(untitled)

Has anyone else been following the recent developments with UFOs? This is really blowing my mind, even though I like to think of myself as a very skeptical person. Reports from the 80s by Bob Lazar are consistent with recent sightings by highly-trained military pilots, which are corroborated by radar/visual evidence from multiple people. Society is starting to view the whole thing in a different light, and more and more people coming forward with information. Bob Lazar and Cmdr. David Fravor (the pilot who came forward with his 2004 UFO sighting) both recently went on Joe Rogan's podcast. I think these are definitely worth checking out, especially the David Fravor video: https://youtu.be/BEWz4SXfyCQ https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ

>recent These developments have been going the same way for decades. People have had evidence of other civilizations since the start of recorded history, but big brother kept keeps slamming down the lid on it all. Now with the internet and cameras being widespread they have a hard time containing it. Astronauts edgar mitchel and buzz aldrin came forward saying things werent going as told on the moon, among many other aerospace and military personal who came out saying this. The most significant person to make such an announcement is an ex canadian minister of defence, forgot the name but he was on rt and there was a disclosure hearing in front of us congress with that topic. He said there are atleast 4 different alien organizations with different agendas and we need to take things very seriously. Heres a link to a site for those more interested https://www.ufocasebook.com/. Theyre here, they always were here and we are being watched, some of them want us to know this while others want to remain in the shadows.

Despite all of the good things the human brain and body were able to create, this subject, in my humble opinion, and without any logical explanation or materials analysed by a large number of diverse, international and mainstream scientists, still falls within the realm of the "very, very, very, very unlikely." I don't mean to say that there aren't other creatures similar to us, but think about it. Think about how mind boggling large the universe is -- we use light to measure distances, because of how immense it is! --, how many chemical elements there are, the theoretical ones but unpractical, and the ones which are possible to combine in stable ways and, on top of it all, finding a cheap way to create them. How many star systems failed to produce something similar to our solar system. How many unhabitable planets. Etc. We only have ourselves to create mathematical models of how "intelligent" creatures come about. There's still not lot of consensus among scientists about what life and intelligence is (if there ever was). Artificial Intelligence further complicates this debate. It's so unlikely and unintuitive to claim that they are here, let alone claim that they exist; or any other similar claim. I believe these phenomena are easily explained but most are out of people's experiences (yes, even to experienced pilots, etc) that's why our brain resorts to supernatural answers. I don't know. I remain skeptical, but hopeful. I want to believe so hard, but at the same time everything has to fit like a huge and coherent puzzle.

>>13282 Thats just not true by scientific terms either. The probablity that intelligent life might have evolved over millions of years on other planets due to statistical analysis is not improbably of the size of the universe and the distances by lightyear displacement and intergalactic drift calculation has increased dramatically. By our already current cutting edge understanding of technology and advanced physics including spacetime and quatum physics in our somewhat short history is astonishing. Faster than light travel is in the realm of feasabliity within not to distant future and might have even been far earlier achieved were it not for long and painful setbacks in human intellectual history due to agressive behaviors in bio evolutional devepolment. Dont have numbers on hand but it should be all over the net on various sites.

>>13283 >Dont have numbers on hand but it should be all over the net on various sites. See this is kind of useless because there's also the opposite on various sites. Anyway, I basically agree. There's kind of a failure of imagination in modern scientists when it comes to interstellar travel. On the other hand, space travel is more in the domain of engineers and those guys should probably stay grounded in what they know. The biggest argument against UFOs being real is that they have no reason to be here. It's just a blue marble with a bunch of monkeys, and any sightseeing they want to do they can do outside the atmosphere.

>>13283 The point I was trying to make is that it's very unlikely that these videos show a very advanced aircraft created by an equally advanced civilization. Is it possible that such civilizations exist? Yes. But it's so unlikely that in practical terms it becomes rational to say they do not exist. The same way humans are such an unlikely thing to exist. Maybe they are advanced but unable to make interstellar travelling feasible. And the same thing applies to communication. You can't go beyond the speed of light--and this applies to everything. Nothing can be faster than the speed of light. Nothing. And if for some reason that would be proven wrong - something being faster than the speed of light - all aspects of all branches of physics, etc would have to be rethought from the ground up. Remember, we've built ALL of our technology based on these concepts--which implies that we're doing something right. Concepts from these areas such as mathematics, physics, chemistry etc have to fit and work perfectly with each other. It's how science works and why it takes a long time for serious scientists to come to a consensus about anything. Remember that LIGO observations awhile back? We are still - to this day - proving Einstein's theories right. Just now scientists found something funny with new Hubble's measurements. So, again, my point is: Yes, it's possible that life exists (bacteria, fungi, small critters, etc) out there; but advanced civilizations? It's equally possible, but very very very very unlikely. In other words: it's NOT impossible, but veeeeeeeeeeeeery unlikely. >>13321 >There's kind of a failure of imagination in modern scientists when it comes to interstellar travel. It's not a failure of imagination. There are plenty of (crackpot) theories out there. It's cheap to create such theories. The problem is that based on our current understanding of modern physics, mathematics, chemistry etc these new ideas become exponentially hard to reason with and test; and you can't just throw out centuries of human knowledge just for the sake of progress. Everything within the scientific domain (at least in STEM fields) has to work together and flawlessly. >On the other hand, space travel is more in the domain of engineers and those guys should probably stay grounded in what they know. Agree. Sometimes engineers and PhDs work together, sometimes engineers are PhDs. Trivia: There was no formal scientific description of Fluid Dynamics when the Wright Brothers first flew. History is littered with these examples, btw. (In fact, according to some Fluid Dynamics is still incomplete to this day.) Sometimes a practical application of something comes first and then its formal description comes second (sometimes hundreds of years later).

>>13283 >faster than light travel is in the realm of feasabliity within not to distant future no.

Faster than light travel isn't only physically impossible, it's logically incoherent. Saying that something goes faster than light is like saying something is taller than blue. It's nonsense. More imagination doesn't fix this. I know that makes things a lot less exciting but it's how our universe works. These things aren't aliens. They're something else. If anything could cross the void, they would need a far larger vehicle.

>>13343 >They're something else. I think it makes sense to apply Occam's razor here, and assume that they're simply advanced top-secret experimental aircraft. Half the planet now has internet-connected cameras in their pockets 24/7, and the UFOs that end up on youtube seem to appear mostly around military bases.

>>13394 If you watch the Bob Lazar video, he says that he and his friends witnessed/documented that the military could test-pilot some of the aircraft, but that the technology is unquestionably beyond anything even close to ours. And in the David Fravor video, the way he and other pilots describe it definitely leads me to conclude this isn't technology we can understand or create yet. So we don't know if it's extra-terrestrial in origin, but since we definitely couldn't have created it, that doesn't leave many other possibilities. And it's also possible that some of the reported UFOs could have been piloted by the military, hence why they appear near military bases.

>>13394 I somewhat hate Occam's razor, since life is non-euclidean. Anyhow there is this theory that aliens appear near military bases because they are beware of nuclear weapons. This is also supported by the failures of sending nuclear bombs to space.

>>13492 >I somewhat hate Occam's razor, since life is non-euclidean. Literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard Also we have sent nukes into space just fine

whos got chunks of JFKs head? floating in a jar of formaldehyde under his bed? fuarrrking A man ♪ CIA man ♪♫

>>13496 >Also we have sent nukes into space just fine was about to say some of the first tests were way the heck up there

>>13322 When you say veeeeery unlikely are you talking about locally or universally? >>13481 What about the possibility all these guys are lying? It's all some game that people play. Then you combine them with people that legititamitely saw something unexplainable to them. There are certain aircraft military organizations likely fly only in hours of darkness over populated areas. The david Fravor account and video are the most compelling evidence i've ever seen. If it's not ayyy's then he is fooling or being fooled. Why do people tend to assume that if these were extra terrestrial they would contain organic life forms?

>>13492 >I somewhat hate Occam's razor, since life is non-euclidean please explain what you are trying to convey here

>>13322 >Sometimes a practical application of something comes first and then its formal description comes second (sometimes hundreds of years later). I thought this was common knowledge. An excellent example is food, where certain processes are known to get certain results, but not why until much later on average. I thought that was a normal cycle of human discovery: Someone discovers something and how to reproduce it; people enjoy this something; eventually someone smart is born and decides to dedicate a lot of time and effort into why something is the way it is and sometimes succeeds; now people have something and know why it works, which can lead to improving the something.

>>13542 >When you say veeeeery unlikely are you talking about locally or universally? Universally. See, one can infer that life is most likely pervasive throughout universe (which wouldn't be wrong to say) the problem is proving it. To prove such a thing one would have to visit every single star system and verify it. So far we can only speculate from things we can observe here on Earth or even on our own solar system. Now compare life here on Earth to the rest of the visible(!) universe and realise how unlikely we are. Remember we still don't have any proof of life outside of our planet, let alone intelligent one. Sure, maybe some bacteria's fossils. But still. Don't get me wrong. I can see the appeal when people watch these videos or read about conspiracy theories and conclude "This must be it!" "They're here," and "they've been studying us," or "they're us from the future," or any other crackpot idea out there. It's *so* freaking easy to do that. But it's way, way, waaaaay harder to actually prove it.

>>13776 the thing is that there we do not have a sample size big enough to verify anything much at all. We have exactly one example of a planet which we know can support life, and a few examples of places that we know don't support life(the moon and mars), and a few dozen more that we're pretty sure don't(all the other planets in the solar system), out of the thousands of planets we've detected, and the billions of planets we haven't detected. There is simply not enough data to say anything with any certainty.

>>13777 I concur. The Drake equation is essentially a bunch of variables that we have no solid numbers for, so they're all (marginally) educated guesses. To claim this is scientific or that there is a Fermi paradox along with it is a bit much. It's a food for thought, but not really science. We haven't been listening seriously enough or long enough to decide the universe is dead and quiet. But it's unreasonable to expect that they would visit us. The void is too much. It's way too far, and there's not much reason to make the trip. There's also not much reason to broadcast radio waves at the amplitude needed to shout over the noise of their host star. In the sixties we wanted to try it for a short period of time; a physicist determined that the best way to get an intelligible signal with adequate SNR was to detonate lots of extremely high-yield (think Tsar Bomba) H-bombs inside Jupiter's Van Allen belts and basically modulate a morse code signal using those blasts as a power source and Jupiter as an antenna. It would barely reach nearby star systems. That's the astronomical amount of power we're talking. Just for barely functional non-directional radio. So the idea that we'd receive all their TV stations isn't actually rational. It's like wandering out into the middle of Antarctica and whispering "hello" and deciding the world is uninhabited since nobody answered after about ten seconds. We've never sent a loud enough signal, so why do we expect them to? Arecibo doesn't count either. It was directional at least, so there's that, but we only shot it in one direction, one time—for only a few minutes. That's not a serious attempt. And once again, even being directional—still too low-power. Directionality also means it's vastly less likely it'll get received, because there's just so much sky to cover. And the receiver would have to be coincidentally aimed back at us. Not really gonna happen; let's add those vanishingly unlikely variables to the Drake equation, please. Any serious interstellar travel or communication system also necessarily represents an unprecedented weapon of mass destruction. Anything with that much energy would be catastrophically dangerous. Not to mention incredibly expensive and would consume enormous resources. It's not something that would happen often even among technological species. We've essentially answered the Fermi paradox with our own behavior.

>>13777 Indeed. That's exactly the point I've been making since my initial post >>13282 and the following ones. But I also want people to realise - the ones who have pure faith on these issues - that I am as excited by these issues as they are; but we can't throw out hundreds of years worth of human knowledge just for the sake of it. We'd have to throw out lots of other things we take for granted as well. Sometimes I wish I'd live long enough to witness such developments. Oh well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The future is exciting.

>>13975 It is! I hope we get to see as much of the future as possible. Even if it's kind of horrible or disappointing at times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html >No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public Something is happening.

>>13282 Why make it complex? It could be other people. You could even give them an alien look saying they so high-tec they genetic engineered themselves to something else or they are a surviving branch that goes way back. I like the idea of human civilization having reached higher tech than present time before. Things like the 16th century piri reis map that showcases an accurate costline of antarctic under the ice are clear indicators that something must have existed before us with tech that goes what mainstream history gives credit.

I want to believe, but honestly, there's just too much kookiness.

>>18746 >No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public To the glowies who are monitoring this thread: if by any chance you need a brave and selfless man to have sex with a particularly curious or degenerate female xeno, come pick me up! I am on the higher end of NEET attractiveness and I don't have social media so I might as well not exist. I am willing to take one for the team and reluctantly perform acts of depravity in the name of SCIENCE!, the advancement of humanity etc. etc.

>>13522 Did he saying "men and women of the CIA are the Ayys of the free world"?

>>18754 Can confirm, this lain pounded some Klingon ass recently. Made the males look pretty weak.

>>18760 >Made the males look pretty weak. They don't need any help with that, honestly... https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=T8PqC7i0mEI

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that extraterrestrial intelligence exists on our planet but until they undeniably make first contact I consider anything about them to be speculation. Too many UFO cults and the like out there for me to seriously devote any time to uncovering the truth. Not like it would be of much use anyway. >>13283 >Faster than light travel is in the realm of feasabliity within not to distant future FYI, faster than light travel is equivalent to time travel. So either "the speed of light is constant in any reference frame" does not hold true at high energy(this is the only assumption of special relativity which differentiates it from Galilean relativity) or you get the classic question of 'so where are all the time travelers?' It seems much more likely to me that they would use some kind of ultra-long-distance ship >>13322 >You can't go beyond the speed of light--and this applies to everything. Nothing can be faster than the speed of light. Nothing. And if for some reason that would be proven wrong - something being faster than the speed of light - all aspects of all branches of physics, etc would have to be rethought from the ground up. Not really. Einstein's equations predict that it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light, not that it is impossible to be moving faster than light. Something which was going at the speed of light would be stuck going faster than light for all eternity, unless there was some way to switch between FTL and STL without accelerating (which would indeed require a reworking of all of physics). Hypothetical particles called tachyons would exist solely at FTL speeds.

>>18764 >Not really. Einstein's equations predict that it is impossible to accelerate to the speed of light, not that it is impossible to be moving faster than light. I remember that string theorists said wormholes might be a real possibility, but I don't understand this stuff.

>>18764 sorry, not super-long-distance ship, I mean some kind of "hypersleep" or whatever so they can make the 500 year voyage. >>18765 I don't know any string theory either but if there was a wormhole of non-negligible size in the solar system, we would probably be able to detect it. It would have really weird gravitational effects.

>>18765 Every so often there's some crappy journalist who half-remembers a drunken conversation they've had with a scientist friend about FTL travel or wormholes or some other sci-fi travel idea. Then they go asking their local university's physics professor about it, and the physics professor tells them about interesting superluminal mathematical models that come out of general relativity if you make some assumptions that are basically impossible to satisfy in the real world. The journalist understands 1% of this but needs to fill a column. Voila, yet another garbage clickbait "PHYSICS PROFESSOR CLAIMS WARP DRIVE IS POSSIBLE" article.

>>18782 That sounds more like it.

>>13522 Who did this cover? I can only find the original from the 60's.

>>18795 And of course, as soon as I post the question, the answer turns up. -__- Sun City Girls - CIA Man

>>13522 Haha I love sun city girls especially that song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz0iH8jJvPM

What in the fuarrrk is going on? I thought this was bullshit (or at least the theory that aliens have visited Earth) but after digging more and more I'm seeing pentagon, the navy and other government agencies talking about UFOs and basically saying that they don't know what the fuarrrk is going on. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html I highly suggest listening/watching those two interviews OP linked, perhaps you can also listen/watch this one https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Hc6pbG4wICA which is an interview with George Knapp who originally shared the Bob Lazar story. If you don't have time to watch the interviews here's a brief overview of the three videos DOD shared with the public. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SpeSpA3e56A You can find the videos here https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2165713/statement-by-the-department-of-defense-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/ https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents >The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified." I feel like I'm going to slowly but surely keep digging about this UFO stuff, it's mind boggling to see the US government admit any of this. We're not alone Lainons.

>>19429 So it's the aliens. The aliens are making us gay with anime!

>>19429 >the navy and other government agencies talking about UFOs and basically saying that they don't know what the fuarrrk is going on. They did the same trick in the last century when VHS became well spread. I find it interesting in particular how tales about ayylmaos advance right with our knowledge of technology, e.g now it is not an ancient flying saucer recorded on a 144p camera, but a "tic-tac like object" that is able to move in all directions, magically coinciding with our modern sci-fi movies technology, and of course no one except for Americans seen this. Well, nothing suspicious about that: we all know how much ayylmaos love KFCs firm chicken nuggets. Very unfortunate that Chinese have landed on the dark side of the Moon, so the theory about touhou girls hiding there does not stand.

>>13277 I have seen a few UFOs in my day, not really sure I can get to into details without doxxing myself. I started digging into it some more after some of the things that I saw, and I found some military reports that I cannot seem to find online anymore. I am still not convinced that it is ayylmaos, but spooks gonna spook, and with the technology publicly available and the technology that was publicly discussed and then "disappeared" I sometimes wonder what is actually going on. I have never watched joe rogan, but I have heard of bob lazar. It is hard to believe single sources for information, but there are a lot of unexplained things. /x/ used to have good discussions of paranormal and alien theories, and I entertained myself with some of them, but I still don't know how to even explain some of the UFO sightings I have seen.