3 ms·

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 answer

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)

ALittleLight 5y ago
Let me rephrase things a little bit. Consider two realities, Reality A (RA) and Reality B (RB). In RA there are no aliens operating craft in our atmosphere and the report was motivated by your 3 explanations or similar. In RB there are aliens operating in our atmosphere. In which reality, RA, or RB, is the DNI report more likely to be published? I think the answer is clearly RB. For one thing, RB has all the same reasons for a fake report as RA and it has the reason of alien craft being observed. The DNI report should update your beliefs about aliens in proportion to the extent which you think the report is more likely to be authored in RB relative to RA. Of the three explanations you offer 1 and 3 have serious problems. The events in question are reported by multiple witnesses and sensors. It's not reasonable to suspect that sensors, in multiple modalities, malfunction in the same way that coincidentally coincides with the reports of human witnesses. It's similarly not reasonable to think that human witnesses are lying for attention. They are faking the sensor reports? So they can get the attention of reporting something that might discredit or embarrass them? They collude with other human witnesses to do this? It just doesn't seem very reasonable. Explanation 2 is more coherent. I don't think it is a good explanation because we have no reason to think that significantly more advanced flying technology is in the hands of our competitors. If it were, they would likely not both keep it secret from us, and repeatedly fly it in front of our airmen and sensors in broad daylight.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Consider two realities We should not consider merely those two options, if you're speculating then there are a vast number of "possible" options that "cannot be ruled out". You're cherry picking, exhibiting confirmation bias etc. This is why there is a burden of proof on the hypothesis being proposed. Disagree strongly with your "not reasonable" about sensors and people. A mish-mash of vague noisy readings cannot really be said to "coincide" much.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    You can consider more realities than RA and RB, but RA and RB are still possible realities and what I wrote about them is still true. Even if you infinite other possibilities the relative likelihood of RA and RB still changes the way I describe. If your radar reports some anomaly then the radar is probably malfunctioning. If the electro-optics report the same anomaly at the same time with the same characteristics, that's weird. If both these sensors, and others, agree on some strange data and you witness it with your own eyes and someone else does too... At some point you need to flip your conclusion from "sensor error" to "I'm observing something strange." There's no basis that I'm aware of to refer to the observations as "A mish-mash of vague most readings".
- staticassertion 5y ago
  I don't care to really delve into why I think my theories are obviously correct. The problem is that your entire line of reasoning is broken. When your evidence is weak and your possibilities are infinite you can not say that the evidence changes your view on one of those infinite possibilities - that's just confirmation bias.

ALittleLight 5y ago

Let me rephrase things a little bit. Consider two realities, Reality A (RA) and Reality B (RB). In RA there are no aliens operating craft in our atmosphere and the report was motivated by your 3 explanations or similar. In RB there are aliens operating in our atmosphere. In which reality, RA, or RB, is the DNI report more likely to be published? I think the answer is clearly RB. For one thing, RB has all the same reasons for a fake report as RA and it has the reason of alien craft being observed. The DNI report should update your beliefs about aliens in proportion to the extent which you think the report is more likely to be authored in RB relative to RA. Of the three explanations you offer 1 and 3 have serious problems. The events in question are reported by multiple witnesses and sensors. It's not reasonable to suspect that sensors, in multiple modalities, malfunction in the same way that coincidentally coincides with the reports of human witnesses. It's similarly not reasonable to think that human witnesses are lying for attention. They are faking the sensor reports? So they can get the attention of reporting something that might discredit or embarrass them? They collude with other human witnesses to do this? It just doesn't seem very reasonable. Explanation 2 is more coherent. I don't think it is a good explanation because we have no reason to think that significantly more advanced flying technology is in the hands of our competitors. If it were, they would likely not both keep it secret from us, and repeatedly fly it in front of our airmen and sensors in broad daylight.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Consider two realities We should not consider merely those two options, if you're speculating then there are a vast number of "possible" options that "cannot be ruled out". You're cherry picking, exhibiting confirmation bias etc. This is why there is a burden of proof on the hypothesis being proposed. Disagree strongly with your "not reasonable" about sensors and people. A mish-mash of vague noisy readings cannot really be said to "coincide" much.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  You can consider more realities than RA and RB, but RA and RB are still possible realities and what I wrote about them is still true. Even if you infinite other possibilities the relative likelihood of RA and RB still changes the way I describe. If your radar reports some anomaly then the radar is probably malfunctioning. If the electro-optics report the same anomaly at the same time with the same characteristics, that's weird. If both these sensors, and others, agree on some strange data and you witness it with your own eyes and someone else does too... At some point you need to flip your conclusion from "sensor error" to "I'm observing something strange." There's no basis that I'm aware of to refer to the observations as "A mish-mash of vague most readings".
staticassertion 5y ago
I don't care to really delve into why I think my theories are obviously correct. The problem is that your entire line of reasoning is broken. When your evidence is weak and your possibilities are infinite you can not say that the evidence changes your view on one of those infinite possibilities - that's just confirmation bias.