Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.

[Wolf359]

If we needed help to advance, who made the aliens so smart?

So many issues with such a simple statement. How do we know we got help? Are aliens smart? And were they made? Just lots of assumptions that can't be proven to be true.

The visuals are another thing, I don't doubt people when they say what they believe they saw. We send people to prison based on eye-witness testimony but then immediately dismiss it when someone says they saw something we don't believe in already.

Eyewitness testimony isn't as ironclad as people think. Lots of people are freed from prison when DNA says otherwise. But those people were convicted based on eyewitness testimony. People also claim they saw a missile when a plane blew up due to fumes in the fuel tank. It was an optical illusion and no signs of a missile were ever found. People's memory aren't as good as they think, one guy claimed that there an additional person with Timothy McVeigh, but he just mixed up the days. As for what people saw, it hasn't been dismissed, just not definitive and enough proof that leads to an alien conclusion. What did they really see? Something that appeared to be an object that moved at speeds they weren't used to seeing. What is that supposed to really prove? They couldn't really identify it which is why it's unidentified. So they saw something unidentified. So that's all you can really say. Anything else is just speculation. It's like you see a car, what kind of car is it, who made it, where was it made, etc? You can't identify it, so how can you say anything about it? All you say is you saw an unidentified car. That's it, no conclusion or speculation on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/19/us/truck-was-rented-by-oklahoma-bomb-suspect-witnesses-say.html

 

[UncleDave]

That's because you're on the other side.

During my driving and this weekend I thought a little more about this.

When you not only disbelieve and or mock ALL the witnesses, and ALL the data for the last 80 years- what's really left to discuss?

Some people are satisfied with dope, morons, santa clause, swamp gas as complete and highly popular liked answers.

I'm interested in the phenomena, but not so much its fan clubs. (a little like say Elvis)

I don't know what it is, but it is pretty clear somethings been going on, and for a long time. It doesn't add up, and belongs in the box labeled "other" and this just isn't the place to talk about it - and thats ok. There are plenty of topics bitog is great for.

Something has changed and the government rolled over fairly spectacularly. Were they lying then, are they lying now, or both?

 

[Wolf359]

During my driving and this weekend I thought a little more about this.

When you not only disbelieve and or mock ALL the witnesses, and ALL the data for the last 80 years- what's really left to discuss?

Some people are satisfied with dope, morons, santa clause, swamp gas as complete and highly popular liked answers.

I'm interested in the phenomena, but not so much its fan clubs. (a little like say Elvis)

I don't know what it is, but it is pretty clear somethings been going on, and for a long time. It doesn't add up, and belongs in the box labeled "other" and this just isn't the place to talk about it - and thats ok. There are plenty of topics bitog is great for.

Something has changed and the government rolled over fairly spectacularly. Were they lying then, are they lying now, or both?

Read carefully what I've said. It may appear that there's something going on. But when you claim to know what's going on, then that's just jumping to conclusions. There's a difference between liked answers and the real answer. The point is that the liked answers aren't really based on anything. As I've said many times, it's unknown. People can't stand the unknown.

You think something is going on and you think you know there has to be something. But what is that really based on? Nothing. You have some unexplained phenomena and people who claimed to have seen something they couldn't explain. I don't disbelieve that they saw something. We just don't know what it was that they actually saw. They saw something unknown and unidentified. Why aren't you happy with that? Because that's what happened. Extrapolating aliens from that is a stretch. Otherwise all the evidence/data you have is rather weak. Hard evidence would be actual pieces or aliens. Not even footprints or dna out there to look at. We just have higher standards of proof.

As for the government, don't look to them for signs of what may or may not be going on. Administrations changes, people in charge changes, budgets change. Just because the government changes tracks doesn't mean there was or wasn't something going on. Remember I keep saying correlation does not imply causation. So now the government is doing something so you're making the logical fallacy that that has to mean something is really going on.

Just keep something else in mind. Scientists have been scanning the skies for over a century, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe. They can also find things on radar like all those little bits floating around in orbit. Mapped the orbits of many celestial bodies to see if they will collide with earth. No signs of UFOs in any of those scans. Yet somehow you get humans appearing to see something that's unknown and they think might be from outer space. Granted we're not at 100% in scanning the skies but I'd be curious to see what Norad saw. But that should also make you wonder when there's a lack of evidence the other way around. Then you're into calculating probabilities and likelihoods. Just seems very unlikely and improbable, but not impossible.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

I have long believed these sightings are mostly top secret military weapons and several countries are responsible.... China / USA / Russia (at one time) YET its still shockingly hard to believe in this day and age where everyone wants the big bag of cash for being a whistle blower that no definite hard evidince is anywhere for us to see.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Just keep something else in mind. Scientists have been scanning the skies for over a century, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe. They can also find things on radar like all those little bits floating around in orbit. Mapped the orbits of many celestial bodies to see if they will collide with earth. No signs of UFOs in any of those scans. Yet somehow you get humans appearing to see something that's unknown and they think might be from outer space.

Lots of ancient writings also describe flying objects, way before people even could have imagined the technology of such things existed, so they chalked it up to "something from the heavens". Was everyone hallucinating then too?

 

[Wolf359]

Lots of ancient writings also describe flying objects, way before people even could have imagined the technology of such things existed, so they chalked it up to "something from the heavens". Was everyone hallucinating then too?

People always dreamed of flying. I'm sure they didn't understand the standard model back then and it didn't even exist. Who knows what they saw and what they were really writing about? People used to believe in spontaneous generation too and practiced bloodletting by the local barber too. Because they did it for centuries, does that mean they were on to something? It's basically unknown.

But I guess if you want to call yourself an ancient alien theorist, that would be a good subject to bring up.

I myself would like a good bigfoot expert title. Like Top local bigfoot expert. Or something like that. But then I would probably be mocked.

 

[KrisZ]

Aren’t there ancient carvings of what appears to be rockets? What else could it possible be right?
But wait a minute, how could aliens use rocket technology back then and travel the universe? We have that tech, how come we’re not traveling the universe?

That’s the thing with interpreting ancient hieroglyphs, carvings or even writings, we are simply guessing for the most part, or looking at things through our own bias/paradigm.
Or take advantage of the gullible ones and make lots of money.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

There is simply so much about this subject I am convinced the scientific community and the military + world governments (who like to treat society like children) are keeping from us. I have no clue what. Some if military testing and some is ????????????????

 

[Wolf359]

There is simply so much about this subject I am convinced the scientific community and the military + world governments (who like to treat society like children) are keeping from us. I have no clue what. Some if military testing and some is ????????????????

It's easy to believe that someone is out to get you. That's paranoia. But if you really understand science and math, it makes a lot more sense. I've worked in government, what's the billing code they use when they're out to get you?

You're basically convinced based on no evidence. I'd brush up on logic.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

There is simply so much about this subject I am convinced the scientific community and the military + world governments (who like to treat society like children) are keeping from us. I have no clue what. Some if military testing and some is ????????????????

Because most members of society act like children, especially nowadays.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

Because most members of society act like children, especially nowadays.

THANK YOU

 

[Trav]

I saw something on TV last week, they were talking about different kinds of aliens. When they said many of the people who are lizard aliens are in positions of power in Washington I turned off the TV.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

I saw something on TV last week, they were talking about different kinds of aliens. When they said many of the people who are lizard aliens are in positions of power in Washington I turned off the TV.

OMG.... I wonder how many of them are monitoring us on BITOG!!!

 

[Silver]

 

[UncleDave]

Read carefully what I've said. It may appear that there's something going on. But when you claim to know what's going on, then that's just jumping to conclusions. There's a difference between liked answers and the real answer. The point is that the liked answers aren't really based on anything. As I've said many times, it's unknown. People can't stand the unknown.

You think something is going on and you think you know there has to be something. But what is that really based on? Nothing. You have some unexplained phenomena and people who claimed to have seen something they couldn't explain. I don't disbelieve that they saw something. We just don't know what it was that they actually saw. They saw something unknown and unidentified. Why aren't you happy with that? Because that's what happened. Extrapolating aliens from that is a stretch. Otherwise all the evidence/data you have is rather weak. Hard evidence would be actual pieces or aliens. Not even footprints or dna out there to look at. We just have higher standards of proof.

As for the government, don't look to them for signs of what may or may not be going on. Administrations changes, people in charge changes, budgets change. Just because the government changes tracks doesn't mean there was or wasn't something going on. Remember I keep saying correlation does not imply causation. So now the government is doing something so you're making the logical fallacy that that has to mean something is really going on.

Just keep something else in mind. Scientists have been scanning the skies for over a century, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe. They can also find things on radar like all those little bits floating around in orbit. Mapped the orbits of many celestial bodies to see if they will collide with earth. No signs of UFOs in any of those scans. Yet somehow you get humans appearing to see something that's unknown and they think might be from outer space. Granted we're not at 100% in scanning the skies but I'd be curious to see what Norad saw. But that should also make you wonder when there's a lack of evidence the other way around. Then you're into calculating probabilities and likelihoods. Just seems very unlikely and improbable, but not impossible.

The director of national intelligence doesn't agree with your position, and much to my dismay - aligns with mine.

The conclusion from the guys with the data is they are not only real, but a threat.

No one here has any data, just opinions.

What possible reason should we have to believe anyone here over the DNI?

 

[bobdoo]

"The director of national intelligence doesn't agree with your position, and much to my dismay - aligns with mine."

In the '70's/'80's?, the evil commies had more nukes than we did, and we had to catch up. Money was collected, and spent.

Turns out we had more bombs the whole time.

UFOs are the new scare tactic. And people -love- to be scared.

It wasn't Barnum and Bailey that said "a fool and his money...", was it? Maybe it was "we're from the gov't, and we're here to help!"

 

[Duffyjr]

I myself would like a good bigfoot expert title. Like Top local bigfoot expert. Or something like that. But then I would probably be mocked.

How about Bigpodiatrist Expert.

 

[PWMDMD]

The director of national intelligence doesn't agree with your position, and much to my dismay - aligns with mine.

The conclusion from the guys with the data is they are not only real, but a threat.

No one here has any data, just opinions.

What possible reason should we have to believe anyone here over the DNI?

How do you absolutely prove something that does not exist, does in fact not exist? If something does not exist it is incapable of providing direct evidence for its non-existence and therefore you must necessarily depend on indirect evidence and there is a MUCH higher burden placed on indirect proof. Ex. Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

In the absence of verifiable and reproducible evidence the most anyone in the intelligence agency can ever say conclusively is they don't know. This means they can neither support these ideas as real and true nor can they dismiss them as false and untrue. Because they can not conclusively disprove them, they will necessarily stay on their radar until such time, if ever, that these phenomenon can be explained conclusively. However, just because they can not be conclusive disproven as being extraterrestrial it does not make sense to then conclude they must be extraterrestrial.

This is not support for extraterrestrials - it's simply acknowledging the limitations of our current knowledge. Russell's Teapot may seem like semantics superficially but stop and really think about it and then apply that to this post. Just because I can't prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun it does not mean that it's likely that there is a teapot out there in our solar system orbiting the sun. The probability of an orbiting teapot is a very very very small and it is not logical to then conclude just because it's a non-zero number then it must be likely. Just because these phenomenon can not be disproven as being extraterrestrial in nature it does not then mean it's likely they are extraterrestrial.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and nothing presented meets this burden - not even close.

 

[UncleDave]

How do you absolutely prove something that does not exist, does in fact not exist? If something does not exist it is incapable of providing direct evidence for its non-existence and therefore you must necessarily depend on indirect evidence and there is a MUCH higher burden placed on indirect proof. Ex. Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

In the absence of verifiable and reproducible evidence the most anyone in the intelligence agency can ever say conclusively is they don't know. This means they can neither support these ideas as real and true nor can they dismiss them as false and untrue. Because they can not conclusively disprove them, they will necessarily stay on their radar until such time, if ever, that these phenomenon can be explained conclusively.

This is not support for extraterrestrials - it's simply acknowledging the limitations of our current knowledge. Russell's Teapot may seem like semantics superficially but stop and really think about and then apply that to this post.

As you said no one is claiming alien or extra terrestrial - the phenomena is categorized as under "other" and the new acronym they seem to like is "UAP."

They seem to believe that a certain amount of corroboration between eyes and radar and mention "electronic signals" = existence and this plus observed behavior = threat.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, but I dont like this.

 

[Wolf359]

The director of national intelligence doesn't agree with your position, and much to my dismay - aligns with mine.

The conclusion from the guys with the data is they are not only real, but a threat.

No one here has any data, just opinions.

What possible reason should we have to believe anyone here over the DNI?

Again as mentioned, lots of faulty logic there. They're paid to evaluate threats. We are not. Who knows if they're real or not or what threats they're really dealing with? What is my position? I'm not the director of national intelligence so of course my position is going to be different. I don't think it's aliens but there could be something going on there. Maybe someone has some new fancy jamming gear which of course would be a threat, but I'm not concerned about that threat, that's with the DNI's job is to do and it's not mine. Just because he's busy dealing with threats, real or not, doesn't automatically mean they're real. You just have to put contingencies together in case they are. Doesn't mean they're real or that they will happen, but you still need to do the planning. Don't confuse that with meaning it's real. That again, all boils down to faulty logic.

Remember, it's preponderance of evidence. There's lots of other evidence that there aren't any, many seem to ignore those and just focus on what little there is pointing to something.