(2024-04-27, 04:51 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. For example, from the article:
Balloons don't hover in 30 mph winds, nor could a balloon be mistaken for a mothership.
Hence my question: did you even read the article?
I was only replying to the sighting having the colorful light. Each sighting likely have an independent explanation.
(2024-04-27, 04:58 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]I was only replying to the sighting having the colorful light. Each sighting likely have an independent explanation.
There was no
singular sighting having colourful lights. The colourful lights were
characteristic of the sightings described in the article - if not of all of them, then of most or at least many of them. For example, from the article:
Quote:Video recorded by a civilian observer shows numerous craft with flashing lights appearing to hover in the vicinity of the base [that base being the Langley Air Force Base in Virginia --Laird].
Quote:Like the Langley Air Force Base incursions, incident reports [of unknown “drones” that stalked some of the U.S. Navy’s most advanced warships off the coast of Southern California, including a spherical object that descends slowly into the ocean approximately 120 miles off the California coast --Laird] note that the unknown objects displayed flashing lights, predominantly white, red and green.
Quote:Like the Langley Air Force Base incursions and the incidents off the Southern California coast, the objects over rural Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming often displayed bright flashing white, red and green lights “not consistent with standard aircraft signal light patterns.”
Quote:According to Air Force documents, the 1965 observations involved unknown objects with “red and green flashing lights” that illuminated “at one to two second intervals.”
The answer to my as-yet-unanswered question as to whether you've even read the article seems pretty clear by now.
(2024-04-27, 05:10 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]There was no singular sighting having colourful lights. The colourful lights were characteristic of the sightings described in the article - if not of all of them, then of most or at least many of them. For example, from the article:
The answer to my as-yet-unanswered question as to whether you've even read the article seems pretty clear by now.
No I have only read this bit
Quote: Over the course of three nights in 1965, more than 140 Air Force personnel stationed at nuclear missile silos in the same areas of rural Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska reported nearly 150 mysterious craft demonstrating the enigmatic characteristics observed during the 2019-2020 incidents.
According to Air Force documents, the 1965 observations involved unknown objects with “red and green flashing lights” that illuminated “at one to two second intervals.”
My reason for commenting was to focus on the unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories and not an attempt to provide a mundane explanation for every single sighting.
(2024-04-27, 05:22 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]My reason for commenting was to focus on the unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories
An apparently credible and certainly highly credentialled member of the military - David Grusch - has blown the whistle on crash retrieval programs. The Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General has found his claim that information about these programs has been hidden from Congress to be "urgent and credible". That puts the matter beyond a mere conspiracy theory and into the realm of plausible allegations that deserve scrutiny and investigation at the highest level. That there are and have over the years been other whistleblowers only strengthens this assessment. It is
healthy to bring to light at least potential deception on matters as significant as this one. Your reason for commenting is misplaced.
(2024-04-27, 05:22 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]and not an attempt to provide a mundane explanation for every single sighting.
That's sensible, because you couldn't even suggest an even vaguely plausible mundane explanation for
one sighting.
(2024-04-27, 05:51 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]An apparently credible and certainly highly credentialled member of the military - David Grusch - has blown the whistle on crash retrieval programs. The Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General has found his claim that information about these programs has been hidden from Congress to be "urgent and credible". That puts the matter beyond a mere conspiracy theory and into the realm of plausible allegations that deserve scrutiny and investigation at the highest level. That there are and have over the years been other whistleblowers only strengthens this assessment. It is healthy to bring to light at least potential deception on matters as significant as this one. Your reason for commenting is misplaced.
That's sensible, because you couldn't even suggest an even vaguely plausible mundane explanation for one sighting.
The problem with your reasoning is that faster than light travel simply isn’t even possible. You need to build a super cooled tunnel 25 km long just to accelerate a few protons to 99% the speed of light. This fact makes the whole idea of exterterrestials visiting earth terrible naive. Hence all these sightings must have a mundane explanation.
Let’s pick it up again in 12 months when there
still won’t be any hard facts.
(2024-04-27, 07:10 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with your reasoning is that faster than light travel simply isn’t even possible. You need to build a super cooled tunnel 25 km long just to accelerate a few protons to 99% the speed of light. This fact makes the whole idea of exterterrestials visiting earth terrible naive. Hence all these sightings must have a mundane explanation.
My reasoning is fine. It's yours which is fallacious:
"According to our current understanding of physical reality, this can't happen, therefore, it isn't happening."
After applying the necessary correction:
"This is happening when according to our current understanding of physical reality, it can't happen, therefore, our current understanding of physical reality is incomplete and needs updating."
(2024-04-27, 07:10 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]Let’s pick it up again in 12 months when there still won’t be any hard facts.
...and you still won't be able to prove that our current understanding of physical reality is sufficiently final, complete, and definitive as to rule out the possibility of technology that works according to principles that we haven't yet discovered.
(2024-04-27, 09:33 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]My reasoning is fine. It's yours which is fallacious:
"According to our current understanding of physical reality, this can't happen, therefore, it isn't happening."
After applying the necessary correction:
"This is happening when according to our current understanding of physical reality, it can't happen, therefore, our current understanding of physical reality is incomplete and needs updating."
...and you still won't be able to prove that our current understanding of physical reality is sufficiently final, complete, and definitive as to rule out the possibility of technology that works according to principles that we haven't yet discovered.
By the very definition of science, a theory can't be proven, only falsified. Demonstrating faster-than-light travel will be a paradigm-breaking change to our foundational theories of physics, necessitating new models that could expand our understanding of the universe. When it comes to faster-than-light travel it seems overwhelming unlikely it can be done as there’s nothing to suggest among the properties of the universe we can observe that it can be done.
In other words, if you are dissatisfied with the world as it is, you can pin your hopes on future discoveries, such as faster-than-light travel, that might change it.
I think it’s sad when conspiracy theories becomes part of such hope. I will refrain from commenting more on this as I realize there’s strong feelings on this subject.
(2024-04-27, 09:33 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]My reasoning is fine. It's yours which is fallacious:
"According to our current understanding of physical reality, this can't happen, therefore, it isn't happening."
After applying the necessary correction:
"This is happening when according to our current understanding of physical reality, it can't happen, therefore, our current understanding of physical reality is incomplete and needs updating."
...and you still won't be able to prove that our current understanding of physical reality is sufficiently final, complete, and definitive as to rule out the possibility of technology that works according to principles that we haven't yet discovered.
An extremely arrogant assertion followed by justification for wishful thinking. You are more like
and
than I could ever have imagined!
(2024-04-28, 08:29 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]In other words, if you are dissatisfied with the world as it is, you can pin your hopes on future discoveries, such as faster-than-light travel, that might change it.
That's a (bad-faith?) misrepresentation of my position. While I
am dissatisfied with the world as it is, it is for different reasons than you represent: reasons to do with injustice, suffering, and cruelty.
"Hope" has nothing to do with my position on UFOs, which I've arrived at simply by assessing that which I've seen of the available evidence and determining that mundane explanations fail.
(2024-04-28, 08:29 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]I think it’s sad when conspiracy theories becomes part of such hope.
And I think it's sad when paradigm-shifting phenomena are dismissed on spurious grounds.
(2024-04-28, 08:29 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]I will refrain from commenting more on this as I realize there’s strong feelings on this subject.
The strong feelings arise out of the facile objection you presented. If you had had something meaningful to offer, then you might have given me cause to reassess my position. Instead, you're simply waylaying and obstructing the inquiry into truth. That's justified cause for annoyance.
Please don't feel that you need to refrain from commenting if you
do have something considerable to offer, which, by the way, includes such observations as that our current scientific understanding precludes faster-than-light travel: while I don't think that that observation is conclusive, it's certainly relevant, whereas "These phenomena can be explained as balloons or kites" is inane tripe.
(2024-04-28, 10:12 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]An extremely arrogant assertion followed by justification for wishful thinking.
As with sbu's reference to "hope", your reference to what I "wish" for is a misrepresentation, for the same reason.
It's curious that you refer to reasoning as arrogant. Reasoning is how people explain
why they believe what they believe. If you think a person's reasoning is fallacious or otherwise flawed, then it's open to you to point out how and why. It seems to me that the true arrogance is dismissing offhand another person's reasoning without explaining what you think is wrong with it. You do this regularly, including recently to
re intelligent design, who (admirably, in my view) takes the time and trouble
to explicitly outline his reasoning, and who
explicitly challenged you to explain what you thought was wrong with his reasoning. Up until now, you have (arrogantly) ignored his challenge.
(2024-04-28, 10:12 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]You are more like and than I could ever have imagined!
Yes, they, too, present their reasoning for the positions that they hold. I'm quite content to be compared to them in that respect.