The Newest Definitive "Are We Alone?" Collective Debate

[Hawg73]

In the context of my question, the "gravity" is defined.

They exist. Full stop.

WHY, would "proof" of simply existence be so significant?

I'd like to thank you for the detailed explanation of gravity, but I'm not well-trained enough in the topic to really debate it, much
less with you, so I chose not to reply in order to save valuable electrons. I wanted to, but I'm not going there again.

However, your last question has an obvious answer.

Most people on the planet have only considered ET visitations as a fictional deal and have been told by their Governments (most of 'em)
and religions that we are an island and alone in the universe and that's it.

Obviously, proof (undeniable, obvious, would convince the most skeptical skeptics) would call into question a few minor issues, such as whether the history of our species, particularly that pertaining to religious beliefs, should be re-considered. If the thing we've been told is make-believe isn't....... then maybe other things that are supposed to be real are not.

It's been widely speculated that this might cause the human race to destabilize and we would lose our collective moral compass and the world would fall apart and start to resemble the Mad Max movies. Whether one thinks that a likelihood is a total matter of conjecture, but there is a possibility that some of that might occur.

Other than that, I suppose the potential for the extermination of our species would probably get some folks mildly upset.

Even if the Prime Directive from Star Trek is a solid analogy for how the ETs have behaved and will continue to behave towards us, it would take a lot of episodes
of The View to teach us all the correct way to handle the situation.

 

[O_P_T]

There have been multiple incidents that have been pretty well-documented that they sort of already did.

Of course, many of these events took place on top-secret nuclear bases (i.e., Malmstrom AFB, RAF Woodbridge, UK) so it's not like they
landed on the White House lawn, but there have been hundreds of servicemen, including top brass that have spoken out about these cases which
can only be interpreted as a form of "warning" or a demonstration that they can control whatever they wish to control, so we better not get
any stupider than we already have been.

A brief outline of Malmstrom (but there are much more detailed accounts available):

Ex-Air Force Personnel: UFOs Deactivated Nukes

So you're saying that aliens from another solar system are worried what we might do?

To whom? To them?

How the frack would we be able to do anything to a planet(s) around another star(s)?

To ourselves? Sure, but then that would solve the problem of us doing anything to them.

 

[O_P_T]

I'd like to thank you for the detailed explanation of gravity, but I'm not well-trained enough in the topic to really debate it, much
less with you, so I chose not to reply in order to save valuable electrons. I wanted to, but I'm not going there again.

However, your last question has an obvious answer.

Most people on the planet have only considered ET visitations as a fictional deal and have been told by their Governments (most of 'em)
and religions that we are an island and alone in the universe and that's it.

Obviously, proof (undeniable, obvious, would convince the most skeptical skeptics) would call into question a few minor issues, such as whether the history of our species, particularly that pertaining to religious beliefs, should be re-considered. If the thing we've been told is make-believe isn't....... then maybe other things that are supposed to be real are not.

It's been widely speculated that this might cause the human race to destabilize and we would lose our collective moral compass and the world would fall apart and start to resemble the Mad Max movies. Whether one thinks that a likelihood is a total matter of conjecture, but there is a possibility that some of that might occur.

Other than that, I suppose the potential for the extermination of our species would probably get some folks mildly upset.

Even if the Prime Directive from Star Trek is a solid analogy for how the ETs have behaved and will continue to behave towards us, it would take a lot of episodes
of The View to teach us all the correct way to handle the situation.

OK, thanks for the answer.

Let's break the population down.

There are people who already believe aliens exist, and for them not much of anything will change, other than perhaps a bit of smugness.

There are plenty of people who don't really care about anything other than a small bit of life they focus on: family, sports team, some celebrity, etc. These people don't seem to care about world events that can impact them, so I don't see how this would be any different.

There are people who are devout worshipers of the various religions. They have faith. Faith is, by definition, the belief in the absence of evidence, so the presentation of any other bit of evidence would be moot. So they won't change much either.

So who's left? That group of people who would be amazed by the knowledge, but how much would it really change them?

Various governments have been shown to have lied multiple times, and most people shrugged their shoulders and got on with their day to day lies. Worse case was that the specific government was overthrown, either through elections, or in authoritarian regimes by more direct action.

Would any government be voted out of office for this? Doubt it.

 

[RoadNasty]

A quick summary of former DNI Chief John Ratcliffe's most recent comments:

 

[Hawg73]

So you're saying that aliens from another solar system are worried what we might do?

To whom? To them?

How the frack would we be able to do anything to a planet(s) around another star(s)?

To ourselves? Sure, but then that would solve the problem of us doing anything to them.

Yes, they're worried we might destroy the planet.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that even though these beings have found a way to travel vast distances with relative ease, our planet
still has it's uses as a sort of highway rest stop for practical reasons, such as a source of natural resources or a convenient place to repair or refuel their crafts. I don't
want to try to put too fine a point on it, but I personally like the concept that life evolves in some unique ways around the galaxy and is interesting to study.

UFOs, according to thousands of reports, come in quite a variety of shapes and sizes. You've got you cigars, your saucers and triangles. Small probe-style lights and giant
craft that would dwarf a cruise ship. Hundreds of varieties have been reported. Maybe there are a bunch of different kinds of ETs that have something approaching human curiosity. What if we're a tourist destination? A really big ant-farm to study and feel superior over. Maybe they don't need slaves or plutonium and find it entertaining to observe us and simply study the endless
diversity of life as an academic pursuit or something that approaches that.

And no, they aren't worried about us being a threat to them. Lightning might be, but we aren't going to be shooting any Sidewinder missles up their tailpipes.

OK, thanks for the answer.

Let's break the population down.

There are people who already believe aliens exist, and for them not much of anything will change, other than perhaps a bit of smugness.

There are plenty of people who don't really care about anything other than a small bit of life they focus on: family, sports team, some celebrity, etc. These people don't seem to care about world events that can impact them, so I don't see how this would be any different.

There are people who are devout worshipers of the various religions. They have faith. Faith is, by definition, the belief in the absence of evidence, so the presentation of any other bit of evidence would be moot. So they won't change much either.

So who's left? That group of people who would be amazed by the knowledge, but how much would it really change them?

Various governments have been shown to have lied multiple times, and most people shrugged their shoulders and got on with their day to day lies. Worse case was that the specific government was overthrown, either through elections, or in authoritarian regimes by more direct action.

Would any government be voted out of office for this? Doubt it.

I can see that you aren't too worried about the big reveal causing a huge breakdown in society or whatever. And, sure, that's a possibility. Who can really say? The context
of the news could be benign enough or not.

There are those that think the way Disclosure is being handled now is designed to gradually get the herd used to the idea so that a shocked populace doesn't throw
themselves off the nearest cliff in fear of Reptiilian monsters taking over.

As a long-time believer, I think Disclosure is simply the right thing to do and it won't change me a bit, but as a cynic, I think the possibility of significant civil unrest is high enough, but
probably overstated. I'm more or less just reviewing the commonly-heard theories.

I figured something was up when the Vatican changed their tune a few years back and stated that if there were aliens then they were all God's creations, too. That's just
another step in the process, like a parent telling their concerned child "Oh, honey.....Santa can't make ALL the toys, so Mom and Dad give you some, too!"

Then the next year it's time to destroy what's left of the kid's North Pole dreams, but hopefully it won't be quite so traumatic by then and the kid won't need therapy.

l

 

[O_P_T]

 

[O_P_T]

Yes, they're worried we might destroy the planet.

The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that even though these beings have found a way to travel vast distances with relative ease, our planet
still has it's uses as a sort of highway rest stop for practical reasons, such as a source of natural resources or a convenient place to repair or refuel their crafts. I don't
want to try to put too fine a point on it, but I personally like the concept that life evolves in some unique ways around the galaxy and is interesting to study.

UFOs, according to thousands of reports, come in quite a variety of shapes and sizes. You've got you cigars, your saucers and triangles. Small probe-style lights and giant
craft that would dwarf a cruise ship. Hundreds of varieties have been reported. Maybe there are a bunch of different kinds of ETs that have something approaching human curiosity. What if we're a tourist destination? A really big ant-farm to study and feel superior over. Maybe they don't need slaves or plutonium and find it entertaining to observe us and simply study the endless
diversity of life as an academic pursuit or something that approaches that.

And no, they aren't worried about us being a threat to them. Lightning might be, but we aren't going to be shooting any Sidewinder missles up their tailpipes.



I can see that you aren't too worried about the big reveal causing a huge breakdown in society or whatever. And, sure, that's a possibility. Who can really say? The context
of the news could be benign enough or not.

There are those that think the way Disclosure is being handled now is designed to gradually get the herd used to the idea so that a shocked populace doesn't throw
themselves off the nearest cliff in fear of Reptiilian monsters taking over.

As a long-time believer, I think Disclosure is simply the right thing to do and it won't change me a bit, but as a cynic, I think the possibility of significant civil unrest is high enough, but
probably overstated. I'm more or less just reviewing the commonly-heard theories.

I figured something was up when the Vatican changed their tune a few years back and stated that if there were aliens then they were all God's creations, too. That's just
another step in the process, like a parent telling their concerned child "Oh, honey.....Santa can't make ALL the toys, so Mom and Dad give you some, too!"

Then the next year it's time to destroy what's left of the kid's North Pole dreams, but hopefully it won't be quite so traumatic by then and the kid won't need therapy.

l

Hawg, I get it, you're a true believer.

I'm not.

I find none of the so called evidence, or testimony convincing.

As I've said previously in multiple posts, the human brain is hardwired to find patterns and match observed phenomena to some pre established template.

Laying on a hillside and finding animals in the shapes of clouds is just one example.

The reason the brain is hardwired that way has a very simple explanation. It provides an evolutionarily benefit.

The CPU processing in the brain to match sensory input to a preconceived template is significantly less than processing the whole data set. So it can be done faster. That can mean the difference between life and death for that ancient hominid trying to figure out if that's a lion in the grass or not. The penalty for a false call identifying a pattern as a lion is trivial. The cost of not calling it correctly is death.

So those hominids that did that well stayed alive long enough to breed more hominids and the trait was reinforced and it sticks until today.

The recent videos released by the Navy fall into this category.

What are fighter pilots trained to do?

Find and shoot down other enemy planes.

If they are slow to identify an enemy plane, then they are toast.

So just like the ancient hominid in the bush, they apply a pattern matching to what they see and define things that way, based on what they expect to see.

So if they see they see a flying object, is that because that's really what they see, or because that's what they are predisposed to find.

Now, I agree there are a small subset of sighting that cannot be easily explained. For most of those, I have a candidate to explain them. Ball Lightning.

 

[RoadNasty]

Congressman Andre Carson on CBS News responding to a question about craft retrieval:


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1618280824092372993

 

[O_P_T]

Congressman Andre Carson on CBS News responding to a question about craft retrieval:


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1618280824092372993

Have you ever worked on classified topics?

The answer given by whomever that government official was, was classic classified double speak.

OK, let's consider a hypothetical.

Suppose an F-119 crashed during a test flight when it was still a totally black program.

Suppose that it crashed in an area outside of direct government control, so that civilians may have some knowledge of it.

What do you think the government would say about that crash?

Would they say that it was a US aircraft under development?

No way, they would use an existing, or construct a new, cover story to deflect the story from the real answer, from a super secret development program.

You don't think UFO's make an easy mark for such a deflection? Especially since any black development program would have at least one characteristic that was not typical for an average aircraft.

 

[RoadNasty]

Of course the Gov't is infamous for double speak.

However, Andre Carson in the past couple years has been interviewed time and again regarding the UFO topic - and against the secrecy and cover ups associated with it all.

So unless he's the latest incarnation of Richard Doty, I'll figure he's a straight shooter.

 

[Hawg73]

Hawg, I get it, you're a true believer.

I'm not.

I find none of the so called evidence, or testimony convincing.

What are fighter pilots trained to do?

Find and shoot down other enemy planes.

If they are slow to identify an enemy plane, then they are toast.

So just like the ancient hominid in the bush, they apply a pattern matching to what they see and define things that way, based on what they expect to see.

I agree there are a small subset of sighting that cannot be easily explained. For most of those, I have a candidate to explain them. Ball Lightning.

I'll respond to the bolded parts, in order.

1. Yes, here we are again. The wild-eyed believer vs. the skeptic.

Instead of a debate, let me ask you what, if any, evidence would your require to change your mind? Please be specific if you choose to respond.

2. I can tell you that I would love to hear you explain that foolproof pattern-matching science to the Navy Pilots, David Fravor et al. You
could school them as to how it's not their fault, but, it's a fact that they are delusional and incapable of telling the difference between a UAP (the one
that is clearly visible on their cameras in multiple shots and verified as authentic by the U.S. Government) and a cloud that looks like
a baby duck. That conversation would not go well for you. Pretttty sure.

3. Ball lightning? Now you're just trolling me and we've already covered that subject. It's a ludicrous way to connect the dots between that really
cool-looking phenomena and 99% of the reports by credible witnesses. I'd suggest you seek employment as an official Government UFO
debunker, but it's probably a few decades too late for that. They aren't doing much hiring these days, but you might've really done well in that
field, which required coming up with totally implausible explanations to confuse the simple-minded.

 

[O_P_T]

I'll respond to the bolded parts, in order.

1. Yes, here we are again. The wild-eyed believer vs. the skeptic.

Instead of a debate, let me ask you what, if any, evidence would your require to change your mind? Please be specific if you choose to respond.

2. I can tell you that I would love to hear you explain that foolproof pattern-matching science to the Navy Pilots, David Fravor et al. You
could school them as to how it's not their fault, but, it's a fact that they are delusional and incapable of telling the difference between a UAP (the one
that is clearly visible on their cameras in multiple shots and verified as authentic by the U.S. Government) and a cloud that looks like
a baby duck. That conversation would not go well for you. Pretttty sure.

3. Ball lightning? Now you're just trolling me and we've already covered that subject. It's a ludicrous way to connect the dots between that really
cool-looking phenomena and 99% of the reports by credible witnesses. I'd suggest you seek employment as an official Government UFO
debunker, but it's probably a few decades too late for that. They aren't doing much hiring these days, but you might've really done well in that
field, which required coming up with totally implausible explanations to confuse the simple-minded.

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What do I think would fit the bill? How about an image/video in focus, in natural light, showing the craft. Even then, there have been countless hoaxes staged like this through the years.

2)



I guess I wasn't clear regarding the pattern matching I described. I'm not suggesting that the pilots saw clouds, I was using the animals in clouds as an example that most of us can understand since we've all done it.

As the video shows, the pilots saw "something" and their pattern matching lead them to interpret it as another aircraft, since that's what they are predisposed to identify things they see as being.

Here's another example for you on that pattern matching bit.

How often has a cop shot someone who they thought had a gun, but it turned out to be something else. Cops are sensitized to identify if the person has a weapon, since if they don't, they can end up dead.

So why do they misidentify what's in someone's hands so often? Adrenaline and pattern matching make them do it.

3) Really, so just why is ball lightning so ludicrous? It's not fully understood as to how it forms, or how it can behave. There's plenty of electrical stuff in the atmosphere that's poorly understood.

Hell Sprites were only confirmed to exist in 1989.

So how do you know enough about ball lightning to be able to reject it? Why can't ball lightning explain some of the objects observed? Heck the way it can move and vanish matches many UFO descriptions.

It doesn't require lighting to form, it can be created by compressing rock.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I'm pretty firmly in the OPT trench when it comes to UFO's...but I'm more about "99% that there are no aliens visiting Earth". I like to keep my mind open for new information regarding anything.

I used to believe that Bigfoot was 50/50. In this day and age, though...everyone is running around with a camera that they have on them 100% of the time, with a quality that only professionals could dream of back in the day. Everyone is armed and ready for some good quality footage at the drop of a dime.

So, my skepticism is greater than ever. Especially when you get sightings of UFO's over cities and highly populated areas. There should be hundreds, if not thousands of film and photos from every possible angle, with zoom and megapixel quality.....I just don't see them. I don't want to see "lights bouncing around int eh sky", I want to see some kind of physical object, a material, with windows or whatever. I want to see some kind of aperture and detail that I can point to and say "that looks like a thruster". Not glowy lights from far away. I honestly don't care about lights. I know that perfectly normal things can look like lights through a camera lens, and I know that depth perception is deceptive, at best, when filming the sky....something might look like a 100 yard object but actually only be a foot.

On one other topic.....ball lightning. It's real. I've seen it with my own eyes....although it looks nothing like what you see on these fake videos. It looks more like a translucent glow, almost not there at all. Like a fuzzy bubble. You may not see it in the daytime at all. But it's there. You can hear it as a sort of static hum, just like a Van de Graaff generator. You can smell ozone if it is stuck in one place awhile, like at the top of a mast on a sailboat. If it is moving, it comes and goes pretty fast...kind of hovers for a few seconds and then I guess as soon as it touches something it grounds and just vanishes. Never heard any kind of thunderclap sound, it just goes away. Don't ask me why it doesn't ground itself on a sailboat mast...I don't know. Maybe the fiberglass floats prevent it from completing the circuit to the water. It can hang there for a long time, though.

 

[RoadGrader]

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What do I think would fit the bill? How about an image/video in focus, in natural light, showing the craft. Even then, there have been countless hoaxes staged like this through the years.

2)



I guess I wasn't clear regarding the pattern matching I described. I'm not suggesting that the pilots saw clouds, I was using the animals in clouds as an example that most of us can understand since we've all done it.

As the video shows, the pilots saw "something" and their pattern matching lead them to interpret it as another aircraft, since that's what they are predisposed to identify things they see as being.

Here's another example for you on that pattern matching bit.

How often has a cop shot someone who they thought had a gun, but it turned out to be something else. Cops are sensitized to identify if the person has a weapon, since if they don't, they can end up dead.

So why do they misidentify what's in someone's hands so often? Adrenaline and pattern matching make them do it.

3) Really, so just why is ball lightning so ludicrous? It's not fully understood as to how it forms, or how it can behave. There's plenty of electrical stuff in the atmosphere that's poorly understood.

Hell Sprites were only confirmed to exist in 1989.

So how do you know enough about ball lightning to be able to reject it? Why can't ball lightning explain some of the objects observed? Heck the way it can move and vanish matches many UFO descriptions.

It doesn't require lighting to form, it can be created by compressing rock.

gawd-dammit O_P_T ---- why do have to spoil all my UFO fantasies

 

[Hawg73]

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What do I think would fit the bill? How about an image/video in focus, in natural light, showing the craft. Even then, there have been countless hoaxes staged like this through the years.

2)



I guess I wasn't clear regarding the pattern matching I described. I'm not suggesting that the pilots saw clouds, I was using the animals in clouds as an example that most of us can understand since we've all done it.

As the video shows, the pilots saw "something" and their pattern matching lead them to interpret it as another aircraft, since that's what they are predisposed to identify things they see as being.

Here's another example for you on that pattern matching bit.

How often has a cop shot someone who they thought had a gun, but it turned out to be something else. Cops are sensitized to identify if the person has a weapon, since if they don't, they can end up dead.

So why do they misidentify what's in someone's hands so often? Adrenaline and pattern matching make them do it.

3) Really, so just why is ball lightning so ludicrous? It's not fully understood as to how it forms, or how it can behave. There's plenty of electrical stuff in the atmosphere that's poorly understood.

Hell Sprites were only confirmed to exist in 1989.

So how do you know enough about ball lightning to be able to reject it? Why can't ball lightning explain some of the objects observed? Heck the way it can move and vanish matches many UFO descriptions.

It doesn't require lighting to form, it can be created by compressing rock.

No, you were clear about your explanation of pattern matching, I get it. A hunter in the woods wants to bag a deer, but shoots and kills an unfortunate hiker, because.....deer. It's a tale as old as time. The baby duck thing was me being sarcastic, which I thought would be obvious. Of course, many hunters would see the hiker and recognize them as "not a deer"
and would never pull that trigger. So.....what if they wanted a deer just as bad as the first guy? You can go round and round with that stuff.

I'm not saying pattern matching doesn't exist or the human mind doesn't have some protective mechanisms built into it. I recognize that is true and can be a useful
tool in understanding how humans perceive their world, but, as a species, we might as well throw up our hands and scream FUCK!!!! Nothing is real!!! Every time we
see anything if we put too much stock in your theory.

In fact, most things that people see, the vast majority, are actually there and identified correctly.

I just opened up a bill for 499 bucks that I know I have to pay, but I really wanted it to be a notice that I just inherited 2.5 million. Imagine my disappointment, but
there it was. My wife corroborated it, so, there.

I see my world using my own senses and mind, thank you, and I haven't yet seen a UFO, much as I would like to. You cannot prove pattern matching actually exists, nor quantify it's effects in any meaningful way. I could claim it to be so much psychobabble, but will allow it just this one time because I'm a reasonable man. It's not the "science" but your usage
of it which is the fundamental problem here.

Not that I'm mad at you for being an excellent debater, but your attempt to explain away the experiences of the many highly-trained witnesses on record from the Nimitz group (multiple occasions over the span of a multiple day deployment, including corroborating radar data) by using pattern matching as an explanation is a massive stretch of logic, which I'm
pretty sure you already know.


Anyhow, I see you're still on the ball lightning thing. I watched your clip, so watch this 2011 incident from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and tell me what you see. And it
better not be ball lightning or I'm going to get cranky.


View: https://youtu.be/bZG4PnN97IA

 

[RoadNasty]

1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I guess I wasn't clear regarding the pattern matching I described. I'm not suggesting that the pilots saw clouds, I was using the animals in clouds as an example that most of us can understand since we've all done it.

As the video shows, the pilots saw "something" and their pattern matching lead them to interpret it as another aircraft, since that's what they are predisposed to identify things they see as being.

Regarding the Nimitz and the FA-18 pilot sightings- it wasn't just visual, the Princeton had these objects on radar, first at 80,000 feet, then they dropped to 28,000 feet, then down to sea level. This is why they vectored the jets to this spot to get a visual of what the radars were picking up. I remember the testimony of the Princeton chief on the situation, I'll have to look for his video again sometime.

 

[RoadNasty]

This is Navy Senior Chief Kevin Day relating his experiences on the Princeton with his radar systems:



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDoLsEQayYw

 

[deec77]

Do I believe there is something greater then me yep.... not sure where it goes from there. Do I think there are other species out there most likely not sure how the development of how it works it’s beyond my conception. My point. Who am I to overthrow the system.


~Dee~

 

[O_P_T]

No, you were clear about your explanation of pattern matching, I get it. A hunter in the woods wants to bag a deer, but shoots and kills an unfortunate hiker, because.....deer. It's a tale as old as time. The baby duck thing was me being sarcastic, which I thought would be obvious. Of course, many hunters would see the hiker and recognize them as "not a deer"
and would never pull that trigger. So.....what if they wanted a deer just as bad as the first guy? You can go round and round with that stuff.

I'm not saying pattern matching doesn't exist or the human mind doesn't have some protective mechanisms built into it. I recognize that is true and can be a useful
tool in understanding how humans perceive their world, but, as a species, we might as well throw up our hands and scream FUCK!!!! Nothing is real!!! Every time we
see anything if we put too much stock in your theory.

In fact, most things that people see, the vast majority, are actually there and identified correctly.

I just opened up a bill for 499 bucks that I know I have to pay, but I really wanted it to be a notice that I just inherited 2.5 million. Imagine my disappointment, but
there it was. My wife corroborated it, so, there.

I see my world using my own senses and mind, thank you, and I haven't yet seen a UFO, much as I would like to. You cannot prove pattern matching actually exists, nor quantify it's effects in any meaningful way. I could claim it to be so much psychobabble, but will allow it just this one time because I'm a reasonable man. It's not the "science" but your usage
of it which is the fundamental problem here.

Not that I'm mad at you for being an excellent debater, but your attempt to explain away the experiences of the many highly-trained witnesses on record from the Nimitz group (multiple occasions over the span of a multiple day deployment, including corroborating radar data) by using pattern matching as an explanation is a massive stretch of logic, which I'm
pretty sure you already know.


Anyhow, I see you're still on the ball lightning thing. I watched your clip, so watch this 2011 incident from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and tell me what you see. And it
better not be ball lightning or I'm going to get cranky.


View: https://youtu.be/bZG4PnN97IA

Hawg, the pattern matching thing is most significant when one is presented with something out of the ordinary.

Let me give you an example. I've been wearing glasses for over 50 years, so I've had countless eye exams over that period.

You get into a habit when you take those exams and are asked to read what you see. Things fall into groups. You learn to consider what letters have common shapes and choose which one you think it is. For example, an E or a B, an O or a Q, etc.

Well I recall one time when I was getting an exam and when I got to the end of one of the lines, my brain froze. I couldn't process what I saw. I glitched and then realized it was a 3. I had never had an eye chart with numbers so my brain was not expecting to see them. As I recall, I said to the eye doctor "Holy shit, that's a 3, and the one at the end of the previous line isn't an S, but a 5!"

Yeah, I had called the 5 an S on the previous line because my brain was expecting letters and so that's what I saw.

So as long as one is looking at "normal" things, the pattern matching works fine and we never notice the discrepancies. It's only when we observe things that step outside of the "normal" that the pattern matching can prove problematic.

Hell, consider any controversial NFL ruling and I can assure you the fans for either team will be 100% certain they saw completely different things. Is the reality all that different, or do their perspectives make them focus and ignore different things? Clearly the latter.

Oh and regarding the radar data look here

Oh and with regards to the temple mount video?

Get cranky and tell me why it can't be ball lightning.

Please explain just what are the specific descriptions/limitations we know, with some degree of certainty, that say it couldn't do that.

 

[RoadNasty]

I think the recent statements of former DNI Chief John Ratcliffe pretty much override the weather balloon, planet Venus, swamp gas, X-plane, and ball lightning explanations as a 100% be-all end-all in the way of explanations.

Sure - a good % of sightings over the past 75 years were undoubtedly in those categories, or others, but apparently not all as Mr Ratcliffe is intimating:

"Objects that demonstrate technologies that seem to defy the laws of physics and capabilities that we don't have as the world's superpower"

"I can't talk to you about any potential alien life, so I'll just have to leave it at that"