UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government
Click For Summary
Leslie Kean's new book has garnered significant attention, particularly following her appearance on Stephen Colbert's show, which highlighted her thoughtful approach to the controversial topic of UFOs. The book is praised by various experts, including Michio Kaku and Rudy Schild, for its serious and well-researched examination of UFO phenomena, challenging both skeptics and believers to reconsider their views. Reviewers commend Kean for presenting credible reports and raising critical questions about government transparency regarding UFO investigations. The book advocates for a more open and serious discourse on UFOs, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation and public awareness. Some forum participants express skepticism about UFOs, suggesting that many sightings can be attributed to misinterpretations or optical illusions, while others argue that credible evidence exists that warrants serious consideration. The discussion reflects a divide between those who seek to explore the implications of Kean's findings and those who remain doubtful about the legitimacy of UFO phenomena.
  • #241
That's not the point. Unless explicitely mentioned one can safely assume that it HAS not been considered and if it had, it would have virtually elimated any chance of the existence of intelligent ET in the galaxy, whether or not you call it the Drake equation or whatever.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242
Andre said:
That's not the point. Unless explicitely mentioned one can safely assume that it HAS not been considered and if it had, it would have virtually elimated any chance of the existence of intelligent ET in the galaxy, whether or not you call it the Drake equation or whatever.

I don't understand. People do consider it, and some have come to the hypothesis that Earth may be the only planet in the galaxy capable of harboring intelligent life. It doesn't make their wild speculation right. You might as well say, that if the god factor was considered, it would virtually eliminate the chance of blah blah blah.

Whatever hypothetical you want to incorporate you can.
 
  • #243
nismaratwork said:
If I were to float a guess, I'd say that disrupting the ability to launch nuclear weapons would be a priority for any world power, right? Well, let's put aside the "object", and think along these lines:

-Interfering with the missiles of a country other than your own in a test is could start a war.
-You CANNOT let this kind of program be anything less than black.
-People in high positions within the base are going to notice malfunctions if the system works.
Then we fork:
1.) The "disk" is actually the device which is causing the disruption, and there's no way to hide it.
2.) The "disk" is something mundane put in place to create a "chaff" story.

Now, which makes for a better story: 'Missiles malfunction, and we have no idea why!"
OR
"Flying disk seen overhead, and missiles malfunction... what do you think public?!"

The former is going to terrify EVERYONE, because the concept of malfunctioning launch systems or missiles is... well... terrifying. The latter, without telling a single story to confirm or deny any part of this, clutters the narrative. Conspiracy theorists can go in one direction, ET fanciers might consider that this is one of the few things an "alien" WOULD want to interfere with, and people like me will lean towards this being an intentional, but illegal under treaties, program.

The alternative is that this is total nonsense, people lying to cover mistakes out of fear that they'll lose their jobs... etc. I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

edit: I suppose it could be a weather phenomenon, but as I can't imagine a lenticular cloud having an effect on missile launch systems.

A very astute commentary IMO.

I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

My little knowledge of these things notwithstanding, I tend to agree with you. But what was the 'alaring story' ?
 
  • #244
jreelawg said:
I don't understand. People do consider it, and some have come to the hypothesis that Earth may be the only planet in the galaxy capable of harboring intelligent life. It doesn't make their wild speculation right. You might as well say, that if the god factor was considered, it would virtually eliminate the chance of blah blah blah.

Whatever hypothetical you want to incorporate you can.

Maybe we are moving the goal posts around a bit much here. I think the original idea somewhere was to assess the possibility that there would be UFO sightings that could somehow be attributed to ET. So we did not considered physical impractibilities to see if this hypothetical alien form could somehow be tied to a nearby star which could be reacheable without using astronomical incredible numbers, say order of magnitude of 100-1000 years with a fraction of the speed of light. So we are talking about a few light years around us, maybe a dozen or two.

There are several stars in that area but only a fraction of that of the Milky way galaxy, the limit of the drake equation which is estimated in the order of magnitude of 1011, or a factor of some 108 to 1010 more than locally. So using numbers in drake, you can get to 1, 10, 100, 1000, whatever planets, with potential life forms capable of intergalactic travel. To apply that to the local environment, instead of the galaxy, you'd have to divide that by the ratio factor of the local stars versus the galaxy, ending up with very rough chances of something like 10-8 to 10-5 for possible life close around

Now this was before the chaotic zone effects were known, which may push that chance back some more zeros. So we really are discussing if the chance of aliens around in the close vicinity is more like 0.000001 or 0.00000000000001 or something.

However what is the chance that these aliens would actually visit us?
 
Last edited:
  • #245
Regarding the friendly neighborhood missile-launch-triggering-and-impedance-disc:

There are most likely 3 factors at play here.
  1. Due to the passage of time, sme details have likely been exaggerated. The most commonly exaggerated details are the ones that support the conclusion already presupposed by the observer (UFO hunters tend to exaggerate the details that support the UFO part of their stories)
  2. Coincidence of two unlikely events (i.e. electrical malfunction and visible aerial phenomenon)
  3. Cognitive biases. Even if the disc in question were impossible to mistake as something mundane in normal circumstances, due to the extreme nature of the the scenario and the seemingly inexplicable series of events, the observers are likely to have sought a scapegoat and found it in this "disc."

"Yeah, Bob, it was crazy, the whole place lit up, I really thought were going to see a launch! It's a good thing we got it under control. After it was all over, we went outside for a smoke and Larry said there was this thing in the sky... I don't know. A circle, maybe?"

"Yeah, Ted, you should've been there. The place was going nuts. All of the electronics failed and the whole time this flying disc was in the air."

"BILL! It was incredible, this flying saucer showed up; we all saw it. Then all of the electronics simultaneously failed and started the countdown procedure."

"GARY, LISTEN! I'M TELLING YOU! A FLYING SAUCER TRIED TO LAUNCH A NUCLEAR MISSILE!"EDIT: As a closing thought on this particular topic, I'd like to say I would be much more concerned about the people in charge of these silos and their willingness to blame problems on flying saucers than about the flying saucers themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • #246
alt said:
A very astute commentary IMO.

I personally lean towards the notion that the disk is mundane and in place as a simple way to scramble an otherwise alarming story. If that's the case, it's really quite clever.

My little knowledge of these things notwithstanding, I tend to agree with you. But what was the 'alaring story' ?

If there's no external explanation for seeming malfunctions of nuclear missile systems, I would think that would terrify people. As soon as you introduce an external agent, you add confusion, but also the sense that it isn't some random mistake. Furthermore, as this kind of experiment would violate current treaties, and those aside the notion of the capacity to disable the land-based missiles of an enemy would destabilize the entire MAD concept.

This way, it's just "flying disks" which become the focus, instead of:

1.) A malfunction...
2.) Induced Malfunction

FlexGunship: Normally I'd agree across the board, and in fact I do agree that the event was doubtless subject to the normal cognitive bias. That said, the training and oversight that military personal in launch centers are subjected to is EXTREME, and I find it difficult to believe that they COULD make human errors of the type being described. That they would tend to blame an external agent rather than a systems error, or induced errors is easy; if you watched as the systems which control the launch of nuclear weapons so much as bleeped the wrong way, I think any sane person would be ****ing their pants.

This is a rare case where the notion of a random series of errors, disks aside, is almost beyond belief. When you add so much as the coincidence of a lenticular cloud and launch system errors, Occam starts to cut in the direction that I've proposed.
 
  • #247
nismaratwork said:
FlexGunship: Normally I'd agree across the board, and in fact I do agree that the event was doubtless subject to the normal cognitive bias. That said, the training and oversight that military personal in launch centers are subjected to is EXTREME, and I find it difficult to believe that they COULD make human errors of the type being described. That they would tend to blame an external agent rather than a systems error, or induced errors is easy; if you watched as the systems which control the launch of nuclear weapons so much as bleeped the wrong way, I think any sane person would be ****ing their pants.

This is a rare case where the notion of a random series of errors, disks aside, is almost beyond belief. When you add so much as the coincidence of a lenticular cloud and launch system errors, Occam starts to cut in the direction that I've proposed.

The bold section is suspect for me. Even trained observers are easily duped when they become confident in their observational prowess. See "Project Alpha" for proof-definitive on this topic. The worst thing an observer can do for themselves is assure themselves that they are an infallible (or even "good") observer.

That being said, I can't argue what you've said. I would postulate: people surely lie, but they rarely collude to lie.

In that respect, most mass sightings are cases of positive-feedback within the observing group. I like watching Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures to see examples of this where repeated confirmations from within the group seems to strengthen (and sometimes even create) details.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:
  1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
  2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.
 
  • #248
FlexGunship said:
The bold section is suspect for me. Even trained observers are easily duped when they become confident in their observational prowess. See "Project Alpha" for proof-definitive on this topic. The worst thing an observer can do for themselves is assure themselves that they are an infallible (or even "good") observer.

That being said, I can't argue what you've said. I would postulate: people surely lie, but they rarely collude to lie.

In that respect, most mass sightings are cases of positive-feedback within the observing group. I like watching Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures to see examples of this where repeated confirmations from within the group seems to strengthen (and sometimes even create) details.

So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:
  1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
  2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

Oh, I'm not saying that their training makes them any better at judging what a "flying disk" is than anyone on the street. What I am saying is that their LIFE for the few years they're allowed to hold this particular job is what they're trained to for. I'm saying they're literally expert observers of the systems that malfunctioned, and nothing else.

My personal belief is that it's either #2, or these people were genuinely in the dark about this, and the "light show" was for their benefit. After all, that requires far less "conspiracy" than the development of something like the F-117 or B-2 Spirit, and you build in a group of people who will testify with absolute certainty that a flying disk caused this. So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.
 
  • #249
nismaratwork said:
So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

I suspect this is very unlikely. Testing the readiness of a group is normal enough and is usually followed by a debriefing; however we don't see that here. Furthermore, why would any domestic agency be interested in disrupting it's own missile systems? It's not as though the technology is implicitly transferable to foreign applications. Shoot, until recently, you couldn't even use a U.S. domestic cell phone across the Atlantic.

While I appreciate the merits of your theory here, I don't think it's reasonable to operate on the assumption that an outside agent was involved at all. It's rare that such a secret could be kept, firstly, and secondly the benefits of such a secret are highly questionable.

Never underestimate the powers of simple misunderstanding.

EDIT: I will agree, however, that these seem to be the two most highly competitive explanations, Nismar. However, I don't find them equal.
 
  • #250
Andre said:
Maybe we are moving the goal posts around a bit much here. I think the original idea somewhere was to assess the possibility that there would be UFO sightings that could somehow be attributed to ET. So we did not considered physical impractibilities to see if this hypothetical alien form could somehow be tied to a nearby star which could be reacheable without using astronomical incredible numbers, say order of magnitude of 100-1000 years with a fraction of the speed of light. So we are talking about a few light years around us, maybe a dozen or two.

There are several stars in that area but only a fraction of that of the Milky way galaxy, the limit of the drake equation which is estimated in the order of magnitude of 1011, or a factor of some 108 to 1010 more than locally. So using numbers in drake, you can get to 1, 10, 100, 1000, whatever planets, with potential life forms capable of intergalactic travel. To apply that to the local environment, instead of the galaxy, you'd have to divide that by the ratio factor of the local stars versus the galaxy, ending up with very rough chances of something like 10-8 to 10-5 for possible life close around

Now this was before the chaotic zone effects were known, which may push that chance back some more zeros. So we really are discussing if the chance of aliens around in the close vicinity is more like 0.000001 or 0.00000000000001 or something.

However what is the chance that these aliens would actually visit us?

What your saying is, what if the chances are .000001...? I can counter your argument by saying; what if the chances are 50%? The thing is, the chances of making any kind of meaningful prediction of being visited by ET using the drake equation, very very low.

We already know that life exists all over earth, including deep underground, living off of methane in the bottom of the ocean, etc. If life can live on Earth in such extreme conditions, how would drastic climate change make the existence of life impossible as your link suggested?

Also, why is it necessary that we have perfect eclipses to have intelligent life? As your link suggests maybe it is coincidence, maybe it is no coincidence. I'm left not convinced of anything as a result of reading it.
 
Last edited:
  • #251
nismaratwork said:
So, you have, let's say DARPA testing a means of interfering with nuclear missile launch systems, but they don't want the large staff of a launch center involved. So, you float a balloon or something similar while you run your test, and good luck getting the people on the ground to think as dispassionately as we are right now.

You couldn't expect to fool them with a balloon. A balloon could be shot down, it could be spotted, and easily identified.

Another thing to consider, is the fact that UFO sightings have been reported by guards at more than one Nuclear storage site, and the descriptions of the UFO's aren't consistent with balloon, or conventional craft.

In order to support this hypotheses you would have to either assume the majority of them are lying, assume something much more exotic was used in place of the balloon (some kind of high tech light show hoax, maybe induced hallucination), or that what they actually witnessed were advanced craft, perhaps responsible for the malfunctions.
 
  • #252
jreelawg said:
You couldn't expect to fool them with a balloon.

Jreelawg, I bet you could be fooled by a balloon. I bet I could be fooled by a balloon. I bet thousands of people could be fooled by a balloon.

I bet I could find a way to fool a trained balloon observer sitting on an international balloon catalog with a hundred years experience and a pair of specially developed balloon-sensing binoculars at a balloon-spotting event.

You're just repeatedly saying the same series of things:

"Your suggestion is impossible, the only way your suggestion COULD be possible is if condition X was met, and... as we all know, condition X is impossible!"

Stacking tautology on top of tautology into some sort of succulent tautology pastry doesn't make it less tautological. Why couldn't they be fooled by something mundane? Because they have uniforms?

EDIT: Cue balloon montage! Please be advised, Jreelawg, these are only balloons!

Independence-Day-balloon.jpg


ufoballoon3.jpg


tet1.jpg


[PLAIN]http://www.solar-balloons.com/images/ufo-thumb.jpg

[PLAIN]http://noahstrycker.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ufo.jpg

[URL]http://www.thetechherald.com/media/images/200907/ufo_5.jpg[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #253
FlexGunship said:
So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:
  1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
  2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the second, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

This sounds a heck of a lot more plausible than any other explanation I've heard to date.
 
  • #254
FlexGunship said:
Jreelawg, I bet you could be fooled by a balloon. I bet I could be fooled by a balloon. I bet thousands of people could be fooled by a balloon.

I bet I could find a way to fool a trained balloon observer sitting on an international balloon catalog with a hundred years experience and a pair of specially developed balloon-sensing binoculars at a balloon-spotting event.

I'm not guarding some of the most sensitive storage facilities in the world. And good luck getting a balloon to move in a manner consistent with UFO sightings.
 
  • #255
I understand your premise that it could have been deception, and I find that plausible, a balloon is not a plausible explanation for the sightings reported at nuclear arms storage facilities. Just because balloons are common, doesn't mean you make make them appear to fly around, with amazing maneuverability. So like I said, the only way it could be a balloon, is if the guards were also group hallucinating, or if they lied.
 
  • #256
mugaliens said:
This sounds a heck of a lot more plausible than any other explanation I've heard to date.

Put 30 people in a room, crowd them in there... suddenly turn all the reds light then back to normal. If someone claims they saw a monkey scurry through the room, someone will confirm that they thought they felt something. Someone else thought they smelled something. Then the chatter starts. When you're done, you've got a room full of people all claiming a monkey scurried through the room. If you tell them it didn't happen, then you'll hear: "how could we all be lying?"
 
  • #257
jreelawg said:
I understand your premise that it could have been deception, and I find that plausible, a balloon is not a plausible explanation for the sightings reported at nuclear arms storage facilities. Just because balloons are common, doesn't mean you make make them appear to fly around, with amazing maneuverability. So like I said, the only way it could be a balloon, is if the guards were also group hallucinating, or if they lied.

FlexGunship said:
So, which is more likely? Given the following to options:
  1. Planned collusion to deceive with the later impetus to retell the lie repeatedly to the public, or
  2. Positive-feedback confirmation and congnitive biases acting on the mundane coincidence of two extreme events

I still choose the SECOND, because it requires no planning or collusion and happens entirely naturally when you put a group of humans in a stressful situation and introduce an unknown.

I literally cannot make my position any more clear than that.
 
  • #258
Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions. Sightings around nuclear weapons can be dismissed the same way any others can, but malfunctions of those systems cannot. If you believe that it was intentional, then who cares what was seen? If you believe it was all a coincidence, then it becomes interesting, but only insofar as normal "sightings" are. The point is the one thing that isn't up for debate: malfunctioning systems, and that's the ONLY thing that matters in this.
 
  • #259
nismaratwork said:
Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions. Sightings around nuclear weapons can be dismissed the same way any others can, but malfunctions of those systems cannot. If you believe that it was intentional, then who cares what was seen? If you believe it was all a coincidence, then it becomes interesting, but only insofar as normal "sightings" are. The point is the one thing that isn't up for debate: malfunctioning systems, and that's the ONLY thing that matters in this.

The thing that matters is, why they malfunctioned. It would be ridiculous to dismiss what went on at the same time, especially when the descriptions are such that they are.

If someone's purse was stolen, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

You can attempt to dismiss any and all cases using your reasoning, but no rational person would take all of your dismissals seriously.
 
  • #260
nismaratwork said:
Whether it was a balloon, or a shaped airship, or a cloud only matters once you choose the explanation for the malfunctions.

This is a good point actually. I think we should start being more careful with our terminology here, as well, a "malfunction" seems to imply some sort of random disarray. My understanding (from the two reports I've read so far) are that the missile became inactive for a period of time.

"The missiles shut down - 10 Minuteman missiles. And the same thing happened at another site a week later. There's a strong interest in our missiles by these objects, wherever they come from. I personally think they're not from planet Earth."
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html)

So, they became inactive. The first generation of American and British nuclear missiles shorted out for a moment and then the team was able to repair them and get them online.

Furthermore, the reports of the "UFO" are from the guards, not the actual folks inside.

EDIT: How many times must missiles temporarily malfunction before we assume there's something wrong with them? Now I'm more worried that no one was seriously concerned about the wiring!
 
  • #261
jreelawg said:
If someone's purse was stolen, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

If someone's cell phone suddenly turned off and then was able to be turned on again, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

EDIT: Correlation does not imply causation. Especially if the "cause" is unidentified.
 
  • #262
FlexGunship said:
If someone's cell phone suddenly turned off and then was able to be turned on again, would you not consider it relevant if a bunch of people saw a person running down the street with a black mask on?

Your position that each and everything, which can possibly be observed, could be dismissed easily from an armchair, is getting old.
 
  • #263
FlexGunship said:
This is a good point actually. I think we should start being more careful with our terminology here, as well, a "malfunction" seems to imply some sort of random disarray. My understanding (from the two reports I've read so far) are that the missile became inactive for a period of time.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html)

So, they became inactive. The first generation of American and British nuclear missiles shorted out for a moment and then the team was able to repair them and get them online.

Furthermore, the reports of the "UFO" are from the guards, not the actual folks inside.

EDIT: How many times must missiles temporarily malfunction before we assume there's something wrong with them? Now I'm more worried that no one was seriously concerned about the wiring!

I'm not qualified to speak to the reliability of nuclear weapons, but I go back to how useful it would be to shut down the weapons of a given nation for a number of reasons, even if only for a few minutes. In fact, if this had been a random malfunction, I wouldn't have posed the scenario I did... as accidental launch or just static on a screen is hardly worth the risk. During the cold war, it could have been seen as a means to prepare for a first strike, and now I can see it being useful in Pakistan and India in a worst-case scenario.

Of course, just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it happened... as you say, this could be nothing more than a repeated malfunction of the same system. The sighting by the guards however... I don't know Flex. We can say they were hysterical, but that seems a bit much... it could be coincidence, but that's a hell of a coincidence. It could be that the guards conspired to lie, but I don't buy that... or it may be that in retrospect they experienced a "monkey in the room" moment under the stress of what may have been perceived as a potential attack or failure.

I have to say... I still vote for: Balloon or other object to draw attention or as platform for: "weapon" or test to see if it's possible to shut down launch capacity in an unaware and hardened target. I don't think we're eeeevvvveeeerrr going to know, but the least convincing explanation to me is: aliens... that, above all the others is a bit past credulity here.
 
  • #264
jreelawg said:
Your position that each and everything, which can possibly be observed, could be dismissed easily from an armchair is getting old.

I know what it would take to convince me of something extraordinary. I've provided a list, in fact, earlier (specifically pertaining to ETs). Jreelawg, I have the luxury of changing my mind if someone proves me wrong.

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

All it would take is for you to say: "I guess I had never thought about it that much before. Perhaps there's something to consider here. I will reserve my judgement until there are better facts at hand. As such, I will adopt the most scientifically sound position."

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.
 
  • #265
FlexGunship said:
Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.
Actually, armchair apathy is correct more often than armchair dismissal. :-p
 
  • #266
FlexGunship said:
I know what it would take to convince me of something extraordinary. I've provided a list, in fact, earlier (specifically pertaining to ETs). Jreelawg, I have the luxury of changing my mind if someone proves me wrong.

Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

All it would take is for you to say: "I guess I had never thought about it that much before. Perhaps there's something to consider here. I will reserve my judgement until there are better facts at hand. As such, I will adopt the most scientifically sound position."

Armchair dismissal is safer than armchair acceptance when it comes to the paranormal, the supernatural and the pseudo-scientific. Armchair dismissal has shown to yield the most correct answers.

I just want to add, Flex, I don't think you're "armchair dismissing"... I think you're being properly skeptical according to the precepts of that philosophy. Just adding my 2 cents. Extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence, period; not anecdote, not group experiences... EVIDENCE. Without that basic concept we're practically abandoning the scientific method, never mind Skepticism.
 
  • #267
nismaratwork said:
During the cold war, it could have been seen as a means to prepare for a first strike, and now I can see it being useful in Pakistan and India in a worst-case scenario.

Again, testing it as a possible weapon (I use the term loosely) to prevent or delay an enemy nuclear launch wouldn't really be applicable to other nuclear launch sites. It's not as though the Russians were also using Minuteman missiles. Different technology was at play, and I assure you that there isn't a common "off-switch" on all nuclear launch facilities.

Besides, could you imagine that conversation?

"Sir, we are going to test the device that will temporarily deactivate nuclear weapons in a certain radius."

"How can you test it?!"

"Sir, we will just try it on one of our own missiles."

"But, don't we need to know how to shut down enemy missiles?"

"Er... anyway... we need a distraction, sir."

"Why's that?"

"Sir, we can't tell the people in charge of operating the missile!"

"Um, why?"

"Sir... this is a secret."

"Wait, wouldn't we want to advertise the fact that we are developing a way to prevent the enemy from launching missiles? Anyway, what kind of distraction?"

"Sir, I propose a disc in the sky of some sort."

"Hmm... a disc, huh? How will that distract the people inside?"

"Sir! It won't! Isn't that brilliant?!"

"I don't follow."

"Well, sir, the guards will see our flying disc, and report it to the people inside. Then we can test our device on our own missiles. We'll do it again next week."

"Well, before you plan for next week, let's see how the debriefing goes."

"Sir... there won't be any debriefing... it's a seeeeeeecret!"

EDIT: And thus, the top secret government program to shut down our own nuclear missiles for a bit while distracting the guards outside with balloon begins!

EDIT PART 2: Sorry, Nismar, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm trying to explain to you why I can't imagine the government collusion theory being very workable. Maybe it's just lack of imagination on my part.
 
Last edited:
  • #268
FlexGunship said:
Jreelawg, you have put yourself in the unfortunate position of not being able to change your mind. Now, you seek to convince everyone to adopt your point of view simply because your position is indefensible. You are the quintessential unsinkable rubber duck.

And what is it that I've made my mind up about?
 
  • #269
jreelawg said:
I'm not guarding some of the most sensitive storage facilities in the world. And good luck getting a balloon to move in a manner consistent with UFO sightings.

FlexGunship said:
Keep in mind this phenomenon consists of observations of objects that have the follow characteristics:

Oh, Jreelawg, you can find a UFO report to support any claim about UFOs you like. Including "do move like balloons" and "don't move like balloons."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #270
nismaratwork said:
I just want to add, Flex, I don't think you're "armchair dismissing"... I think you're being properly skeptical according to the precepts of that philosophy. Just adding my 2 cents. Extraordinary claims require commensurate evidence, period; not anecdote, not group experiences... EVIDENCE. Without that basic concept we're practically abandoning the scientific method, never mind Skepticism.

Are you kidding me? If Flex isn't armchair dismissing, then I must not know what armchair dismissing means.

For example, saying something like, "it doesn't matter what was sighted, all sightings can be dismissed the same way".

It's healthy to be skeptical, but useless if you don't even know what your skeptical about.
 

Similar threads

John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Cosford UFO incident - by Nick Pope
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
Brazil Releases Classified UFO Data
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
15K
UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT SHOWS BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
The original UFO conspiracy nuts
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
Nuclear weapons, FOIA, general public, and "need to know"
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Why the skeptics fear UFOs; AKA The debunkers have something to hide
  • · Replies 119 ·
4
Replies
119
Views
28K
Robert Sheaffer - The Debunker's Dream
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Who Is George Jones in the Meet a Mentor Series?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K