13 ms·

I don't know what to make of this. It just seems so incredibly implausibly that extraterrestrials would have the technology or motive to come to Earth without w

I don't know what to make of this. It just seems so incredibly implausibly that extraterrestrials would have the technology or motive to come to Earth without widespread detection.

beaned 3y ago
Right, like what would be their motivation for exclusively interacting with governments rather than, say, landing in Times Square? I guess a counter thought would be that they haven't actually tried to interact with anyone at all, maybe only observe, but the armed forces/governments are the only element of our species with the ability to detect and retrieve them when they make mistakes.
- neuronic 3y ago
  But they never make mistakes above NYC or Berlin, or anywhere with a bunch of social media + phone users around. Just somewhere in the desert conveniently close to AFBs and other restricted areas.
  - beaned 3y ago
    A good point. A couple thoughts here might be: 1. They make exceptionally few mistakes overall anyway; 2. Perhaps it is the interaction between armed force technology and their vehicles which creates problems for them (whether intentional or not from our side); 3. The majority of our land surface area is not inhabited at any given moment. Maybe these drones, or whatever they are, do not even care about life here, and are not particularly attracted to cities or people, and are statistically more likely to fail out of reach of most populated areas just because that's what our geographic distribution is like.
    - operatingthetan 3y ago
      Maybe our devices are easily hacked by their technology. E.g. the phones just don't see them or images of craft are removed from photos.
jdwithit 3y ago
It's pretty obvious what to make of it. The guy is an attention seeking nut, and it's a huge waste of time.
- ericb 3y ago
  Did you watch it? He doesn't come off that way. He testified under oath. Every time he was asked for specifics, he said he had them, had already provided them, or in some cases would provide them immediately after because they were classified--which is the proper response if you don't want to go to jail. If he's a nut, you'd expect evasion, contradiction, waffling and avoidance when asked for specifics. I didn't see any of that. He is already providing data that will be verifiable. An attention-seeking con would work hard to avoid providing anything he can be called out on. I have no idea what's going on, and this is all nuts, but that certainly didn't fit the mold I was expecting.
  - Avshalom 3y ago
    "I already told you" and "I'll tell you later" are absolutely avoidance when asked for specifics.
    - ericb 3y ago
      I can see where it might sound that way if you haven't watched the testimony. "I provided this classified information under oath to the inspector general" is not an avoidance tactic but a direction where to locate classified info. "I'll tell you later" on the surface might sound like an avoidance tactic, but when he was asked when he could provide it the answer was "immediately after today's session." In other words, no stalling at all, he just preferred not getting arrested for sharing top-secret info publicly.
      - mikeyouse 3y ago
        Willing to get arrested would be a huge signal that he's an actual whistleblower and not full of shit! There's almost no chance he'd face any consequences given the topic and the amount of support he'd have the from the public, and even then, Daniel Hale's sentence for disclosing dozens of classified documents to reporters was ~3.5yrs in jail. The LARPers pretending like he'd be sent to gitmo are completely in lala land.
CodeAndCuffs 3y ago
Part of the testimony was that there is widespread detection. The claim is that UAPs are often a part of briefings and debriefs. Its also been claimed during the recent UAP related testimonies that a large number of military and civilian pilots have seen stuff, but either had no clear path to report it, reported it and were ignored, or reported and were harassed, or chose to not report it out of fear of harassment.
- viraptor 3y ago
  There's nothing stopping the civilians from reporting it publicly AFAIK. There's enough cameras in the sky that we'd have footage of a few. Especially from all the commercial fights with passengers.
  - likeabbas 3y ago
    Part of the issue is the stigma. Commercial pilots are afraid to come forward, and that’s why Ryan Graves came to this meeting because his mission is to reduce the stigma so pilots feel safe reporting this issue.
    - viraptor 3y ago
      I'd agree on some pilots, and sure they should post more unexplained things for analysis. But given how many people are eagerly into bigfoot or cryptids, it's not like every pilot with some kind of evidence would feel unsafe sharing it.
      - likeabbas 3y ago
        Pilots, both commercial and military, are constantly under scrutiny to maintain a healthy mental state for fear of their license being revoked. You can not be mentally unstable and be a pilot. For years it was generally well accepted that people who believed in UFOs are crazy, so pilots have kept this to themselves for fear of retribution. Go ask any pilot how they would feel reporting something moving in unexplainable ways right up against their aircraft.
froggychairs 3y ago
Why would aliens have to destroy? When I go out for a hike in the woods or a hike in a new state/country that isn’t my home. I don’t go out destroying the land around me. I observe and enjoy my time Maybe these aliens are scientists. Documenting biological life across the galaxy. Maybe they’re VanCampers. Just bouncing from planet to planet for fun If a civilization has presumably reached FTL travel. I imagine many of their needs have been met and conquest/destruction isn’t required to maintain their supremacy. Lots of empty planets with plenty of resources out there! Not saying aliens/UFOs are real, but I think it’s very easy to imagine them existing and not being destructive. Or maybe they’re just scouting before the invasion :)
- shepardrtc 3y ago
  Seriously. There's nothing here that they can't find out in space in greater quantities and easier access. Except our animal and plant life. And no worries about harvesting us like in movies, it's way easier to grow meat or whatever than travel across the universe for it. We're most likely a curiosity.
- ry4nolson 3y ago
  they said "detection" not "destruction"
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  > Maybe these aliens are scientists. Their opsec's way too good for scientists. If they're anything like our scientists, we'd have recovered one of the flying saucers when they tried to go through Arby's drive-through but didn't have enough clearance. Maybe they're just fictional, and this guy has a Fox Mulder larping fetish. > If a civilization has presumably reached FTL travel. I imagine many of their needs have been met and conquest/destruction isn’t required to maintain their supremacy. If we ever achieve FTL travel, do you imagine that it will be available to frat bros doing road trips to Beta Reticuli VI, or will it be this horrendously expensive, economy-wrecking thing that we get to do once or twice and then have to stop because it is almost impossible to do? We achieved a moon landing for fuck's sake, and the frat bro still hasn't duplicated that one yet (though I will concede he's not doing too shabby).
joezydeco 3y ago
More precisely, a civilization that can master interstellar travel and navigation but somehow keeps crashing on our planet?
- blipvert 3y ago
  Maybe they are trying to subtly steer our planet out of the way of an extinction event meteor with ballistics - and we’ve accidentally steered the meteor back into a collision course!
- ericb 3y ago
  It's a fair point. If you rephrase it as "a civilization that mastered interplanetary travel and can split the atom somehow keeps crashing on our planet" it makes me wonder. What if bugs, suicidal or thrill-seeking pilots or overly confident bureaucracies remain a fixture in the next stages of life's evolution as well? Or what if fixing those problems is harder than the technology?
  - joezydeco 3y ago
    Or, perhaps, that civilization is using found technology from UFOs that crashed on their planet and they haven't quite figured out where the brake pedal is, yet?
- ralgozino 3y ago
  And it's funny how they always crash in the USA, isn't it?
kouru225 3y ago
Huh? You’re telling me you think they can travel light years to get here but don’t have the tech to land without us detecting them? That’s an assumption.
- dabluecaboose 3y ago
  I mean, we have stealth tech but I doubt the first instinct would be to put an F-117 on a one-way trip to Mars
- thatjoeoverthr 3y ago
  Assuming FTL is off the table, anything sent here will have been designed and launched with no evidence the subject planet has radars or air combat hardware. One should expect probes to have no air combat capability, and may not even bother to dodge a missile, even if they (incidentally) have very good aerodynamic performance.
  - DropInIn 3y ago
    If they don't have FYL then it's ridiculous that they'd send what are effectively tiny scout ships that don't have stealth tech to avoid the Other Aliens and that crash at alarming rates With Living Pilots inside... Really... Just look at the claim objectively and it becomes obvious it's absurd.
    - thatjoeoverthr 3y ago
      You would send some probe complex that includes small scout aircraft. Literally, NASA has done this. From many vantage points, Earth is a water world with no intelligent life on it. Most operators would send an interstellar probe based on that assumption. Things like living organisms can be application-specific bio robots that are wholly unprepared for anything like contact. Really, sending a bunch of military hardware on a space probe is obviously absurd. We have examples of literal scientists building literal space probes and they literally don’t send them with weapons.
      - 3y ago
rozal 3y ago
[dead]

I don't know what to make of this. It just seems so incredibly implausibly that extraterrestrials would have the technology or motive to come to Earth without widespread detection.

beaned 3y ago

Right, like what would be their motivation for exclusively interacting with governments rather than, say, landing in Times Square? I guess a counter thought would be that they haven't actually tried to interact with anyone at all, maybe only observe, but the armed forces/governments are the only element of our species with the ability to detect and retrieve them when they make mistakes.

neuronic 3y ago
But they never make mistakes above NYC or Berlin, or anywhere with a bunch of social media + phone users around. Just somewhere in the desert conveniently close to AFBs and other restricted areas.
- beaned 3y ago
  A good point. A couple thoughts here might be: 1. They make exceptionally few mistakes overall anyway; 2. Perhaps it is the interaction between armed force technology and their vehicles which creates problems for them (whether intentional or not from our side); 3. The majority of our land surface area is not inhabited at any given moment. Maybe these drones, or whatever they are, do not even care about life here, and are not particularly attracted to cities or people, and are statistically more likely to fail out of reach of most populated areas just because that's what our geographic distribution is like.
  - operatingthetan 3y ago
    Maybe our devices are easily hacked by their technology. E.g. the phones just don't see them or images of craft are removed from photos.

jdwithit 3y ago

It's pretty obvious what to make of it. The guy is an attention seeking nut, and it's a huge waste of time.

ericb 3y ago
Did you watch it? He doesn't come off that way. He testified under oath. Every time he was asked for specifics, he said he had them, had already provided them, or in some cases would provide them immediately after because they were classified--which is the proper response if you don't want to go to jail. If he's a nut, you'd expect evasion, contradiction, waffling and avoidance when asked for specifics. I didn't see any of that. He is already providing data that will be verifiable. An attention-seeking con would work hard to avoid providing anything he can be called out on. I have no idea what's going on, and this is all nuts, but that certainly didn't fit the mold I was expecting.
- Avshalom 3y ago
  "I already told you" and "I'll tell you later" are absolutely avoidance when asked for specifics.
  - ericb 3y ago
    I can see where it might sound that way if you haven't watched the testimony. "I provided this classified information under oath to the inspector general" is not an avoidance tactic but a direction where to locate classified info. "I'll tell you later" on the surface might sound like an avoidance tactic, but when he was asked when he could provide it the answer was "immediately after today's session." In other words, no stalling at all, he just preferred not getting arrested for sharing top-secret info publicly.
    - mikeyouse 3y ago
      Willing to get arrested would be a huge signal that he's an actual whistleblower and not full of shit! There's almost no chance he'd face any consequences given the topic and the amount of support he'd have the from the public, and even then, Daniel Hale's sentence for disclosing dozens of classified documents to reporters was ~3.5yrs in jail. The LARPers pretending like he'd be sent to gitmo are completely in lala land.

CodeAndCuffs 3y ago

Part of the testimony was that there is widespread detection. The claim is that UAPs are often a part of briefings and debriefs. Its also been claimed during the recent UAP related testimonies that a large number of military and civilian pilots have seen stuff, but either had no clear path to report it, reported it and were ignored, or reported and were harassed, or chose to not report it out of fear of harassment.

viraptor 3y ago
There's nothing stopping the civilians from reporting it publicly AFAIK. There's enough cameras in the sky that we'd have footage of a few. Especially from all the commercial fights with passengers.
- likeabbas 3y ago
  Part of the issue is the stigma. Commercial pilots are afraid to come forward, and that’s why Ryan Graves came to this meeting because his mission is to reduce the stigma so pilots feel safe reporting this issue.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    I'd agree on some pilots, and sure they should post more unexplained things for analysis. But given how many people are eagerly into bigfoot or cryptids, it's not like every pilot with some kind of evidence would feel unsafe sharing it.
    - likeabbas 3y ago
      Pilots, both commercial and military, are constantly under scrutiny to maintain a healthy mental state for fear of their license being revoked. You can not be mentally unstable and be a pilot. For years it was generally well accepted that people who believed in UFOs are crazy, so pilots have kept this to themselves for fear of retribution. Go ask any pilot how they would feel reporting something moving in unexplainable ways right up against their aircraft.

froggychairs 3y ago

Why would aliens have to destroy? When I go out for a hike in the woods or a hike in a new state/country that isn’t my home. I don’t go out destroying the land around me. I observe and enjoy my time Maybe these aliens are scientists. Documenting biological life across the galaxy. Maybe they’re VanCampers. Just bouncing from planet to planet for fun If a civilization has presumably reached FTL travel. I imagine many of their needs have been met and conquest/destruction isn’t required to maintain their supremacy. Lots of empty planets with plenty of resources out there! Not saying aliens/UFOs are real, but I think it’s very easy to imagine them existing and not being destructive. Or maybe they’re just scouting before the invasion :)

shepardrtc 3y ago
Seriously. There's nothing here that they can't find out in space in greater quantities and easier access. Except our animal and plant life. And no worries about harvesting us like in movies, it's way easier to grow meat or whatever than travel across the universe for it. We're most likely a curiosity.
ry4nolson 3y ago
they said "detection" not "destruction"
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Maybe these aliens are scientists. Their opsec's way too good for scientists. If they're anything like our scientists, we'd have recovered one of the flying saucers when they tried to go through Arby's drive-through but didn't have enough clearance. Maybe they're just fictional, and this guy has a Fox Mulder larping fetish. > If a civilization has presumably reached FTL travel. I imagine many of their needs have been met and conquest/destruction isn’t required to maintain their supremacy. If we ever achieve FTL travel, do you imagine that it will be available to frat bros doing road trips to Beta Reticuli VI, or will it be this horrendously expensive, economy-wrecking thing that we get to do once or twice and then have to stop because it is almost impossible to do? We achieved a moon landing for fuck's sake, and the frat bro still hasn't duplicated that one yet (though I will concede he's not doing too shabby).

joezydeco 3y ago

More precisely, a civilization that can master interstellar travel and navigation but somehow keeps crashing on our planet?

blipvert 3y ago
Maybe they are trying to subtly steer our planet out of the way of an extinction event meteor with ballistics - and we’ve accidentally steered the meteor back into a collision course!
ericb 3y ago
It's a fair point. If you rephrase it as "a civilization that mastered interplanetary travel and can split the atom somehow keeps crashing on our planet" it makes me wonder. What if bugs, suicidal or thrill-seeking pilots or overly confident bureaucracies remain a fixture in the next stages of life's evolution as well? Or what if fixing those problems is harder than the technology?
- joezydeco 3y ago
  Or, perhaps, that civilization is using found technology from UFOs that crashed on their planet and they haven't quite figured out where the brake pedal is, yet?
ralgozino 3y ago
And it's funny how they always crash in the USA, isn't it?

kouru225 3y ago

Huh? You’re telling me you think they can travel light years to get here but don’t have the tech to land without us detecting them? That’s an assumption.

dabluecaboose 3y ago
I mean, we have stealth tech but I doubt the first instinct would be to put an F-117 on a one-way trip to Mars
thatjoeoverthr 3y ago
Assuming FTL is off the table, anything sent here will have been designed and launched with no evidence the subject planet has radars or air combat hardware. One should expect probes to have no air combat capability, and may not even bother to dodge a missile, even if they (incidentally) have very good aerodynamic performance.
- DropInIn 3y ago
  If they don't have FYL then it's ridiculous that they'd send what are effectively tiny scout ships that don't have stealth tech to avoid the Other Aliens and that crash at alarming rates With Living Pilots inside... Really... Just look at the claim objectively and it becomes obvious it's absurd.
  - thatjoeoverthr 3y ago
    You would send some probe complex that includes small scout aircraft. Literally, NASA has done this. From many vantage points, Earth is a water world with no intelligent life on it. Most operators would send an interstellar probe based on that assumption. Things like living organisms can be application-specific bio robots that are wholly unprepared for anything like contact. Really, sending a bunch of military hardware on a space probe is obviously absurd. We have examples of literal scientists building literal space probes and they literally don’t send them with weapons.
    - 3y ago

rozal 3y ago

[dead]