BTW since that incident does point to a different triangle, the answer is the same, there are other explanations that point to the incident not being an alien craft.
Hard to say how smart other hominids were, or how much smarter they evolved to be before they died out, but once you have traded any of your non-intelligence based survival traits for having intelligence, it makes sense to continue down that road.
It’s hard to tell the likelihood of intelligence arising, as we have few samples and even fewer controls to work with, but I’m just saying that it shouldn’t be assumed to be inevitable, even if conditions are right for it.
And that’s my argument on the Fermi Paradox as well. It may well be that in 100,000 years, we can look back, and say “given how quickly sentient species transform their galaxy it seems that any sentient species is likely to find itself the first in its galaxy.”
If we are first, and we do go out and colonize and exploit the galaxy, then we could very well prevent any other species from arising, even it that’s not our intent.
I wasn’t only thinking of hominids though. There are many species that have gained learning ability after their branch with their common ancestor to us. Probably the majority of all mammals, especially cetaceans, then a few random ones like crows, octopuses etc.
Absolutely. However. we don’t yet know why we would be the first.
The window of opportunity is most of deep time, even assuming we need a high metallicity star. Of course we can speculate reasons why intelligent life in the preceding billions of years was unlikely, but we don’t know yet, and that’s the point.
The Department of Defense’s Office of the Inspector General will conduct an audit of the UFO task force to evaluate its performance and to establish whether it’s receiving the appropriate support from other defense agencies:
Christopher Mellon - a former high-level US Government official - went on the Joe Rogan show to make his case for the undeniable reality of UFOs. During the conversation, Mellon questioned the ability of foreign adversaries to build and deploy aerial vehicles with capabilities similar to those attributed to UFOs. Mellon speculates that these crafts could belong to off-world civilizations with unknown interests in our planet.
Are you going to reply to any posts in this thread, or engage with the discussion in any way, or are you just going to keep posting self promotional links? I’m asking so I know whether to stay subscribed.
None of the clips or photos made public so far cannot be explained by mundane phenomena. Some of them (such as the pyramidal bokeh clip) are of insultingly poor quality.
Is that the best evidence they have?
Just out of curiosity, since you seem to like videos on this subject, did you watch the video that I posted with the interview with the guy that explains these video artifacts?
It pretty well explains why the capabilities attributed to UFOs are not the actual capabilities of the objects captured on video.
That’s a rhetorical question, I assume.
Well that shows that you did miss an implied point about how early UFOlogists explained the funny thing that UFOs looked, for the people of the past, as what flying crafts were going to look in a few years. Occam’s razor says one should drop the wishful thinking and realize that sometimes (most of the time the UFOs are artifacts in cameras or equipment) what witnesses see is new human made crafts that will eventually be revealed, although the times they were observed in the past will never be acknowledged by the authorities.
Or what video purports to show is actually artifacts created by the use of the camera.
In an explosive interview conducted by Steve Greenstreet of The New York Post, former AATIP director Luis Elizondo said that we are less than a century away from achieving the forms of propulsion UFOs exhibit. According to the government insider, these unidentified crafts are bound by physical laws yet to be discovered but currently theorized to be plausible. Elizondo also mentioned that more revelations and public figures will come forward this month to support the disclosure process. Watch the riveting two-part interview below.
So the answer is, you’re just here to post links and you’re not engaging in discussion?
FYI I reported him about 20 links ago, but the mods said that this is fine for IMHO.
So, if anything, I think maybe we need a discussion in Site Feedback or ATMB, as my opinion remains that repeated link spamming is not a discussion.
You do realize that the New York Post is a tabloid magazine, right?
Just dissecting that sentence out for examination.
It is now over 70 years after the first saucers were sighted. Please give some examples of human made aircraft that looks and acts like them.
In the 1890s many people in the Southern and Western US saw airships - this was mentioned in the New Yorker article. There were cases of multiple people seeing the same ship, respected observers, all the stuff that AEPs can claim. Now no one thought they were aliens, unless you count the pilot some people claimed to have talked to was an alien (he said he was from New England.)
Do you think these were some secret military operation? Or just a combination of misidentification and fraud?
The stories are absolutely convincing - but none of them happened.
Oh, you are missing that they saw triangles and other weird lights around crafts? Stealth Fighters and Bombers. Also, missile tests and surveillance systems that are not secret now were confused as UFOs.
“Hot sheet”. 
BTW @Voyager, even the first famous UFO “flying saucer” sighting was a misunderstanding of the media when reporting what Kenneth Arnold did see in 1947, he never reported seeing flying saucers!
Reporting error
Arnold’s sighting was “such a sensation that it made front page news across the nation,” UFO-logist and author Martin Kottmeyer wrote in an article (“The Saucer Error,” REALL News, 1993).
“Soon everyone was looking for these new aircraft which according to the papers were saucer-like in shape,” Kottmeyer continued. “Within weeks hundreds of reports of these flying saucers were made across the nation. While people presumably thought they were seeing the same things that Kenneth Arnold saw, there was a major irony that nobody at the time realized. Kenneth Arnold hadn’t reported seeing flying saucers.”
In fact, Arnold had told the press that the objects had flown erratically, “like a saucer if you skip it across the water.” They were thin and flat when viewed on edge, he said, but crescent-shaped when viewed from the top down as they turned. Nonetheless, a reporter named Bill Bequette of the United Press interpreted Arnold’s statement to mean that the objects he saw were round discs. According to Benjamin Radford, UFO expert and deputy editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, “It was one of the most significant reporter misquotes in history.”
And very famous “encounters” like the ones photographed by Adamski (and that gave us the most common depiction of a flying saucer in popular media) were found to be just models or cutouts. Popularity of a shape does not mean that there was an actual craft involved, the point I made was about the very few sightings in the past that had little to no easy explanations.