4 ms·

1. I am not saying that these UAP are definitely aliens. I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. The report found t

1. I am not saying that these UAP are definitely aliens. I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. The report found that physical objects exhibited behavior that suggests advanced technology - including flying at considerable speed without discernible means of propulsion. It's unfair to characterize this line of thinking as "We don't know what we saw, so aliens." Instead, what I wrote was more like "The report does not contradict aliens. The findings of the report are consistent with what we might expect from alien technology. I am updating my beliefs to increase the likelihood that these UAP are explained by aliens." Your line about extra-ordinary claims is a bit misguided. For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion. 2. The DNI report says "a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology" and "Some UAP appeared to ... move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion" and "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation." That doesn't sound like "bug-on-the-lens" type observations to me. Obviously I can't know how good the DNI evidence is. They haven't shared much of it. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude from the report that people are getting confused with lens flares or equipment failures though. 3. That doesn't seem like an argument at all. Any thing which we have observed for a while but haven't explained would fit this description of being "perpetually liminal". UFOs fit the description worse than most things because they aren't very "perpetual". UFO sightings go back ~70 years. That's hardly perpetual. It's also not the case that we always know roughly the same amount. This report for example uses evidence to advance our understanding, arguing that they are physical objects, that they may emit RF energy, and that they have capabilities we do not.

staticassertion 5y ago
This is all a really roundabout, long winded way of demonstrating confirmation bias. The idea that there are aliens among us is obscenely unlikely, with debunked after debunked case. Stacking up a whole bunch of fallacious arguments doesn't add up to a good one, or even an ok one, or even a "maybe". > For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. Like this. No it isn't. It's terrible evidence, it actually isn't evidence at all.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  Whether or not aliens are "obscenely unlikely" addresses only your prior belief before reading this report. Does the report change your beliefs about aliens at all? If so, in what direction, more or less likely? My point is that the observations of the report make me update towards aliens. The observations are consistent with the theory that alien craft operate in our atmosphere. Advanced technology that we don't understand. Doesn't appear to be ours. Yesterday, I wouldn't have said that was true or that we had good reasons to think it was true. Today, I'm more inclined to think it's true. If my arguments are fallacious or terrible I'd appreciate you explaining how. Multiple witnesses with multiple sensors multiple times across years seems pretty persuasive. You think it's not evidence at all. Why not? What evidence would you expect to see?
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    The report did nothing to change my views on aliens. There are some events that we have very little information on, and so we can not explain, and so the answers could be anything and therefor imply nothing. The reports are also consistent with angels - angels fly around, have capabilities beyond our technological understanding, and so on. Your argument is fallacious because it's based on cherry picked, weak accounts that are inherently low-information, and said "it fits the theory". I believe that 'aliens' exist. It just seems statistically likely, given the size of the universe. But I don't believe that there's other space-fairing life in our solar system, and the nearest celestial bodies are insanely far away. Trying to guess at what that sort of life would be like, how it would behave, or what evidence to expect, is again pointless - we have no information, it's totally baseless guessing. The entire thing is nonsense. A theory that is based on a complete lack of information and evidence that itself lacks information. Not compelling. Personally, I think it's a combination of various perfectly terrestrial events: 1. People lying for attention (the vast majority) 2. Unmanned foreign vehicles that are actually spying on us 3. Equipment or natural aberration (weather events, smudges on lenses, equipment malfunction, lens glares, etc) Note that unlike the alien theories... The evidence for (1) and (3) is factual - repeatedly we have found this to be the case. (2) is the most fanciful, but requires far less of a leap of faith and fits within a context that we know does exist ie: technology we know publicly is under pursuit. (1) Has been repeatedly the case (2) Doesn't involve any insane advances in technology to explain some of these events, and we can understand the motivations as our own (3) We know happens as well, as we have with (1)
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. > I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion. Could also be angels. Or IMHO, what I want it to be is visitors from a parallel Earth where the dinosaurs never died out and instead developed a hyper-advanced civilisation. They're now crossing the multiverse (temporarily, that's why they vanish again) and looking at us in complete bemusement, much as we would look at a world where humanity dies out in a nuclear war, and rats evolve and civilise roughly to the level of ancient Egypt or Sumer. The problem with "you cant rule it out", and "the facts fit the conclusion" thinking about such nebulous phenomena is that there are a vast or infinite number of things that "you can't rule out" and also "fit". It's true but it's a far weaker claim than it seems. What "I want" is just wishful: Your chosen scenario is vanishingly unlikely among them, and assembled out of scraps of pop culture anyway. That's why previous generations say witches, demons, angel's etc. Apophenia describes the person's inner world, as much as the external one. Isn't it convenient that its still such a such a nebulous phenomena? This is why the burden of proof falls squarely on ruling it _in_.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  It could be angels or alternate reality Earths or whatever. Your prior belief in those things matters and the extent to which you think the observations reported in the DNI report match what you would expect to see were any of those the source of the phenomenon. I think there is good reason to believe that aliens exist (size of the universe, number of planets) and traveling between star systems is consistent with what we know of physics. I also think observing advanced technology in the form of objects flying in our atmosphere is consistent with the "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation. A surprising observation that is consistent with a theory should add confidence to that theory. "Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I am not saying "It was aliens." I am saying "There is no reason to think the report rules out aliens which the headline suggests, and, actually, the report is consistent with aliens and that's surprising."
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

staticassertion 5y ago

This is all a really roundabout, long winded way of demonstrating confirmation bias. The idea that there are aliens among us is obscenely unlikely, with debunked after debunked case. Stacking up a whole bunch of fallacious arguments doesn't add up to a good one, or even an ok one, or even a "maybe". > For one thing, multiple observations by multiple witnesses and multiple sensor modalities in multiple instances across decades is pretty good evidence. Like this. No it isn't. It's terrible evidence, it actually isn't evidence at all.

ALittleLight 5y ago
Whether or not aliens are "obscenely unlikely" addresses only your prior belief before reading this report. Does the report change your beliefs about aliens at all? If so, in what direction, more or less likely? My point is that the observations of the report make me update towards aliens. The observations are consistent with the theory that alien craft operate in our atmosphere. Advanced technology that we don't understand. Doesn't appear to be ours. Yesterday, I wouldn't have said that was true or that we had good reasons to think it was true. Today, I'm more inclined to think it's true. If my arguments are fallacious or terrible I'd appreciate you explaining how. Multiple witnesses with multiple sensors multiple times across years seems pretty persuasive. You think it's not evidence at all. Why not? What evidence would you expect to see?
- staticassertion 5y ago
  The report did nothing to change my views on aliens. There are some events that we have very little information on, and so we can not explain, and so the answers could be anything and therefor imply nothing. The reports are also consistent with angels - angels fly around, have capabilities beyond our technological understanding, and so on. Your argument is fallacious because it's based on cherry picked, weak accounts that are inherently low-information, and said "it fits the theory". I believe that 'aliens' exist. It just seems statistically likely, given the size of the universe. But I don't believe that there's other space-fairing life in our solar system, and the nearest celestial bodies are insanely far away. Trying to guess at what that sort of life would be like, how it would behave, or what evidence to expect, is again pointless - we have no information, it's totally baseless guessing. The entire thing is nonsense. A theory that is based on a complete lack of information and evidence that itself lacks information. Not compelling. Personally, I think it's a combination of various perfectly terrestrial events: 1. People lying for attention (the vast majority) 2. Unmanned foreign vehicles that are actually spying on us 3. Equipment or natural aberration (weather events, smudges on lenses, equipment malfunction, lens glares, etc) Note that unlike the alien theories... The evidence for (1) and (3) is factual - repeatedly we have found this to be the case. (2) is the most fanciful, but requires far less of a leap of faith and fits within a context that we know does exist ie: technology we know publicly is under pursuit. (1) Has been repeatedly the case (2) Doesn't involve any insane advances in technology to explain some of these events, and we can understand the motivations as our own (3) We know happens as well, as we have with (1)

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> I am saying that the findings of the report make aliens a more likely explanation. > I don't know what evidence you would expect to see if alien technology was operating in our atmosphere, but the described observations seem consistent with that conclusion. Could also be angels. Or IMHO, what I want it to be is visitors from a parallel Earth where the dinosaurs never died out and instead developed a hyper-advanced civilisation. They're now crossing the multiverse (temporarily, that's why they vanish again) and looking at us in complete bemusement, much as we would look at a world where humanity dies out in a nuclear war, and rats evolve and civilise roughly to the level of ancient Egypt or Sumer. The problem with "you cant rule it out", and "the facts fit the conclusion" thinking about such nebulous phenomena is that there are a vast or infinite number of things that "you can't rule out" and also "fit". It's true but it's a far weaker claim than it seems. What "I want" is just wishful: Your chosen scenario is vanishingly unlikely among them, and assembled out of scraps of pop culture anyway. That's why previous generations say witches, demons, angel's etc. Apophenia describes the person's inner world, as much as the external one. Isn't it convenient that its still such a such a nebulous phenomena? This is why the burden of proof falls squarely on ruling it _in_.

ALittleLight 5y ago
It could be angels or alternate reality Earths or whatever. Your prior belief in those things matters and the extent to which you think the observations reported in the DNI report match what you would expect to see were any of those the source of the phenomenon. I think there is good reason to believe that aliens exist (size of the universe, number of planets) and traveling between star systems is consistent with what we know of physics. I also think observing advanced technology in the form of objects flying in our atmosphere is consistent with the "alien craft operating in our atmosphere" explanation. A surprising observation that is consistent with a theory should add confidence to that theory. "Burden of proof" is not a useful concept here. I am not saying "It was aliens." I am saying "There is no reason to think the report rules out aliens which the headline suggests, and, actually, the report is consistent with aliens and that's surprising."
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago