Intelligence official say U.S. has retrieved craft of non-human origin

[Roger Ramjets]

Well, since we know that eyewitness testimony is quite unreliable, and the human mind fills in information when we see something we don't immediately recognize, it's not so much that competent investigators aren't listening, rather they understand the likelihood of such tales being fraught with human error.

But that is exactly what you are saying, that 'competent' investigators dismiss claims that don't match their preconceptions, as being the result of 'unreliable' human minds.

Back in the 1960's - when the UFO flap was in full swing - a class of children and their teacher at my school all saw a 'UFO' hovering low over some trees. One of the kids in that class was my neighbor (on a farm about 2 miles away). He drew a picture of the object which was published in the local newspaper - and a fine job he did of it too, for an 8 year old. I immediately recognized it as a Transavia Airtruk, which (by no coincidence) happened to be headed to our farm on the day of the sighting.

This is what I mean about keeping an open mind and not having preconceptions. People might not recognize what they see, but that can be a good thing when their preconceptions would just get in the way. An 8 your old kid may be a better observer than an adult whose mind is filled with expectations of what they 'should' be seeing.

Your fanciful energy-object hypothesis is pure conjecture, and will remain so until the highly unlikely event of evidence for such a phenomenon arises.

My 'fanciful energy-object hypothesis'? It's like you never heard of electromagnetic radiation and the visual effects it can produce, particularly in the frequency range of 400–790 THz.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm skeptical of that claim. Care to provide an exmaple?

You are skeptical of my assertion that witnesses have described UFOs behaving in zany, physics-defying ways?

 

[MBDK]

But that is exactly what you are saying, that 'competent' investigators dismiss claims that don't match their preconceptions, as being the result of 'unreliable' human minds.400–790 THz.

No that is NOT what I am saying. I am saying that competent investigators recognize evidence for what it is, and look for corroborating and/or explanatory information. This includes radar tracking, if available, other witnesses, film, physical evidence, etc. If they dismissed the incident out-of-hand, they wouldn't bother to perform those tasks. However, the FACT that the spectacular feats eyewitnesses claim they observed have never been reliably verified, and the well-known phenomena I previously mentioned HAS been established, your conjecture is logically unreasonable as a consensus solution.

My 'fanciful energy-object hypothesis'? It's like you never heard of electromagnetic radiation and the visual effects it can produce, particularly in the frequency range of 400–790 THz.

I am not saying that no optical illusions have been reported as UFOs, or UAPs per modern nomenclature, rather there is a great possibility of pure misidentification per the observers' state of mind at the time (but not always). Your anecdote regarding the Transavia Airtruk is a perfect example of this. YOU recognized it immediately from the drawing that came directly from an observer, so there couldn't have been an optical illusion. The other observers at the school obviously did not recognize it for what it was, and their minds filled in details that did not exist (or so I presume, since it was reported as a UFO, and not just some weird looking plane). The psychology of your neighbor's state of mind compared to the other witnesses is probably a major factor, just as you alluded to.

I don't know. Maybe we are arguing the same thing from different angles, but keeping an open mind still entails reason and logic, and it seems to me your proposal to lump all the honest sightings into an optical illusion category is just as dismissive of other possibilities. Perhaps I am just missing something?

 

[Puppycow]

Sorry for jumping into a thread late without reading the whole thing, but this is all so dumb on so many levels. He's saying that he hasn't personally seen any real evidence, but that someone else told him. Is that it in a nutshell?

The credulity of some people is jaw-dropping.

 

[Delvo]

I can't complain about the fact that we get only testimonies instead of evidence, because they're really the same thing for almost everybody anyway. The only way we'd know anything about any evidence would be that somebody told us about the evidence, which makes it just another kind of testimony.

 

[Axxman300]

Sorry for jumping into a thread late without reading the whole thing, but this is all so dumb on so many levels. He's saying that he hasn't personally seen any real evidence, but that someone else told him. Is that it in a nutshell?

The credulity of some people is jaw-dropping.

It's like this:

Joe works (worked) for US intelligence, ending his career at the NRO. The NRO was founded in 1961, but was only confirmed to exist in 1992, even though it had been alleged to exists as early as 1971.

Odds are that few people have ever heard of the NRO, and fewer know what they do. I know just what they release in their social media, wherein they troll Space Force hard whenever they launch a new spy satellite. The best way to explain the NRO is they are the Toy Store for the US intelligence services. You need a device to eavesdrop and record all wifi activity in a hotel, or just in a hotel room nextdoor? Call the NRO. Need a satellite to cover a specific electromagnetic spectrum? They'll build you one. Their budget is rumored to be larger than the CIA's budget.

Back to Joe.

Joe can't talk about the NRO or what he did there on a day-to-day basis because everything they do is top secret. If Joe runs his mouth, and accidentally mentions a clandestine piece of hardware, or activity then Joe goes to prison for a long time. So if Joe wants people to believe that Gnomes restock all the vending machines at NRO headquarters, the public has to take his word for it. Access to the NRO is restricted, cameras are banned, security camera footage from inside the building is secret and restricted.
Then if Joe has friends who believe in Gnomes, and they also work in intelligence but have retired/moved on, they might chime in with their own Gnomes managing the NRO vending machines stories. And people who've never served in the military or have any working knowledge of US intelligence services might think, "Hey, Gnomes are real, and they've got Pepsi machines at the NRO!". And even if the NRO issues a statement denying it's vending machine contract is held, and filled by Gnomes, there is a anti-government/anti-authority/serious daddy-issue set of people who will see the NRO's denial of Gnomes as PROOF of said Gnomes.

And because the NRO is secret, there is no way it can defend itself to unreasonable people.

That's how this clown show works.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I read this some years ago. The government powers that be are allowing rumors to be spread about UFO's in an effort to disguise the fact that what people are seeing are really government experimental aircraft. Several stealth aircraft resemble UFO's and that those planes are actually what people are seeing.

If I were the government (I'm not), I'd let false rumors slip out occasionally not just to muddy up sightings of actual secret aircraft but to blunt reaction against the (unlikely) future possibility of actual aliens. "I saw an alien spaceship!" loses impact if it's the 50,396th time that claim has been made, even if it happens to finally be true.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

the FACT that the spectacular feats eyewitnesses claim they observed have never been reliably verified,

Right. So they were all lying or mistaken, is that your angle?

I am not saying that no optical illusions have been reported as UFOs,

You just did!

there is a great possibility of pure misidentification per the observers' state of mind at the time (but not always). Your anecdote regarding the Transavia Airtruk is a perfect example of this.

No, a UFO by definition is unidentified, not misidentified.

keeping an open mind still entails reason and logic

No, it doesn't. It means not dismissing data that doesn't seem 'reasonable' or 'logical'.

This is a skeptics forum so I suppose being open minded is the exception, not the rule. Most come here to gloat about how much smarter they are than your average 'unreliable' human. They jump into a thread like this and throw their weight around with all kinds of bare assertions based on 'logic' and 'reason', while ignoring the evidence right in front of them because (they say) eyewitness testimony is garbage.

No measuring instrument is perfect, but once you know how it works and what its limitations are you can reliably analyze the data it collects. The human eye and brain is such an instrument. Throwing away the data because you think the instrument is 'unreliable' is stupid. Disbelieving the data because it doesn't match your preconceptions is stupider.

 

[MBDK]

Right. So they were all lying or mistaken, is that your angle?

True enough.

You just did!

Nope.

No, a UFO by definition is unidentified, not misidentified.

Except, reality proves it can be both, as noted in your anecdote. Several people, or more, misidentified what you immediately identified, and called it unidentified. So despite your attempt to be pedantic, the exact same object was identified, misidentified and unidentified depending on the person's knowledge and/or state of mind.

No, it doesn't. It means not dismissing data that doesn't seem 'reasonable' or 'logical'.

Once you have given that data a fair and impartial inspection, if that examination does not contain anything comparatively as logical or reasonable as known phenomena, then an open mind must dismiss it, unless additional convincing evidence is provided. Otherwise, every fanciful claim would hold the same standing as "true", because the teller said so. And on a skeptic forum, such standards are more than a bit low to garner honest support.

Disbelieving the data because it doesn't match your preconceptions is stupider.

Not as stupid as believing data that has NEVER been supported, and is also KNOWN to be false under similar circumstances.

 

[Armitage72]

If I were the government (I'm not), I'd let false rumors slip out occasionally not just to muddy up sightings of actual secret aircraft but to blunt reaction against the (unlikely) future possibility of actual aliens. "I saw an alien spaceship!" loses impact if it's the 50,396th time that claim has been made, even if it happens to finally be true.

There was an episode of a cartoon in which it was revealed that all of the rumors and stories about Area 51 were true, but it was the government deliberately spreading them, in such an outrageous and over the top fashion that nobody would believe them.

 

[Apathia]

They have bodies!

The bodies of wealthy Arcturians who took three hour interstellar tours in souped-up, jerry-rigged shipping containers not made for flights beyond the system. So many crashes, so much stupidity.

 

[theprestige]

No measuring instrument is perfect, but once you know how it works and what its limitations are you can reliably analyze the data it collects. The human eye and brain is such an instrument. Throwing away the data because you think the instrument is 'unreliable' is stupid. Disbelieving the data because it doesn't match your preconceptions is stupider.

Sometimes a given instrument just isn't fit for the desired purpose. Knowing the limitations and failure modes of human perception doesn't unlock a magical "enhance" button that allows you to draw useful inferences from UFO reports by Mk.1 Eyeballs.

Pilots aren't actually trained to reliably observe and report ambiguous sightings in the sky. Not airline pilots. Not even fighter pilots. No air force teaches the special skill of distinguishing hyper-fast, hyper-maneuverable airborne anomalies from helicopters, birds, balloons, traffic lights, airliners, etc. Anyone who says a pilot's inferences must be reliable because they're a pilot is pulling your leg, and maybe their own.

 

[MRC_Hans]

They have bodies!

The bodies of wealthy Arcturians who took three hour interstellar tours in souped-up, jerry-rigged shipping containers not made for flights beyond the system. So many crashes, so much stupidity.

Hah, good one!

We tend to assume that space aliens must be much smarter than us, because their technology must be more advanced. But we ourselves are not any smarter than our stone-age ancestors.

It may well be that some aliens are on the dumb side compared with us, but have had a dozen centuries more in which to develope thechnology

Hans

 

[Armitage72]

We tend to assume that space aliens must be much smarter than us, because their technology must be more advanced. But we ourselves are not any smarter than our stone-age ancestors.

It may well be that some aliens are on the dumb side compared with us, but have had a dozen centuries more in which to develope thechnology

"I am Mo-Ron. I come with a important message for all Mankind."

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Sometimes a given instrument just isn't fit for the desired purpose. Knowing the limitations and failure modes of human perception doesn't unlock a magical "enhance" button that allows you to draw useful inferences from UFO reports by Mk.1 Eyeballs.

Those Mk.1 Eyeballs are a lot better than nothing.

The claim being made by some 'skeptics' is that human observers are unreliable and therefore we can't believe anything they say. This is ridiculous. If someone says they saw a light in the sky moving at hypersonic speed and doing all kinds of gyrations, why shouldn't we believe them? That's what they saw. Our challenge is to explain what was observed, not dismiss it as 'impossible' because we are presuming it would have to be an advanced alien spacecraft.

Pilots aren't actually trained to reliably observe and report ambiguous sightings in the sky.

Correct. But they also aren't trained to identify sightings as alien spacecraft. Pilots see unidentified things all the time, and don't make a big flap about it. It's not fair to judge their acuity based on a very small number of cases that get into the headlines.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I just watched a video of this 'whistle blower' being interviewed on TV. It was hilarious. He was obviously lying, while the 'interviewer' was ginning it up to the max. It played out like a deadpan parody. Unfortunately I think they were serious, and even if they weren't most of their viewers wouldn't get it.

In this environment any serious discussion of UFOs is a waste of time. What we should be talking about is the psychology of people who are so desperate for their 15 minutes of fame that they are willing to risk being exposed as complete frauds. I'm impressed that this guy has managed to get this far and hoodwink so many with his shtick.

 

[Pixel42]

It's not so much that we can't believe what eye witnesses say they saw, it's their interpretation of what they saw that is unreliable. If they say they saw "a light in the sky moving at hypersonic speed", the hypersonic speed bit is an interpretation, not an observation, because they can have no idea how big and far away the source of the light was and hence cannot possibly estimate the speed. This is why the light from Venus being bounced around in the atmosphere and a firefly doing its mating flight can both be mistaken for aircraft sized objects a few thousand feet up doing physically impossible maneuvers.

 

[MRC_Hans]

It's not so much that we can't believe what eye witnesses say they saw, it's their interpretation of what they saw that is unreliable. If they say they saw "a light in the sky moving at hypersonic speed", the hypersonic speed bit is an interpretation, not an observation, because they can have no idea how big and far away the source of the light was and hence cannot possibly estimate the speed. This is why the light from Venus being bounced around in the atmosphere and a firefly doing its mating flight can both be mistaken for aircraft sized objects a few thousand feet up doing physically impossible maneuvers.

Exactly! Also, our brain is programmed to interpret what we see. This a huge evolutionary advantage for a creature with an advanced brain, but it will sometimes fool us, when it makes a wrong interpretation. This is generally a small problem since e g seeig a tiger where there is none is far better than the opposite.

The problem is that once UFO reports spread in the media, people start to see all sorts of things as UFOs.

Hans

 

[Apathia]

Exactly! Also, our brain is programmed to interpret what we see. This a huge evolutionary advantage for a creature with an advanced brain, but it will sometimes fool us, when it makes a wrong interpretation. This is generally a small problem since e g seeig a tiger where there is none is far better than the opposite.

The problem is that once UFO reports spread in the media, people start to see all sorts of things as UFOs.

Hans

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe."

I glanced out my window the other evening (at dusk) and saw a grassy hill partially covered by trees. I wasn't seeing the full window view because of a little tapestry I put up to shade my desk from the morning sun. In that opening and from that angle I saw that hill that I knew wasn't there.
The image my brain was creating was detailed: the hillside, the yellow grass, the clumps of trees.

And I stood there conscious that it was an illusion and marveling how real it seemed to my eyes.

Then I changed my angle so I could see more of what was outside my window, and the illusion vanished into branches in front of a roof across the street. I couldn't get my Northern California hill back again.

Also recently took an evening stroll along the greenway behind out house. There's a bike path that stretches to a road. In the distance I could see a huge, white wall at the end of the path. I began walking toward the what must not be there. It didn't get larger as I approached but shrank in size till it was just a trailer truck parked on the roadside.

Seeing is believing that seeing can be dead wrong.

 

[Spektator]

He thought he saw a Banker's Clerk
Descending from the bus:
He looked again, and found it was
A Hippopotamus.
-Lewis Carroll