This community is for discussion surrounding UFOs and Extraterrestrials.
It's possible to be mistaken without hallucinating. Some people report an UFO following them that turns out to be the moon, so it's pretty easy.
But yeah, the lack of proper videos in an age where cameras are everywhere and include pretty good night performance seems to be a pretty strong clue weighing towards the human error (of whatever kind) rather than "actual" UFOs.
I understand some people might confuse them. What I saw wasn't the moon though. It was moving at seemingly constant speed, then stopped for a brief moment and shot away accelerating from 0 to infinity in less than a second. It was at first greenish-yellow colored but turned redder as it got away.
I'm not saying that you didn't see anything or that it was the moon. I'm simply saying that it's not as binary as either aliens or hallucinations. There are other possibilities, from atmospheric events to aircrafts or other.
Just shy of 3 yrs ago glowing ball spheres were hovering over the street over a long drive I took into the mountains. They didn't move. They were undeniably higher than street lamps. I finally saw them again recently in some of the "drone" images, which is what I assumed they were despite being over many miles apart, I still think they are, the most diabolical creature on the planet is humans followed closely by cats, cats don't build drones yet... my point is; You know what you know, no one else has to believe you experienced something for you to have actually experienced it. That being said, there is times I would have traded either testicle for a quality live video feed.
At times I wish I had an answer, even if it was something prosaic. Anything is better than defaulting to hallucination haha.
I was checking out closely at the drone situation recently but they're were moving as...drones. I know all the questions and mystery surrounding them but they still move like something that you can just dismiss and say "they're just kids using drones for lulz".
What I saw had instant acceleration. I can't dismiss it that easily, save for the hallucination hypotheses. The worst part is this is a taboo topic so you get weird looks if you try and talk about it in public
I'm more in the "disclosure already happened and people don't care" phase.
The dod accidentally released the Nimitz video, Said yeah that was a weird UFO video we weren't going to release, The pilots all said it looked like a manufactured craft and it stayed stationary and also moved in ways that human-made crafts can't, and there were a dozen more of them very clearly visible.
with all the testimony, telemetry and video evidence, I'm content to wait for the next step.
The hallucination hypothesis doesn't stand up at all to the size of the universe and the absurdly minuscule unlikelihood that no other intelligent life ever evolved, coupled with all of the evidence we already have in such a short time.
The "likelihood" argument of foreign life doesn't make sense though. You need a point of reference for statistics that we don't have. According to the current knowledge (0% of known foreign planets are known to have life) you can absolutely not conclude to any likelihood other than none (which would also be inaccurate obviously).
"foreign" planets?
we know one planet developed intelligent life.
and there are what? a trillion trillion trillion planets?
makes a good amount of sense to expect intelligent, or at least space-faring life developed somewhere else, even ignoring all the evidence.
And what is the chance, given a planet, to have life develop on it? 50%? 1%? 1 out of (number of planets in the universe)?
We cannot define a statistic as we have a sample of only one element.
It would be like saying "I won the lotto and there are a lot of people in the world, so there must be thousands of people that won it at the same time as me", it doesn't make sense. Without knowing the chances of winning (in this case, pretty low) you cannot assume that there is a good chance there are other winners.
If we had a proper sample (let's say, 10000 planets including a handful showing life forms), then we could at least extrapolate. But we have only one planet we life, so an extrapolation would still be one. In other words, we have no proof that life is possible outside of earth, so assuming there is is nothing but a belief.
if the percentage is even .000000000000001%, then intelligent life must have developed elsewhere millions of times.
and that's ignoring intelligent life possibly developing on stars rather than planets or in interstellar space rather than on discrete objects, it's statistically ridiculous to think the slightly clever monkeys on this bubble are the only form of intelligent life.
there are simply too many avenues for intelligent life to arise to assume that because you personally haven't seen it or a teacher didn't explain to you that extraterrestrial life exists because we wrote about it in a textbook, that extraterrestrial life doesn't exist.
there's too much evidence and too much statistical probability of intelligent life arising to simply assume that it can't exist.
That's like assuming there are no fish in the sea because you can't see beneath the surface of the water.
But you're still making up a stat from nowhere. What if the probability is 10e-30 ? Then earth would statistically be the only one with life on it. And it could be even lower and earth would be a statistical miracle.
There is no proof that alien life doesn't exist. There is no proof that god doesn't exist. There is no proof that if you try to eat a candle from your eye while dancing on your head it won't grant you immortality. You can't prove the inexistence of something so the argument is void. That's why I called it a belief, as opposed to science that is about what can be proved wrong.
And your comparison is inaccurate. What I'm saying is equivalent to not believing that a subspecies of humans with gills live under the sea because we never found one. Which I think is a reasonable assumption until proven wrong.
"But you're still making up a stat from nowhere"
incorrect, I'm responding to your made-up statistics of 50% or 1%.
We know microbial life has developed on other planets, We know microbial life has evolved into intelligent life before.
your correlation of the literally uncountable locations and moments in which life can develop into intelligent life (as you understand it) with said intelligent life not having occurred and presented itself to you personally as some sort of evidence against intelligent life existing outside of the human understanding belies your misunderstanding of the statistical scale we are talking about.
"There is no proof that alien life doesn't exist."
that is because we have evidence that alien life exists.
"There is no proof that god doesn't exist."
We have much less evidence that God exists than we have of alien life existing.
"You can't prove the inexistence of something so the argument is void."
nobody is trying to prove a negative except for you, and I agree you're failing in that admittedly futile argument.
"What I'm saying is equivalent to not believing that a subspecies of humans with gills live under the sea because we never found one."
no, what you are saying is despite having found evidence of humans with gills, and you having access to evidence, you don't believe in the evidence of humans with gills.
Your hard-fought disbelief in statistics and evidence is much less credible than the actual evidence and statistics.
Your incredulous attitude is exactly what I mean by I'm in the " disclosure has happened and nobody cares" phase.
You're waiting for everybody else to tell you that the evidence is correct instead of accepting the evidence yourself.
My "made-up stat" was to point out that it's absurd to try to make one, to which you replied by making one.
We don't have proof of microbial life outside of earth, or it would be a consensus. The consensus is that it's possible but we don't know.
It's not about intelligent life occurring to me, but about basing assumptions on proof, which doesn't exist yet.
And your argument is circular. You are saying that foreign life exists because we have evidence of it, which means that statistically it has to exist ; I have yet to see such evidence and if it existed, the need for a statistical proof of existence would be none. You are already convinced of its existence and are operating within that scope, which once again is how beliefs work.
"My "made-up stat" was to point out that it's absurd to try to make one"
Trust me, you didn't need to come up with an example to prove the absurdity of your argument.
your argument is: if you're standing on a beach, and you find lichen growing out of the microcosm of one grain of sand, your assumption is that that grain of sand is the only life on the beach, before taking the time to even look at any other grain of sand on the beach.
That's about as goofy as it gets.
You're a zealot.
You'd burn Galileo at the stake for demonstrating his "magic space glass" if you had the chance.
"I have yet to see such evidence..."
yet you're extrapolating off of your ignorance.
again, if you haven't even looked at any of the other grains of sand, your believies are just that.
I'm convinced based on scientific evidence, you believe in as you say, your "circular logic":
by not looking at any evidence, by covering your eyes with your own hands, you've convinced yourself that no evidence of extraterrestrial life exists.
you are incorrect.
Yeah ok, if your level of argumentation is "you're like an anti-vaxxer" (which is funny considering they are people believing that the consensus is wrong and that they know better than science, seems ironic to see it from your side), then there's no point in trying to reply to you.
You kept on trying to alter my argument to try to ridicule it, you're obviously not debating in good faith so there's no point.
And also, I looked at what the "evidence" is and there's nothing but clues saying "it's possible". If you think that it is enough to conclude to the existence of something, then you have no clue what scientific reasoning is.
Enjoy considering your beliefs as a scientific truth, and consider calming down on the fallacies if you want to be taken seriously.
If you're going to make things up rather than look at any evidence, there's definitely no point in continuing your rant.
Good faith?
you have admitted that you are unaware of existing evidence for UFOs that is freely available, but you are extrapolating from your own ignorance that there can be no evidence.
I can only respond to the level of your lack of understanding, that may be why this well seems to have run dry for you.
you'll probably learn about the significance of evidence one day, but too late, and apologize to Galileo on your death bed.
I have admitted no such thing, I said that I couldn't find any evidence strong enough to serve as a rational proof.
And did you really casually throw in a Galileo gambit right now? You went from looking like an angry irrational person to a full-on conspiracy theorist in such a few words.
you should definitely try to explain how Galileo, who Is widely recognized as having provided rational scientific evidence for heliocentrism despite people like you calling him a witch because you don't believe in evidence, was a "conspiracy theorist".
Once again not what I said.
Here, have a good read: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
always the people that refuse to read urging others to read for them.
you are aware that just because you learned some buzzwords recently, applying them incorrectly does not suddenly make them applicable?
You're just incorrectly using buzzword after buzzword without context.
have you tried "gaslighting" yet?
That's probably another reason you don't need to look at any evidence related to the topic you are ignorant about.
because I'm "gsslighting" you.
How is it incorrect? You quote Galileo as a way to support the idea that despite no consensus on the existence of alien life, you are convinced that you know better. Are you really so dishonest that you'll now argue that you mentioned him out of nowhere, and not to compare your situation to his?
And all you manage to do is pile some random bullshit to try to discredit me? I don't even know how you managed to insert gaslighting into this, but it does cast even more shadows on your intentions.
"How is it incorrect?"
Let us count the ways.
"You quote Galileo "
incorrect, I did not quote Galileo.
"as a way to support the idea that despite no consensus on the existence of alien life..."
incorrect. I am not supporting this.
"you are convinced that you know better."
incorrect again, I have not stated that I know better, I have stated that you are ignorant of the scientific evidence, as you have admitted.
"Are you really so dishonest that you'll now argue that you mentioned him out of nowhere, and not to compare your situation to his?"
this is going to apparently wreck your worldview, but telling the truth is the opposite of being dishonest.
incorrect a fourth time and a fifth, as I had no intention of comparing my situation to his, but rather pointing out your tendency to ignore evidence that disproves your believies, just as the masses ignored scientific evidence while Galileo presented them with it
as I've said from the beginning, you are one of the blind masses.
dang, you are behind.
"And all you manage to do is pile some random bullshit to try to discredit me"
by some random bullshit, do you mean the exact things that you said?
you don't believe in evidence, you prefer believies.
That's your problem.
it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, that the telemetry doesn't exist or that radiological data doesn't exist or that radar and credible witnesses don't exist.
it just means that your beliefs are stronger than your intellect.
"I don't even know how you managed to insert gaslighting into this"
unsurprising.
you keep crying wolf pretending that I am using logical fallacies even though you have incorrectly used each logical fallacy so far, including your accusation of me using the "Galileo Gambit", which apparently after I pointed it out is why you are pretending that you we're making a simple comparison to Galileo rather than mistakenly regurgitating the logical fallacy correlated with his name.
did you even know Galileo was a scientist before you used your little buzzword incorrectly?
I don't really care, that was retortical.
so I don't know those are examples of you being incorrect what seven, eight times?
that, as a whole, is how you are incorrect, to answer your plaintive cry.
Okay, there's definitely no point in debating with such a bad faith argumentation.
You didn't compare the situation to Galileo's, but were just pointing out the similarities between the situations? That's some mental gymnastics.
I didn't admit being ignorant about evidence, I said that I am not aware of any because there is none that is valid.
You talk a lot about evidence, what is it? Show me you scientific, non-belief evidence that is so strong and reliable and yet rejected by all scientists. Instead of fighting with wordplay and theatrics, repeating endlessly your "buzzwords", "evidence", "blind masses" and whatnot, it's time to back your claims of the evidence being so overwhelming because as I said, the maximum I've found is a few people saying "we detected some particles that are similar to some we have on earth so maybe there could be some microbial life out there but we don't have proof of it" which is pretty far from your extremely reliable (yet rejected by everyone) evidence.
"definitely no point in debating "
...proceeds to continue debating
"bad faith argumentation."
again, it's nice you learned buzzwords, but they don't change the content of what has been said.
"You didn't compare the situation to Galileo's"
correct.
"but were just pointing out the similarities between the situations"
not at all. I was pointing out that you are acting the same as one of the masses who ridiculed and disbelieved Galileo despite his scientific reasoning, and if you were around one Galileo was showing people scientific equations supporting heliocentrism, you would have vilified him rather than looking at those scary numbers.
literally the same thing I've been saying from the beginning.
there is evidence, you don't believe in scientific evidence, and The evidence makes you upset for some reason.
as anyone can see back in my first comment, I'm in the "disclosure happened and nobody cares" phase.
"That's some mental gymnastics."
at this point, I'm no longer surprised that a direct 1-to-1 comparison confuses you or seems like some sort of phenomenal mental feat.
"I didn't admit being ignorant about evidence,"
hang on just one sentence...
"I said that I am not aware of any"
there it is, the definition of ignorance and your admission thereof.
"because there is none that is valid."
being ignorant of the evidence, there's no way you can conclusively determine its validity.
not to mention your willful disregard of scientific evidence in general.
"evidence, what is it?"
again, radar, telemetry, radiological data, video, photos from defense departments and aerial surveillance, trained witnesses and observers, and credible witness testimony.
this was all said 10 comments ago, and you said you didn't believe in telemetry, radiological data, radar and other types of scientific evidence.
The national press club conference in 2007 is a great resource to get started, but it's 6 hours long, so if you watch "I know what I saw" they'll go over of a couple of the highlights regarding intelligently designed and maneuvered craft that you should be able to follow and can look further into.
"wordplay and theatrics"
conflating your ignorance with scientific evidence is the only way you can think radar, photography, hard data or video is some sort of wordplay or theatrics.
it looks like in the end you've mistaken my earlier statistical metaphor of sand on a beach with concrete scientific evidence of lichen existing on multiple interstellar grains of sand.
try scrolling up to remember what this thread is even about and what you are so hysterically refusing to engage with.
How exactly is ignoring the scientific protocol and interpreting random things as "scientific evidence" something reasonable? Random readings that are absolutely not proof, testimonies, those are your proofs?
None of those hold to scientific standard and that's exactly why apart from a few clues of microbial life possibly existing, nothing else is admitted scientifically. It has nothing to do with Galileo or made-up statistics.
I thought you would try to give evidence of life being detected from organic molecules on asteroids or whatever, not that you would fully go on the conspiracist line of aliens in spaceships taking a trip to earth and being recorded, with the records then discredited by science as if it was all a big scheme.
Not a single record on earth made it past the scientific protocol, at most reaching the point of "we don't know but have no reason to believe it came from aliens". Because you know what? If it did, it would be admitted by science.
"How exactly is ignoring the scientific protocol and interpreting random things as "scientific evidence" something reasonable?"
it isn't, as I've stated multiple times. your irrational fear of scientific evidence as something "unreasonable" is one of your problems.
"...those are your proofs?"
nnnope, those sound like more things you're making up in your head.
"None of those hold to scientific standard"
you not understanding how radar, video and photos work doesn't mean that radar, video and photo evidence isn't real.
you are just ignorant.
"It has nothing to do with Galileo or made-up statistics."
and yet you consistently bring them up for no reason.
weird.
"conspiracist..."
again, radar is not a conspiracy. video is not a conspiracy. these are simple recording and measurement tools that you are ignorant of.
radiation is not a conspiracy. it occurs all around you all the time.
"Not a single record on earth made it past the scientific protocol"
....you should definitely try to explain this.
I am laughing at everything you write, but I expect you trying to prove that there's never been a "single record on Earth that made it past the scientific protocol" should be hilarious.
"If it did, it would be admitted by science."
you doubt that video, photo and radar have been admitted by science?
are you ancient or perhaps 3 years old?
boy are you in for a surprise.
those technologies, and many others, are well documented and scientifically accepted.
what methodology do you think the screen you're staring at right now is a product of If not the scientific process?
magic?
guesswork?
Wow, you're actually unable to form a coherent answer at this point.
Also just a little thing, you're the one with unfounded beliefs having the burden of the proof, not me. I can't and don't have to prove that your beliefs are not facts, you're the one having to prove what you claim, and all you've been doing is telling me that pictures and videos are an existing technology as if it ever was in question.
If someone questioning your beliefs makes you go completely haywire then you should probably see with a professional, this is out of the scope of a discussion on lemmy.
"Wow, you're actually unable to form a coherent answer at this point."
That's another one of your mistakes.
in order to receive an answer, you'll need to ask a question.
which I understand seems very challenging for you.
"you're the one with unfounded beliefs having the burden of the proof"
dude, you being unaware of how radar works is not my problem.
I don't have to prove an 80 year old technology because you don't believe in science, you have to learn how to read.
I agree you should see a professional, but they're going to agree with me that video, photo and radar are very common technologies that you should be familiar with by this point.
established, scientific processes widely accepted by all.
you don't like science, that's your deal, but you are in the minority here.
everybody else agrees that radar, video and photo technologies are real.
your limitations are your own.
Are you high?
Radars and pictures work and exist, that's pretty far from proving aliens are here.
Are you really not a troll? That's hard to believe.
"Are you high?"
relatively, although I'm not sure what that has to do with your disbelief in scientific evidence.
oh...or are your beliefs.... evolving....
"Radars and pictures work and exist"
hey! there you go!
it only took...seven comments for you to come around?
honestly, that's pretty good.
It has to do with your inability to form a coherent conversation.
The rest of your reply proved my point.
"It has to do with your inability to form a coherent conversation."
it's as if you don't even know the meaning of words.
like you keep trying to pretend my comments are not "coherent", while all your tantrums have done is fail to counter my single logical and consistent argument that you not believing in simple scientific technologies and evidence does not render those evidences non-existent.
nobody can fault you for trying to use new words, but maybe look up their definitions first?
especially since you've finally admitted that the scientific technologies I've mentioned do exist, are widely accepted, and you're simply ignorant of the evidence you're trying to extrapolate falsely predicated conclusions from.
why try to climb back inside your shell?
Your hole point is basically "pictures exists so aliens are proven", I'm not going to waste my time debating with you if that's the extent of your "reasoning".
Still hoping that you're a troll, but have a good day.
"Your hole point is basically "pictures exists so aliens are proven""
not at all, but I understand how reducing a complex issue to a couple incorrectly spelled words makes things easier for you to understand.
"I'm not going to waste my time debating with you"
you keep saying that, yet persist in vomiting up senseless comments.
None of your comments were a complex issue, that's the problem.
your problem is your inability to see beyond or around your own stumbling blocks.
We don't know how likely life is in the universe, let alone intelligent life.
I just read your exchange with Solumbran and I must agree with them. The % could be so low as to make earth a statistical miracle. We just don't know because we only have a sample size of 1 living planet, and a star system full of dead ones. The reasonable position to take is to assume earth is the only planet with life until proven otherwise, as unlikely that may seem as first glance.
And if we go by statistics, people having hallucinations is more likely than having non-human made devices operating on Earth. Of course, this doesn't feel satisfying at all haha.
Regarding the Nimitz, we don't have telemetry. All we have is the testimony and video evidence, but the radar data was never published as far as I know. It's still the most compelling case. I'm craving to learn more of this case, but nearly 5 years have passed since the pentagon admitted it was real. I don't think they're going to spill the beans.
"we only have a sample size of 1 living planet"
arguably.
"a star system full of dead ones"
there's no evidence for this.
"if we go by statistics, people having hallucinations is more likely than having non-human made devices operating on Earth."
on which basis are you assuming this?
The basis of you being unaware of non-human-made devices operating on Earth?
or more made up statistics?
" regarding the nimits, we don't have telemetry".
The Nimitz incident is not the only telemetry-supported ufo incident by a long shot.
I know I sound dismissive of your criticisms, but you have to understand that on one side, there is radar data, credible witnesses, radiological data, photos and videos from multiple governments around the world, and the statistical unlikelihood of one bubble being "the only special bubble" where intelligent life can occur, and on the other side there is you and one other guy insisting that since neither of you personally believe in radar, video evidence, trained observers or credible witnesses, then that evidence isn't real.
That's simply incorrect.
you not believing or being ignorant of telemetry doesn't invalidate telemetry.
again, this is the "disclosure has happened but people don't want to believe it yet".
as an example:
you probably think that anti-vax arguments sound silly?
me too.
anti-vaxxers are denying readily available evidence while relying on an insufficient pool of assumptions that do not hold up to scrutiny.
that's where UFO deniers are at this point.
Isn't it uncanny to witness consensus reality assert itself in real-time?
I don't have any firsthand experience with this stuff, but I'm really not sure what to make of those disclosures.
Try and film something at dusk or night time, with your cellphone. Bonus points if it has lights You'll be disappointed with what you get
how do you cope with that?
I recognise when I have expectations and don't invest in them.
What would be the worst that could happen for you? I would guess it might be something like: you go your whole life never seeing any photo that represents what you saw, nobody believes you, nobody cares, you never have any movement forward in your understanding of your experience, you die just as confused as the day after your experience. Is that really a problem? You're still going to (presumably) have food to eat, a roof over your head, etc. So don't worry about your lack of understanding. Expect nothing.
Yes, I obviously go on with my life. I don't have 'I want to believe' posters in my house or anything.
But from time to time I remember what I saw and I can't help but try and figure out an answer.
Understandable. Reminds me of a quote from Whitley Streiber:
"Learn to live at a high level of uncertainty. Only by doing this will we begin to gain the rigorously clear and objective outlook we need to perceive what is happening correctly." -- Whitley Streiber, quoted in Jim DeKorne, 'Psychedelic Shamanism', p.55