like we were built for a planet not so close to the sun. Many of the oldest religions and societies, like those of Native Americans and in India, believe our ancestors came from the stars. Then there the supposed incident where NASA did a geological test and it essentially caused the moon to ring for hours. Is the moon artificial and hollow? Life on this planet wouldn’t exist as it does without the moon and it’s affect on the tides, etc. Like I said, I haven’t verified all of this, but, it does make one wonder.

I’ve often wondered, what if we’re just a big, long-term science project for some other species. Or we’re like The Truman Show, where the entire planet is entertainment for another species. LOL
 
Last edited:

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,931
7,169
1
Modern psychology has proved that the perceptions of even the most experienced observers are extremely prone to error. Why are these super- aliens so bashful yet so readily observed? Which of the hundreds of stories about extra-terrestrials should we believe?
I'm not going to believe any of this stuff until an ET holds a press conference.

Does it matter which you should believe? The real question is whether you can discount ALL of them. I don't think a rational person who has looked at these events closely can do that, especially in cases where there is clear video evidence and/or multiple credible witnesses.

The Tic Tac video isn't human "perception." Neither is recorded radar. You must believe that this evidence has been fabricated. That makes no sense, especially for the U.S. Military. This suggests that you have some other belief that is producing a conflict.
 

BBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2001
52,790
43,448
1
Baltimore, MD
For those concerned about distances... if wormholes exist as theorized, that could explain how one could cover vast distances. In the movie Contact, that’s how Jodie Foster’s character travelled to make contact. The machine either created, or opened up access to an existing, wormhole.

There are a number of things I’ve read/heard over the years that raise interesting questions about our history, if they’re true. There’s supposedly evidence, in India, of nuclear blasts that occurred thousands of years ago. There’s supposedly evidence underwater and in Antarctica of advanced civilizations that existed during the ice age, that were buried when the ice melted and the oceans rose.

More interesting is that some scientists say the asteroid belt exists where a planet should be, if you look at how the planets are arranged. Mars used to have an atmosphere, and probably life. Was there a war between Mars and a neighboring planet that blew one up and ruined the other? On top of that, our circadian rhythm supposedly resets to 23.5 hours in space, instead of 24. Guess how long a day is on Mars? And if we evolved on earth, why are our eyes and skin so sensitive to the sun? It’s almost like we were built for a planet not so close to the sun. Many of the oldest religions and societies, like those of Native Americans and in India, believe our ancestors came from the stars. Then there the supposed incident where NASA did a geological test and it essentially caused the moon to ring for hours. Is the moon artificial and hollow? Life on this planet wouldn’t exist as it does without the moon and it’s affect on the tides, etc. Like I said, I haven’t verified all of this, but, it does make one wonder.

I’ve often wondered, what if we’re just a big, long-term science project for some other species. Or we’re like The Truman Show, where the entire planet is entertainment for another species. LOL

That has a whole "Horton hears a Who" quality about it.
 

TheGLOV

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
For those concerned about distances... if wormholes exist as theorized, that could explain how one could cover vast distances. In the movie Contact, that’s how Jodie Foster’s character travelled to make contact. The machine either created a new, or opened up access to an existing, wormhole.

But let’s say the solution to Einstein’s equations are wrong and there are no wormholes. Why do we assume all life forms are like us? If a civilization is advanced enough for interstellar travel, presumably their medicine is also advanced. Maybe through regeneration or replacement of body parts, and treating all diseases, other beings can live hundreds or thousands of years. Or maybe they are alien/machine hybrids that allow them much longer lifespans. A species like that could travel across galaxies in a generation or two or three in a large mothership. And since the odds that they are using rockets is virtually nil, sources of energy could be much more sophisticated. Maybe the energy source is the ship itself, which generates more energy as it’s used up, so you don’t need large fuel reserves.

Especially if they have mastered travel at or near the speed of light. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light, relative to objects traveling much slower. So, if you’re traveling near the speed of light, a year in the spaceship could be 10+ years on earth. Combine that with longer lifespans, and suddenly crossing large swaths of space becomes more practical, even without wormholes.

There are a number of things I’ve read/heard over the years that raise interesting questions about our history, if they’re true. There’s supposedly evidence, in India, of nuclear blasts that occurred thousands of years ago. There’s supposedly evidence underwater and in Antarctica of advanced civilizations that existed during the ice age, that were buried when the ice melted and the oceans rose.

More interesting is that some scientists say the asteroid belt exists where a planet should be, if you look at how the planets are arranged. Mars used to have an atmosphere, and probably life. Was there a war between Mars and a neighboring planet that blew one up and ruined the other? On top of that, our circadian rhythm supposedly resets to 23.5 hours in space, instead of 24. Guess how long a day is on Mars? And if we evolved on earth, why are our eyes and skin so sensitive to the sun? It’s almost like we were built for a planet not so close to the sun. Many of the oldest religions and societies, like those of Native Americans and in India, believe our ancestors came from the stars. Then there the supposed incident where NASA did a geological test and it essentially caused the moon to ring for hours. Is the moon artificial and hollow? Life on this planet wouldn’t exist as it does without the moon and it’s affect on the tides, etc. Like I said, I haven’t verified all of this, but, it does make one wonder.

I’ve often wondered, what if we’re just a big, long-term science project for some other species. Or we’re like The Truman Show, where the entire planet is entertainment for another species. LOL

Pass the salt.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,931
7,169
1
Rationality.

Well, explain then. Let's be rational. How can you attribute all of this to flaws in human perception when a lot of it is photographic? The only logical explanation is that you think the evidence is fabricated. But there are a lot of cases, the Tic Tac for example, where there is no motive for fabrication that is rational.
 

poker1

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2019
330
167
1
Well, explain then. Let's be rational. How can you attribute all of this to flaws in human perception when a lot of it is photographic? The only logical explanation is that you think the evidence is fabricated. But there are a lot of cases, the Tic Tac for example, where there is no motive for fabrication that is rational.
I'm don't have to explain. Wake me when you have actual proof not just some photos of who knows what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GulfCoastLion

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,233
7,222
1
I'm not an expert on this by any means, and when I look at the Egyptian pyramids and Stonehenge and the Mesoamerican pyramids, an extraterrestrial source of knowledge and capability makes sense....but when considering how far away potentially inhabitable planets are, and the light years of travel required to reach any of them, I can't imagine any realistic possibility of UFOs....

I hear ya, but I think that is just a perceived limitation based on our frame of reference. It's not hard to imagine and believe that there is life out there that is millions of years more advanced than us. With millions of years of advancement, is it crazy to think that maybe they've figure out how to live indefinitely? And possibly more efficient means to maneuver the universe than anything that we can even imagine?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,931
7,169
1
I'm don't have to explain. Wake me when you have actual proof not just some photos of who knows what.

You've got one thing correct. You've been asleep. Obviously you did not even view the first link in the original post. If you did you would not have labeled it "photos of who knows what."

If this is the depth of your discourse, there is no reason for a discussion. Go back to sleep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandyL

L.A.Lion

Well-Known Member
Jun 17, 2014
1,034
2,228
1
www.youtube.com
That’s different from saying that we’ve been visited by aliens. As Bruce says, it’s a long trip to Earth if you aren’t already here.
We don't know what dark energy is or what dark matter is, which appear to constitute the vast majority of the observable universe. We don't know if we live in four-dimensional Einsteinian spacetime or there are more dimensions that we don't perceive or yet understand how to perceive. We don't know if this is the only universe or if we live in a brane world within a larger bulk. My opinion is we don't know nearly enough about how this universe works or whether there are other brane worlds that could be connected to our own to conclude with any confidence that the vast distances we perceive in the observable universe cannot be overcome.
 

BobPSU92

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2015
44,695
58,320
1
With the universe as infinite as it is, it’s naive to think earth is the only source of intelligent life, and it’s just as naive to think that we are the most advanced.

“as infinite as it is”

The universe always acts more infinite than it really is.

;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ranger Dan

LemonEars

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2010
7,073
6,335
1
The evidence is always some obscure image. If there were visitors from a distant planet then why don't they land on the White House lawn and hold a press conference? There is never any "hard evidence". Why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GulfCoastLion

demlion

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2004
44,707
12,833
1
So, the people who have gathered this evidence make the earthbound argument that we must explain it to one another in order to prove it to be "real" or "not real."

Why do we assume that these phenomena, which so clearly suggest various breaches and violations of our understanding of the universe, somehow follow our pathetic "rationality" model?

Maybe in the place from which these phenomena arose, evidence NEVER demands a verdict.
 

83wuzme

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2005
13,276
12,449
1
Assuming Earth is being, and has been, visited it would be reasonable to conclude that these potential visitors have displayed no interest as far as making themselves recognized or known to human society at large. The other option is that we are not being visited.
The current evidence for being visited is not what would be expected. There are photographic and digital images. There are military reports, some of which had to be obtained through FOIA requests, and there are stories, lots of stories. I am not aware of any verified physical evidence right now other than very limited traces from purported landing sites. If we had direct physical evidence - - materials, biological samples - - it would be a different story. Materials could be analyzed for their properties and composition. Isotopic studies could be performed. Biological samples that demonstrate significant differences from Earthbound life could be studied. As far as I know, these things are not happening now.
So for a lot of us, this question remains in the “ Unsolved Mystery “ category. Despite some intriguing evidence, we don’t know if we are being visited for certain. We don’t know who they are, where they are from and what their interest might be.
 

BobPSU92

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2015
44,695
58,320
1
The evidence is always some obscure image. If there were visitors from a distant planet then why don't they land on the White House lawn and hold a press conference? There is never any "hard evidence". Why not?

Would they necessarily recognize the White House as anything significant? Why not land at an Eat'n Park and hold a press conference?

:D
 

LemonEars

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2010
7,073
6,335
1
Would they necessarily recognize the White House as anything significant? Why not land at an Eat'n Park and hold a press conference?

:D
I'm assuming that since they have a spaceship that can travel between galaxies they will be able to first surveil us and know all about us. However, since Eat'n Park has a great salad bar and great chili, they might opt to land there instead of the White House!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hlstone

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
7,931
7,169
1
What would an alien life form have to gain, if communication were possible, by holding a press conference? Do we feel compelled to communicate with an ant mound when we discover one? If the mound is not in our yard or does not pose a threat we tend to let it go undisturbed. So it is.

I do think we have some alien materials, though anything biological seems less certain. Alleged landing and/or crash sites tend to draw the military/government rather quickly. Many are at military installations themselves, which begs the question -- if false, what would be the incentive to fabricate such incidents?

My guess is that we don't have the means to re-engineer anything. By coincidence the collection of "alien material" was discussed on Tucker Carlson just last night. And from what was reported on that program, military sightings are on the rise. This makes sense, since the military is charged with surveillance, and our capabilities have improved.

There is really no incentive for government to tell the public about any of this. I think in part because it just raises more questions than it answers. Governments like societal order and military superiority, whether communist or "free." Order and superiority are better served by keeping a lid on this and not sharing anything that might be learned. That is why the first two videos are baffling to me. It makes me wonder if there has been a change in policy, and if so, why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile

LemonEars

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2010
7,073
6,335
1
Th
What would an alien life form have to gain, if communication were possible, by holding a press conference? Do we feel compelled to communicate with an ant mound when we discover one? If the mound is not in our yard or does not pose a threat we tend to let it go undisturbed. So it is.

I do think we have some alien materials, though anything biological seems less certain. Alleged landing and/or crash sites tend to draw the military/government rather quickly. Many are at military installations themselves, which begs the question -- if false, what would be the incentive to fabricate such incidents?

My guess is that we don't have the means to re-engineer anything. By coincidence the collection of "alien material" was discussed on Tucker Carlson just last night. And from what was reported on that program, military sightings are on the rise. This makes sense, since the military is charged with surveillance, and our capabilities have improved.

There is really no incentive for government to tell the public about any of this. I think in part because it just raises more questions than it answers. Governments like societal order and military superiority, whether communist or "free." Order and superiority are better served by keeping a lid on this and not sharing anything that might be learned. That is why the first two videos are baffling to me. It makes me wonder if there has been a change in policy, and if so, why?

The theme of the press conference might be, "Hello Earthlings. We have decided that we are going to use this planet as a way station for our thousands of spaceships as they travel the universe. We need the continents of North America and Europe for this purpose. We require those two continents to be uninhabited by this time next month. We will come back. If there are any people inhabiting North America or Europe at that time we will kill all life on Earth and take it over that way. We know this is distressing for you but as a side benefit it will eliminate the pitt football program. So be happy. Good day and see you soon."
 

BobPSU92

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2015
44,695
58,320
1
I'm assuming that since they have a spaceship that can travel between galaxies they will be able to first surveil us and know all about us. However, since Eat'n Park has a great salad bar and great chili, they might opt to land there instead of the White House!

The White House just serves fast food.

:eek:
 

poker1

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2019
330
167
1
You've got one thing correct. You've been asleep. Obviously you did not even view the first link in the original post. If you did you would not have labeled it "photos of who knows what."

If this is the depth of your discourse, there is no reason for a discussion. Go back to sleep.
A press conference would not be necessary, an appearance on Tucker Carlson would be just as good.