Everyone has an HD 4K camera in their pocket. I can't imagine what technology the government really has for surveillance. All this yet still no clear picture of an alien spacecraft.
I believe this is one of the strongest points against claims of the supernatural, be it UFOs, ghosts, the Yeti...whatever. Every high school fight, celebrity trip or stumble, or political gaffe seems to be immediately posted on YouTube in pristine clarity with multi-angle views supplied by nimble witnesses.
Yet when miraculous phenomena are supposedly caught on video, it's grainy and blurry, with nausea-inducing movements of the camera.
Everyone has an HD 4K camera in their pocket. I can't imagine what technology the government really has for surveillance. All this yet still no clear picture of an alien spacecraft.
I believe this is one of the strongest points against claims of the supernatural, be it UFOs, ghosts, the Yeti...whatever. Every high school fight, celebrity trip or stumble, or political gaffe seems to be immediately posted on YouTube in pristine clarity with multi-angle views supplied by nimble witnesses.
Yet when miraculous phenomena are supposedly caught on video, it's grainy and blurry, with nausea-inducing movements of the camera.
The problem with this is you have to believe in the phenomena. If you don't believe, you won't see it, and won't know where to point your camera. And even if you do, others watching the footage need to believe in order to see it.
The problem with this is you have to believe in the phenomena. If you don't believe, you won't see it, and won't know where to point your camera. And even if you do, others watching the footage need to believe in order to see it.
I understand your point, but I don't agree. While some people may be predisposed to interpreting a video as an actual spaceship from another planet (for example) if they "believe" in it - and vice-versa for non-believers, many people, like myself, are open to the possibility, and simply want stronger evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"Belief" is not a prerequisite for observation and understanding. I don't yet believe in ghosts, but if I walk into my family room and there is an apparition of Mozart floating above my grand piano, you can darn well expect me to see it, believe it, and take a clear video of it.
Your conclusion above is too "Santa Claus-ish" for me; that is, if you don't believe in Santa, you won't see him. I don't think that science works this way. However, if you are saying that given ambiguous/vague/inconclusive information, people will tend to go with the interpretation that is consistent with their previous beliefs, you are probably correct.
The problem with this is you have to believe in the phenomena. If you don't believe, you won't see it, and won't know where to point your camera. And even if you do, others watching the footage need to believe in order to see it.
I understand your point, but I don't agree. While some people may be predisposed to interpreting a video as an actual spaceship from another planet (for example) if they "believe" in it - and vice-versa for non-believers, many people, like myself, are open to the possibility, and simply want stronger evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"Belief" is not a prerequisite for observation and understanding. I don't yet believe in ghosts, but if I walk into my family room and there is an apparition of Mozart floating above my grand piano, you can darn well expect me to see it, believe it, and take a clear video of it.
Your conclusion above is too "Santa Claus-ish" for me; that is, if you don't believe in Santa, you won't see him. I don't think that science works this way. However, if you are saying that given ambiguous/vague/inconclusive information, people will tend to go with the interpretation that is consistent with their previous beliefs, you are probably correct.
Wanting to believe is fine. I want to believe there's life on Mars. I want to believe I'm going to win the lottery one day. The issue is when someones bias clouts their judgement.
Here's a test:
I see flashing lights in the sky, I see the lights move in formation, then stop on a dime and dart off in another direction.
Whats my conclusion?
(a) I saw an alien spacecraft! (b) I saw something unusual in the sky which I cannot explain. (it could be any number of things)
Its the same ambiguous "evidence" which can be interpreted to mean anything. Show me an alien spaceship, an alien body , alien technology, something. We have satellites that can read your license plate. We can detect the composition of far away planets with light. We can take pictures of planets orbiting other star systems. It's not the 50's anymore. Everyone has an HD 4K camera in their pocket. I can't imagine what technology the government really has for surveillance. All this yet still no clear picture of an alien spacecraft.
Everyone knows bats exist. Everyone has a camera in the form of their phones. So where are your clear shots of bats? Perhaps it is not easy to catch a clear shot of a bat, travelling at speed. Falling stars? They enter Earth's atmosphere all the time, yet despite the suffusion of video devices in society, where is everybody's clear video of them? Only a few people get video of such phenomena, because such phenomena have various factors governing their recordability. Time of day, distance, atmospheric conditions, ambient light interference, user stability/location at the time of videoing, etc. . The US Navy - officially - however, *has* footage of UFOs. We also have radar records of such objects.
On the Internet, in a media age, there are countless purported photos or videos of UFOs. Yes, fakes. But the context of your challenge is to point to the Internet and say, "Why don't we have clear photos?" That is a demand/expectation sabotaged by the context, don't you think? I'm not going to predicate evidence on the Internet, I'm going to predicate it on research and trustworthy evidence, and that is not necessarily the domain of said Internet. To be clearer, under what circumstance would an individual post a "clear hi-res photo" of a UFO to the Internet, and then have you deduce it is valid? Again, the context makes that an impossible threshold.
US military records - and expenditures - are not 'Internet' media, however.
I see flashing lights in the sky, I see the lights move in formation, then stop on a dime and dart off in another direction.
Whats my conclusion?
(a) I saw an alien spacecraft! (b) I saw something unusual in the sky which I cannot explain. (it could be any number of things)
Different test.
Military radar base detects a contact moving at high speeds and angles in the sky. US military pilots scramble to intercept said contact. Visual identification is made by pilots - metallic devices matching maneuvers of the pilots. Devices exhibit flight characteristics well-beyond those of current man-made craft. Onboard equipment locking on to objects track them for extended periods of time - equipment that cannot track mirages, optical illusions, or similar phenomena.
What is your conclusion?
(a) Write off multiple professional highly trained military combat pilots as insane & delusional. All at the same time, in the same way, about the same thing. Discount the science of the equipment onboard those fighter craft as well - suddenly this equipment pilots utilize to keep them alive in the direst of circumstances (warfare) is untrustworthy.
(b) Admit the UFO phenomena is persistent, valid, and worthy of profoundly serious study.
Military radar base detects a contact moving at high speeds and angles in the sky. US military pilots scramble to intercept said contact. Visual identification is made by pilots - metallic devices matching maneuvers of the pilots. Devices exhibit flight characteristics well-beyond those of current man-made craft. Onboard equipment locking on to objects track them for extended periods of time - equipment that cannot track mirages, optical illusions, or similar phenomena.
What is your conclusion?
Good example. As with most things, there doesn't have to be a yes/no, either/or choice. I would hope that most people have mixed feelings about UFOs, but that their beliefs can shift dynamically given new information. I'll try illustrating using an approximation of my own thought process:
(1) I am very open to the belief that alien spacecraft have visited Earth. I am almost certain that there is other life in the universe. I do believe that there is very likely life that has more advanced technology than our own. I am much less certain that we have evidence that these beings have visited Earth. Based on the totality of information I've seen in my life, let's say my belief level is 25% that observed UFOs have been alien in nature.
(2) I read this thread. I weigh the raw videos, the surprised reaction of trained pilots, the authority figure on the Tucker Carlson show, the fact that it was on the Tucker Carlson show and not coming from the news division (Fox or otherwise), the commentary on YouTube that explains - in terms that I mostly understand - how the one video is very likely to be a bird, and the opinions of my fellow FSMers.
(3) On balance, my belief level is now, let's say, 30%. The new evidence is still intriguing but also ambiguous enough that a YouTuber can offer a relatively convincing explanation about why the UFO is not an alien spacecraft.
(4) I still believe that it is unlikely that alien aircraft have visited Earth, but I am still open to it, I enjoy the discussion, and I look forward to considering more evidence in the future. My viewpoint doesn't fall neatly into a yes/no, either/or camp, but I believe most of us do (and should) have a nuanced viewpoint.
The problem with this is you have to believe in the phenomena. If you don't believe, you won't see it, and won't know where to point your camera. And even if you do, others watching the footage need to believe in order to see it.
I understand your point, but I don't agree. While some people may be predisposed to interpreting a video as an actual spaceship from another planet (for example) if they "believe" in it - and vice-versa for non-believers, many people, like myself, are open to the possibility, and simply want stronger evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"Belief" is not a prerequisite for observation and understanding. I don't yet believe in ghosts, but if I walk into my family room and there is an apparition of Mozart floating above my grand piano, you can darn well expect me to see it, believe it, and take a clear video of it.
Your conclusion above is too "Santa Claus-ish" for me; that is, if you don't believe in Santa, you won't see him. I don't think that science works this way. However, if you are saying that given ambiguous/vague/inconclusive information, people will tend to go with the interpretation that is consistent with their previous beliefs, you are probably correct.
Actually my point was more of a joke. Ghost-believers themselves have allegedly stated that you have to believe in them to see them (which sounds more like a shared mental illness). But maybe that conclusion was ascribed to them, based on conman mediums who always blame "doubters" in the room for scaring off the spirits. ETs should not require faith but because they're as elusive as ghosts, UFO-sighters are discredited as being like ghost-sighters.
I see flashing lights in the sky, I see the lights move in formation, then stop on a dime and dart off in another direction.
Whats my conclusion?
(a) I saw an alien spacecraft! (b) I saw something unusual in the sky which I cannot explain. (it could be any number of things)
Different test.
Military radar base detects a contact moving at high speeds and angles in the sky. US military pilots scramble to intercept said contact. Visual identification is made by pilots - metallic devices matching maneuvers of the pilots. Devices exhibit flight characteristics well-beyond those of current man-made craft. Onboard equipment locking on to objects track them for extended periods of time - equipment that cannot track mirages, optical illusions, or similar phenomena.
What is your conclusion?
(a) Write off multiple professional highly trained military combat pilots as insane & delusional. All at the same time, in the same way, about the same thing. Discount the science of the equipment onboard those fighter craft as well - suddenly this equipment pilots utilize to keep them alive in the direst of circumstances (warfare) is untrustworthy.
(b) Admit the UFO phenomena is persistent, valid, and worthy of profoundly serious study.
Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. A fighter pilot is not an expert in aliens. A professional can make up a story like any other citizen.
I can't find the video but Neil deGrasse Tyson told the story of a cop who was driving down a dark country road where he spotted a UFO in the sky, he chased after it and reported it was dotting right and left. Ends up he was driving down a winding road and he was "chasing" Venus.
Just a notation - the Navy footage has been showcased on many news services. Fox may have carried it, but they were one amongst many. I saw it and several add-on articles with additional information on either CNN or MSNBC. Its not at all a 'production' of Tucker-used-a-white-supremacist-as-his-head-writer-Carlson.
Why on Earth would they want to come here of all places?
Also, why would they be so secretive? Why would they need to hide themselves? Any civilisation capable of interstellar travel would be so far beyond us it wouldn't need stealth.
Why would they comply with some kind of political / military conspiracy to suppress knowledge of their existence? Why would the military or government want to suppress this knowledge anyway? Are Earth's governments working with the aliens or against them? Have they already been infiltrated? If so, why still hide?
Who knows what goes on in a conspiracy nut's mind?
