Comment on No evidence that UFOs are aliens — NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific

• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  There are legitimate scientific organizations studying UAP

  Tell me when they have something tangible that isn’t “here’s this thing on video that we can’t identify”. We’ve been collecting data for >80 years so I’m sure there must be something by now? Or is “fuzzy photography” the extent of it?

  The term UAP, or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon, is what has been used by the US government in referring to these objects, as the term UFO has a very apparent stigma attached to it.

  UAP has the same stigma as well. You can’t say "Oh, it’s Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon while winking and nodding about aliens and hinting at conspiracies. We know what you mean.

  Decades of “it might be aliens” when looking at blurry and out-of-context videos and photos deserves the stigma. It’s not aliens. It’s never aliens. All we have is “we don’t know what that thing was.” Until we do and then it’s an insect close to the camera, an internal reflection on an SLR lens, another aircraft, etc.

  To jump to the conclusion that aliens is even an option is ridiculous given the number of crap we have in the skies today.

  source

  • GONADS125@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You’re clearly uneducated in the topic if you think a bug on lense is responsible for these crafts when there have been many instances in which radar has verified recordings and/or eyewitness reports. That rules out bugs.

    And the UAP have been measured at temperatures that rule out birds or other warm-blooded animals.

    There’s enough evidence that exists to make the belief that these physical objects exist rational and reasonable. Just because you haven’t honestly evaluated the evidence for something doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.

    source

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You’re clearly uneducated in the topic

      Ugh. Just… Don’t.

      There’s enough evidence that exists to make the belief that these physical objects exist rational and reasonable. Just because you haven’t honestly evaluated the evidence for something doesn’t mean that evidence doesn’t exist.

      Evidence for… WHAT?

      source

      • GONADS125@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Crafts that our government has stated are not our technology, that are capable of outperforming our current aircraft/war machines, such as the F/A-18F Superhornets in the Nimitz Event.

        That should be concerning to people if that air superiority exists in the hands of a possible adversary. There is also the aerospace safety hazard posed by UAP that affects both commercial and military aircraft, where there have been many reported cases of near-misses.

        The Pentagon’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was mandated to produce a report on UAP, and stated in their report that:

        Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation. … UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology. [11]

        Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained “uncharacterized and unattributed,” and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis." [11]

        Not only has the US government confirmed that UAP exist, they have acknowledged that they pose a serious safety risk to our pilots; both commercial and domestic.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• magnusrufus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  You’d be taken a lot more seriously if you dropped the “admission” phrasing.

  source

  • GONADS125@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    What would be better phrasing? Acknowledged? It was previously classified and denied, and they have now admitted to the existence of the programs and phenomenon.

    The information is valid regardless if people want to believe it. My post is thoroughly cited.

    source

    • magnusrufus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That’s cool man if you want to keep sounding like a dime store Don Quixote. The adversarial subtext of your phrasing will make the majority of people ignore you and will taint the perception of whatever you cite.

      source

      • GONADS125@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Nah, I don’t have a problem with my wording. You’re just jumping to all sorts of conclusions. I’m not responsible for other people’s ignorance and unwillingness to challenge their beliefs.

        My argument is logically sound and I don’t feel it comes off like the mad scrolls of some Q-anon nut job whatsoever. I think your hang-up and useless criticism here is just a reflection of your emotional maturity level and propensity for emotional reasoning. I presented factual information with logical reasoning. You’re emotionally reasoning here.

        If someone is unwilling to even open a lemmy post link and instead writes it off without any consideration, that’s just a reflection of their own ignorance and unwillingness to challenge their beliefs.

        I don’t feel the need to tiptoe around the facts, and there’s always going to be people unwilling to consider the information. I’ve already done a hell of a lot, compiling all of that information and that write-up. But I’ll be sure to remember that you don’t like the way the information makes you feel next time.

        source

        • -> View More Comments