UFO Report Details 'Difficult To Explain' Sightings, Says US Ex-Intelligence Director (theguardian.com) 259
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: U.S. military pilots and satellites have recorded "a lot more" sightings of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, than have been made public, Donald Trump's former intelligence director John Ratcliffe said. Asked on Fox News about a forthcoming government report on "unidentified aerial phenomena," Ratcliffe said the report would document previously unknown sightings from "all over the world." "Frankly, there are a lot more sightings than have been made public," he said. "Some of those have been declassified. And when we talk about sightings, we are talking about objects that have been seen by navy or air force pilots, or have been picked up by satellite imagery, that frankly engage in actions that are difficult to explain, movements that are hard to replicate, that we don't have the technology for. Or traveling at speeds that exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom."
The UFO report must be published by early June, pursuant to a clause in a Covid relief and spending package signed by Trump before he left office. [...] The forthcoming report is to be issued by the defense department and intelligence agencies. When an unidentified aerial phenomena is identified, Ratcliffe said, analysts try to explain it as a potential weather disturbance or other routine spectacle.
"We always look for a plausible application," he said. "Sometimes we wonder whether our adversaries have technologies that are a little but farther down the road than we thought or that we realized. But there are instances where we don't have good explanations. So in short, things that we are observing that are difficult to explain -- and so there's actually quite a few of those, and I think that that info has been gathered and will be put out in a way the American people can see." Asked by Bartiromo where the unidentified phenomena were sighted, Ratcliffe replied, "actually all over the world, there have been sightings all over the world. "Multiple sensors that are picking up these things. They're unexplained phenomenon, and there's actually quite a few more than have been made public."
The UFO report must be published by early June, pursuant to a clause in a Covid relief and spending package signed by Trump before he left office. [...] The forthcoming report is to be issued by the defense department and intelligence agencies. When an unidentified aerial phenomena is identified, Ratcliffe said, analysts try to explain it as a potential weather disturbance or other routine spectacle.
"We always look for a plausible application," he said. "Sometimes we wonder whether our adversaries have technologies that are a little but farther down the road than we thought or that we realized. But there are instances where we don't have good explanations. So in short, things that we are observing that are difficult to explain -- and so there's actually quite a few of those, and I think that that info has been gathered and will be put out in a way the American people can see." Asked by Bartiromo where the unidentified phenomena were sighted, Ratcliffe replied, "actually all over the world, there have been sightings all over the world. "Multiple sensors that are picking up these things. They're unexplained phenomenon, and there's actually quite a few more than have been made public."
Secrets? (Score:2)
Isn't he violating the laws on secrecy?
Flying Saucers (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know where flying saucers came from?
On June 24, 1947 an amateur pilot flying near Mt. Rainier Washington reported a line of fast-flying crescent shapes, like a saucer or pie pan cut in half. Basically, the shape you'd expect of a "flying wing" craft like the B2 bomber. Newspapers simplified the description to "flying saucers," the origin of the term.
Re: (Score:3)
There's another, more recent addition to that area, as far as UFO's go. The Trident nuclear sub base for the west coast is located at Bangor, WA. The site at Bangor is less than 50 miles from Mt. Rainier and less than 10 miles from any of the 3 afore
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing within 10 miles of Rainier.
That being said, Rainier is one seriously big fucking rock, and "near Mt. Rainier" in a plane feels like just about everything south of Seattle and north of Portland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know where flying saucers came from?
On June 24, 1947 an amateur pilot ...
Yes we knew that.
ratcliffe is a wing nut, probably doesn't know (Score:5, Interesting)
his background & behavior show him to be an obvious political hack (who also lied about actual intelligence to make Trump happy), so I bet he wasn't ever given the Actual Briefing. Clearly not stable or responsible enough.
BTW, yes, I think the unidentified phenomena are real, human made, and the leaks are intentional. Interesting how they happen to be from U.S. Navy training exercises? What and who is Navy really concerned with right now?
I personally think what was shown was very early versions of plasma blooms induced by lasers or particle beams. One aspect could be decoys against incoming missiles, like a permanent flare, and could be tuned & excited to emit RF and IR appropriately.
It's intended as deterrence through uncertainty to Chinese, who otherwise have strong naval force superiority in the eastern pacific. People who understand the message are getting the message. The public's confusion & hysteria is amusing collateral damage.
navy plasma UFOs (Score:3)
and here it is:
Navy laser decoys [forbes.com]
I didn't see this article and developed the theory own my own but it all makes sense to me physically
Re:ratcliffe is a wing nut, probably doesn't know (Score:5, Insightful)
who otherwise have strong naval force superiority in the eastern pacific.
lol wut?! China has 2 aircraft carriers to their name. America has 2 aircraft carriers in the region at all times with the ability to pull more into the region at will. China has claimed waters to be their territory and prohibits all others from entering and yet the US Navy enters those waters routinely. It is not appropriate to discuss nuclear submarines, but rest assured that the US Navy is superior in that way as well.
TL;DR, you are gravely mistaken kind sir.
Re: (Score:3)
Chinese, who otherwise have strong naval force superiority in the eastern pacific.
(i.e. the American west coast)
Re: (Score:3)
His background is downright weird. He was a personal injury lawyer when George W. Bush put him in charge of national security for Eastern Texas.
Re: Secrets? (Score:3, Informative)
No, the government has declassified that information and is in the process of releasing a report.
Heâ(TM)s rather vague with the details but it will be great for the scientific community to be able to research unknown phenomena instead of having the information rot in a government drawer somewhere.
A lot of those are found to be visual trickery by nature due to some known or unknown atmospheric processes. They might tell us more about the nature and composition of gasses, weather effects and other things
Re: (Score:3)
I can't see how that would even be secret; it seems pretty obvious to me : unidentified flying objects -- or unidentified aerial phenomena -- are by *definition* difficult to explain. If you look at something and can readily tell that it's plane, or meteor, or Jupiter rising near the horizon, then it's that thing, not a UFO.
This just goes to show how the life of a crackpot is easier than the life of an expert. To the crackpot, absence of evidence for X is proof of Y. When something can't be identified t
Feels extremely obvious: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Thisâ(TM)ll be the US showing off its new toys to the world vs an actual report on the unexplained
True. The actual center of UFO is at 504 Battery Drive, New York City.
Vela (Score:2, Insightful)
No, not the Vela Incident with supposed joint SA-Israeli nuclear tests, but the actual Vela satellites themselves.
Damn things kept picking up pops of energy from God-knows-where.
Turns out they were then-unknown-to-science gamma ray bursts, which became quite well known to science after the Vela measurements became declassified.
Lots of interesting stuff out there.
And you'll notice that "zOmg alienz!" did not appear once in the preceding text.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the government guys in bad suits come by and are all, like, "Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.". We just take their word for it, man.
Re: (Score:2)
And they've silenced one of the two Men in Black, Alex Trebek. They'll silence Jesse Ventura next. . . . (grin)
But of course. (Score:5, Funny)
Aliens were so busy inventing interstellar travel that they neglected to develop stealth technology.
Re:But of course. (Score:5, Funny)
If I go stomping around on anthills and killing wasp nests tomorrow, I'm not gonna bother wearing Harry Potter's cloak.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like a zookeeper teasing a lion in a cage by sticking his hand through the bars.
To that point, the parent's overall point stands.
Use of truly obscene amounts of energy to cross interstellar distances in reasonable timeframes for the purpose of poking an atomic age, albeit well-caged, lion?
Na. Stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
> Use of truly obscene amounts of energy to cross interstellar distances in reasonable timeframes
If we see them, it's unreasonable to assume that their physics is halted at the Alcubierre solution.
Until we have a comprehensively generative physics, humility is called for.
Re:But of course. (Score:5, Interesting)
If we see them, it's unreasonable to assume that their physics is halted at the Alcubierre solution.
It's unreasonable to assume that the Alcubierre solution is even possible.
Until we have a comprehensively generative physics, humility is called for.
Yes, but this does not preclude a basic analysis of "what is possible" in terms of "what are the consequences of X being possible"
If your proposals for alien technology involve things that, for example, violate the second law of thermodynamics, it's very reasonable to conclude that you're simply wrong.
Not because "it's a law". Because without that law, the Universe becomes highly unreasonable. Many of the core laws are like this.
If your proposed laws of physics allow for any sufficiently spunky alien to accidentally wipe out solar systems, simple statistics says you're probably wrong.
Re:But of course. (Score:5, Funny)
If your proposed laws of physics allow for any sufficiently spunky alien to accidentally wipe out solar systems, simple statistics says you're probably wrong
Pffft... My proposed laws of physics describe supernovae entirely in terms of spunky aliens. That whole core collapse theory is way too complicated; Occam's Razor favors spunky aliens.
Re:But of course. (Score:5, Funny)
Pffft... My proposed laws of physics describe supernovae entirely in terms of spunky aliens.
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
If your proposed laws of physics allow for any sufficiently spunky alien to accidentally wipe out solar systems, simple statistics says you're probably wrong.
I'm not the person you are replying to but this style of response always rubbed me the wrong way because it shows a lack of imagination and an unwillingness to explore the hypothetical being presented.
In this hypothetical scenario our objective observation would be that there are aliens travelling by as yet unknown means across interstellar distances greater than the speed of light. Big claims require equally big evidence but in this scenario you have your evidence, they are standing right there with their
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not the person you are replying to but this style of response always rubbed me the wrong way because it shows a lack of imagination and an unwillingness to explore the hypothetical being presented.
And I've always felt like those who like to argue that "anything is possible" and that "human ignorance is infinite in scale" shows that they had a defective education.
In this hypothetical scenario our objective observation would be that there are aliens travelling by as yet unknown means across interstellar distances greater than the speed of light.
Or perhaps more likely, your observation isn't as objective as you believe. Self delusion, even innocently, is a part of the human condition.
Big claims require equally big evidence but in this scenario you have your evidence, they are standing right there with their fancy ship.
It's your belief that if aliens are here, they must have come here at faster than light speeds?
Do you really want to be the guy arguing with the Vulcans about the second law of thermodynamics?
Don't you?
I then submit that they will smirk and say, "If one were to violate that, then perpetual motion w
Re: (Score:3)
So not only is that offensive, but its absurd. How can I be deluded when I'm considering the potential outcome of a fictional hypothetical situation?
Sorry if it was unclear- that statement was part of the hypothetical. As in, if you claimed to have seen something move faster than light, my first instinct would be to consider that you were mistaken. If you were unreasonably persistent, I would assume innocent self-delusion. That shouldn't be insulting. People do it all the time.
I've made up my mind, you are capable of considering a hypothetical. You are just unwilling to do so on intellectually honest grounds. So you're a troll. We're done here.
That's a cop-out. Most likely because you realized my point was correct.
I consider consideration of violation of the second law of thermodynamics either woefully ignorant or int
Re: (Score:2)
If your proposed laws of physics allow for any sufficiently spunky alien to accidentally wipe out solar systems, simple statistics says you're probably wrong.
To be fair, we'd expect any interstellar spaceship to be a weapon of mass destruction in of itself. Even without invoking new physics, the amount of damage you can cause from up there with minimal effort is staggering. If you add rapid automated construction into the mix, you could also easily convert a planet into a swarm of solar mirrors designed to incinerate every last square centimeter of the solar system.
But I do agree that people casually invoking radically new physics often don't consider the conseq
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, we'd expect any interstellar spaceship to be a weapon of mass destruction in of itself. Even without invoking new physics, the amount of damage you can cause from up there with minimal effort is staggering.
Particularly if you spent any significant amount of time on your journey accelerating with little intent of slowing down.
Your scouting mission could easily be dual purpose: Take a look, and if you don't like what you see, go ahead and wipe out any and all civilization on your way via direct impact.
But we're being too reasonable here. We're assuming the aliens aren't Marvel comic villains.
However, for aliens to show up on our doorstep, none of this is necessary. For example, FTL technologies like the Alcubierre drive only seem important from our current perspective, because humans are so short-lived.
I agree entirely. We want it to be Star Trek or Star Wars, because multi-generational exploration is a flat out buzz k
Re: (Score:3)
Take humanity's own understanding of law of physics from BC and then present them with a sighting of a rocket takeoff.
This is a fallacious line of argumentation.
You're presuming that humanity, before it discovered science, can possibly be equidistant in terms of scientific knowledge from someone else. This may be true, but it also may not be. I think most scientists would not agree with you that the difference between 0 and our current scientific knowledge is equidistant from our current scientific knowledge and a complete understanding of physics.
Considering we have not detected any signs of civilization in nearby starts, this means visitors are from much further that is well-known to us.
It doesn't mean that by any means. That's one of many possible explanations
Re: (Score:3)
It's more like a zookeeper teasing a lion in a cage by sticking his hand through the bars.
You're giving humanity way too much credit. More like a zookeeper teasing a bunch of rabbits. A lion is a significant threat to a zookeeper where it's doubtful that even our best weapons would be a significant threat to an interstellar race.
Re: (Score:3)
Not fantastical just realistic. If they have FTL technology (which is basically the only way to travel interstellar) then they should be able to easily avoid or outrun any weapons we can throw at them.
This does not follow at all.
We have rockets that can put 30 tons into lunar orbit.
But in a contest of "who can dodge the most weaponry" my money is on the F-16.
If you're visible for even a second, we can drop megaton nuclear weapons on your ass. We can point fusion-inducing amounts of optical energy on your ass.
It's positively wrong to think of us as harmless.
Sure we are from a distance. We can't conduct some kind of interstellar war, and I'd argue we probably couldn't even defend our own orbital spac
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aliens were so busy inventing interstellar travel that they neglected to develop stealth technology.
If you can outrun or out maneuver your opponent, does it matter if they see you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you can outrun or out maneuver your opponent,
That is a very dangerous assumption to make for any highly advanced beings.
Light is very fast, and quite good at transferring energy at high rates.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can outrun or out maneuver your opponent,
That is a very dangerous assumption to make for any highly advanced beings.
Light is very fast, and quite good at transferring energy at high rates.
If you are talking about FTL travel or anything that can reasonably travel between stars then light is on the slow side.
That being said, if you have FTL technology then stealth technology would likely be a freebie because it would likely
be very hard if not impossible to see something that is traveling faster than light.
The real story. . . . (Score:3)
. . . is that UFOs are actually drone cameras for Mutual of Andromeda's long-running show, "Wild Planet", starring host Mrrln Prknz.
"As Jmm wrestles the redneck, I slip into the saucer with the native girl and the Anal Probes. . . . "
Re: (Score:2)
Or they are slowly getting us ready for the idea that there's more out there. Just showing up from one day to the next would be a huge culture-shock with incalculable risks to humanity.
The better way to introduce yourself is with a softer approach, small baby steps, slowly beginning with getting humans acclimatized with the idea that they might exist. Some UFO sightings here and there, with some plausible deniability, slowly ramping it up. That's the way to go, if you're interested in good relations at leas
Re: (Score:2)
One is reminded of all the times that violating the territory of a well-armed group of people in secrecy has gone well for relations.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we are in their territory of space, and they tolerate us as a curiosity or some kind of reservation for native planet species. :-/
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we are in their territory of space, and they tolerate us as a curiosity or some kind of reservation for native planet species. :-/
Reality Holovision. "Mutual of Andromeda's 'Wild Planet' "
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
bailouts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: bailouts (Score:2)
Perfect to keep the morons at bay. (Score:2)
When we got former F-117 maintainers sent to our units after the program was declassified they'd laugh about the "UFO sightings" of their birds.
Denial just triggers screeching, but "affirming disinfo" defuses some of the conspiratards. The booboisie get their fantasies and adults can perform weapons system tests in peace. Of COURSE "UFOs" outperform air defense fighters! They damn well should and the Skunk Works pulled off many black programs gloriously well. The secrecy was so well kept that Congress foug
Re: (Score:2)
The secrecy was so well kept that Congress fought to keep SR-71 which the Air Force would not have wanted gone if it lacked vastly better alternatives.
Such programs are known to Congress (specifically, a small subset of them who are tasked with oversight of them)
While it's true that general debate of things known to the relevant oversight committees can't happen, such things would never make it out of committee if it were so cut and dry.
The SR71 was kept alive because old-guard USAF generals lobbied hard for it, and Congressmen are inherently political creatures. Even a single general who wanted the bird to stay around provides great excuse for addition
Not buying it (Score:2)
I know the military would know better, but I seriously wonder how many of these are just temporary artifacts like dust or bugs on the lens or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
They contract figuring shit like this out to people who are smarter than them in the field.
Frankly, it's a mistake to think they'd know better. In fact, I'd expect them to say exactly what they have: "We have no idea wtf these are."
Aliens (Score:2)
Apparently, I saw an alien once.
I was camping with some friends in a very remote area in the desert of southern Utah. It was late afternoon when something up in the sky caught my eye. It was a shiny sphere of some sort.
It wasnâ(TM)t far away, maybe a couple of miles. It moved directly vertically, then shifted and moved horizontally for a while, the shifted again and moved vertically. And then it was *gone*. It was visible for 10-15 seconds. We all saw it.
There was no sound and we saw no emissions of an
Skunkworks (Score:5, Insightful)
30 years ago, when Desert Storm started, the population in general (myself included) were shocked to know that stealth fighters and bombers existed. Those planes were so technologically advanced, and yet totally secret, that it almost seemed like something out of science fiction. They had actually first flown 40 years ago in 1981. When a helicopter was damaged during the Bin Laden raid 10 years ago, we got a glimpse of some unknown stealth helicopter, since they couldn't properly destroy the tail section to hide it.
It's hard to imagine what military technology exists now that has been in development over the last 40 years that we still don't know about. With the explosion in computing technology during that time (everything from hyper accurate aeronautical simulations, 3D printing to AI) you'd better believe that there have been some very significant advances.
We've had drones of various basic kinds for 40 years as well, but the only ones known publicly are slow UAVs primarily for reconnaissance that might have some hellfire missiles attached. However, you'd better believe that there are high-speed fighter drones, capable of pulling Gs that would kill a human pilot, that are fully functional and ready for use. It's ridiculous to think that such things have not been engineered when they are simply the next logical step and totally within our technological ability.
Re:Skunkworks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's a reasonable explanation that at least the recent sightings involving F-14 pilots off the coast of Southern California could represent a planned but poorly thought out force-on-force demonstration flight of some kind of advanced drone.
At least there, it's reasonably close to the US, the Navy was in training mode and less likely to immediately switch to live fire from a lone unknown object, and really if you care about radar signatures and real-world fighter responses, the US Navy is about as go
Why not post from actual source? (Score:3)
First contact (Score:3)
Note how much easier it has been for us to send machines across large tracts of space than it has been to send humans. Our oldest probes have already technically gone interstellar. What if this holds for other intelligent species?
This makes it most likely that our first contact will not be with alien biology, but with their machines. A corollary is that the contact will most likely be made by our own machines.
Re:Credible sources (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's Cmdr. David Fravor on Joe Rogan telling us about the time he chased a "Tic Tac" UFO. [youtube.com] He's not a crazy man, he actually flew around the thing, these objects had been being tracked by the USS Princeton for two weeks previous to the intercept. Remember, the public does not take big shocks well. We have to be slowly prepped with drips of information before they release the big news.
I would agree that the public does not take big shocks well. This would be one of the biggest, and the main reason, is religion.
I truly fear what will happen when people's hope for an afterlife and their beliefs in an almighty creator, is essentially dismantled. Will they continue to have "faith" and be a good person who doesn't harm others, or were they only a good person because of their belief system? That is unfortunately a question the planet will be faced with answering once the "big news" about aliens is dropped. As much as we can complain about the problems that religion brings into society, we really don't know what will happen when you attack entire belief systems with the strength of a hundred nuclear bombs.
We still live in a world where religion is everything in certain cultures, so the concern is rather hard to simply dismiss.
Re: Credible sources (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how exactly are aliens dismantling the concept of an afterlife? plenty... of unexplained stuff is about the spirit world and not aliens
The most popular religion in the world, is quite literally rooted in the belief that an Almighty God created everything. And pretty much all of that "spirit world" is justified by this God and centers around a human race.
Aliens coming over the horizon, would tend to dismantle that entire concept, to include any stories of the "afterlife". I kind of doubt believers would handle the fact that Adam hails from Mars, Eve is actually from Venus, and no other life forms molded from a Great Creator were accounte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...angels make about as much sense as aliens zipping around space at faster than light speeds.
Uh, be careful when attempting to conflate religion with technology.
Someone claiming humans never went to the moon in 2021 makes about as much sense as someone claiming we're going to fly humans to the moon soon in 1950. I'm not sure why you feel the human race should be the most advanced species in the universe. We humans have been rather busy warmongering and killing each other in the name of Greed for a couple thousand years now. Who knows where we might be "zipping around" had we not been burdened b
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, be careful when attempting to conflate religion with technology.
And be careful when trying to conflate fantasy with technology.
Just because you can think a thing does not mean it's possible.
There are a lot of very good reasons to think aliens aren't zipping around space at faster than light speeds. There are very, very few reasons to think they are, and they mostly hinge upon the argument of "We've been wrong about lots of stuff through history, what makes us right in thinking it's impossible right now?" which is a terrible argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Some reading about SOL being the middle of the universe.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The most popular religion in the world, is quite literally rooted in the belief that an Almighty God created everything.
That's not entirely correct. It's based on the belief this supreme being is perfect in every way, so much so that it created fallible beings and as a result, had to impregnate another man's wife so it could have a son who it let be murdered to repair the damage it created.
Re: Credible sources (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to add any chapters to the bible if you discover aliens, which is a story about "God's" relationship with man on Earth. They would have their own bible (or not.)
Re: (Score:2)
You might be surprised that many religions have some concept of other planets. Scientology is the most famous but Mormons do as well as several other christian denominations. I've even heard that the description of "wheel within a wheel" in the old testament described as a UFO. Angels are considered "heavenly creatures" and in the beginning of the bible there is even this bizarre scripture: "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose"
Re: Credible sources (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure Aliens and galactic spanning cultures aren't in the bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure Aliens and galactic spanning cultures aren't in the bible.
You're just not reading it right. It's all allegory remember...
The Bible could mean literally anything. You just haven't given the right amount of money to the right people yet.
Re: Credible sources (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Credible sources (Score:2)
I know for a fact that the afterlife is real and reincarnation is real Aww come on. Post your evidence. And drug experiences don't count.
Re: (Score:3)
I know for a fact that the afterlife is real and reincarnation is real Aww come on. Post your evidence. And drug experiences don't count.
Ironically enough, I wonder just how many "afterlife" experiences might be explained by a considerable uncontrolled rush of DMT to the brain that might occur when a human body is subjected to the worst extremes.
The human body does a lot in the name of self-preservation. Wouldn't surprise me in the last if the human mind, takes a similar approach. Delusions are far safer than the reality you're going through at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically enough, I wonder just how many "afterlife" experiences might be explained by a considerable uncontrolled rush of DMT to the brain that might occur when a human body is subjected to the worst extremes.
Perhaps the only reason were are alive is to go through shitty experiences and evolve.
The human body does a lot in the name of self-preservation. Wouldn't surprise me in the last if the human mind, takes a similar approach. Delusions are far safer than the reality you're going through at the time.
How do you know that our entire conscious experience isn't a delusion? You're unconscious half your life, how do you know that's not "reality"?
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically enough, I wonder just how many "afterlife" experiences might be explained by a considerable uncontrolled rush of DMT to the brain that might occur when a human body is subjected to the worst extremes.
Perhaps the only reason were are alive is to go through shitty experiences and evolve.
That would be a more believable theory if we didn't find ourselves devolving in the last few decades. Then again, humans never were one for learning. Particularly with history, or at least well enough to avoid repeating the worst of it.
The human body does a lot in the name of self-preservation. Wouldn't surprise me in the last if the human mind, takes a similar approach. Delusions are far safer than the reality you're going through at the time.
How do you know that our entire conscious experience isn't a delusion? You're unconscious half your life, how do you know that's not "reality"?
Well, I wouldn't say half our lives are spent in a subconscious state, but the worst of human imagination is manifested in nightmares. That's one hell of an odd way of defining living if that is supposed to be reality. I far prefer the conscious experience, no matter how
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a more believable theory if we didn't find ourselves devolving in the last few decades.
Not to be pedantic. but that's not how evolution works. There is no such thing as devolving. Evolution is only concerned with adaptations to the current environment. Strictly speaking, it doesn't involve morals, ethics, or being a "better person" in that way. Scientifically, it is ONLY concerned with a species capacity to survive and pass along genes to the next generation. If a random mutation allows a creature to better survive, and that gets passed down, that is evolution. Full stop. It is also (usually
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a more believable theory if we didn't find ourselves devolving in the last few decades.
Not to be pedantic. but that's not how evolution works. There is no such thing as devolving. Evolution is only concerned with adaptations to the current environment. Strictly speaking, it doesn't involve morals, ethics, or being a "better person" in that way. Scientifically, it is ONLY concerned with a species capacity to survive and pass along genes to the next generation.
Trying to define a human and their behavior using a puritanical scientific approach, makes about as much sense as claiming the world only has two colors; black and white. We're not a bunch of plants, and what you've described is pure adaptation for survivals sake. When discussing modern humans, I'd like to think we're a bit more evolved beyond grunting cave dwellers. And being human involves morals, ethics, and generally being a "better person" for society.
If a random mutation allows a creature to better survive, and that gets passed down, that is evolution. Full stop. It is also (usually) a very slow process, taking place over many generations. Evolution doesn't occur inside a single generation; that is a mutation and those are usually "not good", usually resulting in cancer.
We humans have changed a lot in the last 50 year
Re: (Score:2)
I have also experienced things that would make most peoples blood freeze in their veins so I know for a fact that the afterlife is real and reincarnation is real.
Mental disorders are also real.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While a religious belief system can reinforce a person’s sense of morality (be good or you’ll burn in hell), it’s a bit simplistic to assume that this person’s morality goes out the window when his belief system is overturned.
And yet, the exact opposite is demonstrated in the Catholic religion. Seems few have a problem with a sense of immorality six days a week, because they know all will be merely dismissed on Sundays with a simple visit to the confessional. If people can rely on religion for their immoral actions, I see no reason they cannot rely on it to sustain a moral compass.
Good Christians or Hindus or Muslims do not suddenly go out stealing and murdering when they are having a crisis of faith.
It's not the Good followers I fear. It is the oddly respected Hypocrites, which seems to now be the worlds largest belief system.
Re:Credible sources - you're right (Score:2)
And history proves this again and again.
People don't even take well to science facts, there are MASSES of people out there who STILL believe that Covid-19 is a hoax, that the earth is flat, and the moon landing was just a well made film, filmed in a desert somewhere with props.
Logic dictates that if WE exist - then surely others exist, this is a natural assumption. People can believe whatever they want to believe, the fact remains, no one of us where present 2000+ years ago, not even 200 years ago that is a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or lack of it. Religion has very little to do with spirituality.
What makes you think that 'aliens' are any more enlightened on this subject than we are? What if it was the opposite of your premise? That older races value spiritual evolution
Re: (Score:3)
I truly fear what will happen when people's hope for an afterlife and their beliefs in an almighty creator, is essentially dismantled. Will they continue to have "faith" and be a good person who doesn't harm others, or were they only a good person because of their belief system? That is unfortunately a question the planet will be faced with answering once the "big news" about aliens is dropped.
Personally I'm an atheist, but: Why would contact with extraterrestrials be incompatible with the worlds major religions? Religious texts that claim to be received from god are thousands of years old. I would think that an almighty would understand his creation enough to speak in terms the people of the time understand. Most modern interpretations of the major religious texts understand them as largely parable anyway. If the Cathloic church could weather Copernicus, Galileo, and quantum mechanics, I thi
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really as bad as you think. Only America is both developed and extremely religious. And they are on the decline now anyway.
The rest of the world will puck up the slack and carry on.
There are over 2 billion Christians in the world. America, has but a mere fraction of that. Not sure why you feel religions care about borders. America is developed, but is hardly the center of religious violence in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
David Fravor may not be a crazy man, but he's also not remotely qualified to discuss "the laws of physics".
Pilots constantly misjudge distance and velocity. That includes naval aviators. They aren't supermen, and in many cases far less flight hours than commer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Occam's Razor just blew a fuse computing that set.
Re:With so many UFO sightings... (Score:5, Insightful)
what are the chances that EVERY SINGLE sighting is NOT an alien ship?
Roughly the same as the chances the Sun has NOT blown up. [xkcd.com]
Re: With so many UFO sightings... (Score:2)
what are the chances that EVERY SINGLE sighting is NOT an alien ship?
The product (multiplicative) of the individual probabilities that each single sighting is not an alien ship.
At least one of those sightings has to be an alien ship.
For the claim to be true, one of the individual probabilities would need to be 100% (definitely alien ship).
Re: With so many UFO sightings... (Score:2)
what are the chances that EVERY SINGLE sighting is NOT an alien ship?
The product (multiplicative) of the individual probabilities that each single sighting is not an alien ship.
At least one of those sightings has to be an alien ship.
For the claim to be true, one of the individual probabilities would need to be 100% (definitely alien ship).
Re: (Score:2)
Or to put it another way - just because you have a haystack doesn't mean there's a needle in it.
Re: (Score:2)
This moron apparently stalks someone who used to post here fairly frequently but now is more active on other sites. No idea why, and it's not like creimer was ever either prolific or popular. It's just a waste of electrons, and the guy isn't even a good troll.