Yes. But there’s a difference between curiosity and credulity. Or, to use a phrase from X Files a show that’s all about The Phenomenon in various forms, there’s a difference between “I believe” and “I want to believe”. It seems to me like you’re blurring these two things, when in reality there should be a huge bright line between “I believe” and “I want to believe”. There’s nothing wrong with “I want to believe” as long as (general) you are being honest with yourself that that’s what your doing, and not mixing it up with what you should actually believe based on the evidence.
Hey, doc, you’re the one that keeps showing me dirty pictures.
It’s Folklore.
It’s all Folklore.
“Backed up” so to speak, with out-of-focus, poorly-faked, images.
Okay. Do you agree that we have completely disposed of that Puerto Rican heart-shaped balloon example from earlier?
If not, please be specific and systematic: what remains to be explained there?
If so, let’s be systematic. What’s next?
Once again: I’m asking you to focus on one specific intersection in the grid and tell us what we can see there.
No. It is exactly what is expected. Wherever and whenever human minds are looking closely at the nebulous data (noise) they will see patterns and impose primed perceptions to try to make sense out of it, perceive false signals.
Exactly as the Rorschach test joke goes.
@Jackmannii alluded to the vaccine conspiracy nuts … and exactly like that … it just seems weird to them that “there is this pattern of autism showing up after getting vaccines, and an explosion of the disease that is otherwise unexplained.” The data points of the pattern are of course often fictional, and the reality, when investigated throughly, being apparent associations are what would be expected by chance. The increase in diagnosed autism explained fairly well by a broader clinical definition and wider use of the label (also imposing a primed signal on noisy and nebulous input to some degree). But a fictive pattern has been created, a false signal perceived, and will be believed by some no matter what.
It all boils down to stopping at asking the questions because actually finding out answers somehow removes a child-like wonder…but this attitude openly defies the actual question posed in the title, the main reason for this board’s existence, and science itself.
This two are the same, and as mentioned before, not concurrent confirmations or just a single sensor as per the “big cases” you pointed at.
Actually, they do. They are human beings after all.
Not accurate at all, all the debunkings took years if not decades of looking back, they were not ignored at all.
That it leads then to now certifiable mockery for guys like Adamski and Vallee is the result of that very thing you demand.
That’s fair, false patterns do happen. But if a pattern keeps showing up across radically different systems, times, and observers, the signal might be more than just noise. Dismissing it outright risks the same cognitive trap confirmation bias, just flipped. I’m not asking for belief, only that we stay open to persistent uncertainty.
For the last time, nobody is dismissing anything outright! To say something this ridiculous is to totally ignore all the answers given over the years. This is NOT “science”!!
But, this didn’t happen. Flying saucers only show up in modern times, and mostly in English speaking countries, for example.
Sure, human beings are fallible, military or not. But dismissing radar, FLIR, and visual testimony as just folklore in uniform ignores the qualitative shift in data. The problem isn’t that they’ve all been “debunked” but that most explanations rest on interpretive scaffolding, not definitive proof. If it takes decades to walk back one case, that’s not claritythat’s a signal worth tracking. I’m not defending Adamsk, I’m asking why credible people keep stumbling into similar edges of perception. That’s not fantasy. That’s a pattern.
<narrator> but as it turned out, it was not to be the last time…
Yes, what I noticed is what is taking place, in discussions like this one, it is more popular to fall for the Phenomenon as being a portal to a magical world, rather than to ask the most likely but dangerous question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
However, in 1997, the US Central Intelligence Agency revealed that the military had lied to the public throughout the Cold War about many UFO sightings to obscure its black projects and keep Moscow in the dark about technological advancements. Blaming sightings on natural phenomena like ice crystals and temperature inversions fueled public distrust toward the government and its claims about UFOs/UAPs.
Many secret military aircraft were frequently mistaken for UFOs, such as the U-2 reconnaissance plane, introduced in the 1950s, which featured a gray frame that often reflected the sun. The SR-71 “Blackbird” meanwhile started service in 1966 and wasn’t declassified until the 1990s. Its distinctive shape, speed, and altitude capabilities were often mistaken for a UFO.
The B-2 Spirit, introduced in the late 1980s, also had a unique aerodynamic design and its ability to control lift, thrust, and drag at low speeds often gave the appearance that it was hovering.
Endlessly repeating this doesn’t make it any more true. No one has dismissed any evidence; it’s been examined and found wanting.
Straw-man, no one said anything about dismissing radar data. In reality the proponents there dismissed it because it was not there. The Puerto Rico event, for example, had no radar report; because, it was seen by the infrared sensor, and was likely a couple of small balloons.
You’re misrepresenting the point. No one’s claiming every radar ping is proof of aliens. What I’m arguing is that the pattern of multi-sensor anomalies, including radar, FLIR, and trained visual testimony across multiple incidents, deserves more than retrofitted mundane explanations after the fact.
Puerto Rico? Maybe balloons. But when “maybe balloons” becomes the boilerplate for every unexplained multi-sensor anomaly, you’re not explaining its pacifying. There’s a qualitative shift here in how often the improbable gets waved away with the same handful of guesses.
Nope, just pointing out that uncertainty is not your friend. The evidence points to a couple of more likely explanations that should not be ignored.
In the context of climate change it means that lingering uncertainties about the future impacts of climate change should not be used as an excuse for inaction, in our cases here, the inaction is not only about the never “what is coming next?” (it never comes when the assumption is aliens) but the inaction of what we should be doing if the Phenomenon actually is about other issues that can be looked at.
The uncertainties do not point to aliens or extra dimensional beings. It points more likely to Joseph Campbell terrain, or the chronic status of society ignoring the constant Faustian bargain of feeding a military industry that limits the good of that modern societies could do.
Nope to this too, the most likely explanation of that being balloons is based on the plots of the direction and speed of the item, just a little bit less than the speed and direction of the wind then.
The lack of radar is also a thing to consider, as it is more likely to point to that being just very small balloons.
“Deserves” makes it very clear that you will not accept mundane explanations even if they are true.
And if this is actually happening, you might have a point.
But it isn’t.
So you don’t.