The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

No, you have to show what information could possibly be added such that the "go fast" Navy tape shows something unusual.

Just claiming there is more information is a BS answer to the debunking of the "go fast" tape. And, it shows an attitude that is fully dismissive of concrete evidence - which IS a central characteristic of the UFOlogy world.

Do you agree that the "go fast" tape does NOT show what the pilots perceived it to be?

I addressed the forest for the trees above.

 

I haven’t said it’s aliens. Bill Nelson has said they are being intelligently controlled, and they’re not ours and there not anybody else’s.

Alien may just be a semantical issue. They don’t have to be from outer space, but it’s something with intelligence that is other than Human.

That is what actively serving government officials are currently saying.

They may be lying, but either way this is bigger than the go fast video.

 

No, those you cite do not pose Earth as a realistic source. Suggesting there is life from Earth that has entirely different physics is ridiculous, I'm sure you would agree.

I don't believe they are lying. I have not suggested that anyone of lying so far that I know.

However, I do not see any way for all these variants of "I don't know" to add up to support for an alien source.

The thing about the "go fast" is that it demonstrates the behavior of "true believers" in the face of hard evidence. And, that behavior is to brush it off as irrelevant!!!!

As for the rest of the Navy tapes, there are just two possible explanations:

- our entire view of physics is crap and there are aliens buzzing Earth.

- the explanations of these events is within reasonable limits of what happens on Earth, with our physics, with our powers of perception, etc.

Deciding that everything we know is total crap, even though we have NO hard core evidence is NOT the rational choice here.

You can't just write off physics as somehow being irrelevant.

 

OK, that's interesting.

What do you think it is if it isn't aliens and it isn't a matter of events for which we don't have provable explanations?

Again, my own view coincides with "we don't know" pretty darn well.

We are not going to know what the DoD knows or what the analysis is of the similar organizations of other countries. Our sensing capabilities, what we've seen, etc., is not free for viewing for solid reasons.

And, I still believe our physics isn't crap.

From there, my view is that we need serious evidence if anyone is to claim space aliens in our airspace. And, I do not see anything resembling that kind of evidence.

What "go fast" means to me is that those who tout such evidence have a massive credibility gap. It's a canary in the coal mine.

 

Im not making any claim about what it is other than it’s something way more interesting than you seem to be willing to accept.

Any specific guess about what it could be is just going to give you fuel to call me a “true believer”.

Bill Nelson thinks it’s a non human intelligence, and he has access to more information than any of us, Mick West included.

 

What he's done so far appears not to have been enough to get him charged.

Of course, that's a complex area where even the most secure of prosecutions and what's best for national defense can conflict.

I just don't see a way to turn anything related to Elizondo into support for the idea that aliens are flying in our airspace.

 

I wouldn't think that your concern for what I might say would be a sufficient reason to hide your view.

Plus, I sure hope my record here shows a focus on the issue, not on calling people names.

The real problem with your last sentence is that what Mick West has stated involves analysis of specific Navy tapes. I do not see evidence that Bill Nelson knows more than West concerning the sensing technology demonstrated by those tapes.

Of course, Bill Nelson, you and everyone else can claim you know and I don't. However, I really don't see where that argument goes!

Not even Bill Nelson claims the degree to which his conjecture is based on evidence.

 

What makes you say I’m hiding my view?

I said I don’t pretend to know what it is.

When I said that earlier about any answer would lead you to call me a true believer, I was talking about the reason you asked the question, not why I was giving the answer I gave.

 

It's easier to talk with someone who is willing to make his views known.

And, it allows finding common ground.

 

I’ve stated my view several times, including in the past two replies.

 

Again, how many times do I have to repeat this?

This is not about aliens flying around in space.

This is about your false assertions that all the videos have banal explanations.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Got it?

 

You are obviously not informed as to who and what Elizondo is all about.

 

the depth of your failure is mindboggling.

I REPEAT

I did. Your premise is false.

You say it doesn't take science.

That false, it takes forensic science.

You've put all your eggs in West's basket.

Forensic science would not put all it's eggs in a debunker's basket if that debunker refuses to do a complete, thorough, forensic analysis.

Proving his 'math' is acquiescing to a false premise, that his math proves something, it doesn't.

It doesn't because the forensics proves it doesn't.

How do I know that is true? Iisten to the audiotape, below.

Robert Powell, Richard Hoffman, Morgan Fiel in the fall of 2017 founded a non profit organization
Called the Scientific Coalition of UAP studies. Over 120 members, 28% of membership are PHDs,
professors from Universities, NASA employees, people who are in the defense industry, people who
are in the high tech industry. Over half the SCUS membership have advanced degrees

He utterly destroys your premise.

https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...-the-science-behind-the-nimitz-ufo-encounter/

Listen to the whole thing. but note 33:47 where Greenwald asks Powell about West claim on the camera 'moving off to the left and losing lock'

He DESTROYS Mick West

Moreover, Powell confronted West about doing a forensic investigation, he refused. West also refused to appear in the above interview after he was invited.

Real Science: a 270 forensic study on the Nimitz 2004 videos

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uY47ijzGETwYJocR1uhqxP0KTPWChlOG/view

YOur argument is utterly, completely, thoroughly, fully, wholly

DESTROYED

If you can't accept that, after reviewing the forensic analysis above, then there is only one place for you, and that is the ignore function of this forum.

However, if you think you can refute the forensics, I'll listen. But West doesn't cut the mustard, as it were.

This is not about 'aliens flying around' the argument is your false claim that all the videos have banal explanations
.
THat is what this argument is about.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Since we don't have details on the circumstances, we really can`t pass judgement on whether shooting was justifiable or not. The bogey was violating sovereign airspace and was probably evading attempts to catch up with it. We can presume that it was not a craft that filed a prior flight plan. It was seen to have capabilities far exceeding any known piloted craft built by humans. We don't know for sure if it entirely fitted the description of unknown type, because the pursuer might have been able to see enough of its details such as unusual size and shape, which again lends consideration of it being a legitimate target. But you insist on lumping it in with anything that could be getting in harms way. So, have it your way. I don't want to discuss it any further.

I don't recall bringing up that question, and it may seem overly speculative, but sensibility suggests that extraordinary capability could be the result of otherworldly technology far beyond what we can grasp. We are just like new kids on the block, whereas many other habitable planets must be far older than ours by millions of years.[/QUOTE]

 

Look, you keep dodging and dodging and dodging.

I don't see anywhere that you have addressed the "go fast" Navy tape.

I focused on that one, because it is so trivial to debunk. And, the methodology for debunking it has nothing to do with Mick West - it has to do with high school math.

You have failed to address that tape in ANY WAY.

Posting more stuff about other tapes is just more dodging.

 

Our pilots do not have the right to shoot down aircraft that have not been identified as a threat, regardless of whether they are in our airspace.

And, let's assume for a moment that the craft is alien.

There is NO justification for shooting at an alien who has shown no belligerence.

That would be the most profoundly STUPID act that could be imagined.

Have you listened to the tapes of our fighter craft flying in airspace near conflict? They are in constant contact with ground control and don't get permission to fire until they have received serious threat multiple times, and their evasive maneuvers have been followed by the offending craft reacquiring them.

That pilot who shot at a craft on his own recognisance with no identification and no threat should never fly another aircraft with arms. In fact, there should be a court marshall.

 

Obviously, you can't read or understand english. And now....

You are embarrassing yourself.

Reread the rebuttal to which you are replying, do it until you have an epiphany.

Until then,

To the ignore function you go, because ignorance begets ignorance.

So report me, I could care less.

 

Good lord. There is nothing to report you for.

All I've done is ask for a refutation of the debunking of the "go fast" video that you believe in.

That really shouldn't be upsetting.

 

*cough*cough* you have not accepted the revelation of the coming.

 

Wonderful. A search did not turn up info on an actual firing on a UFO. One incident that I did not explore further involved a noisy complicated battle. Here's another: Pilot was ordered to fire on a UFO.

U.S. News
Updated
U.S. pilot was ordered to shoot down UFO
By Peter Griffiths

3 Min Read

LONDON (Reuters) - Two U.S. fighter planes were scrambled and ordered to shoot down an unidentified flying object (UFO) over the English countryside during the Cold War, according to secret files made public on Monday.

One pilot said he was seconds away from firing 24 rockets at the object, which moved erratically and gave a radar reading like “a flying aircraft carrier.”

The pilot, Milton Torres, now 77 and living in Miami, said it spent periods motionless in the sky before reaching estimated speeds of more than 7,600 mph.

After the alert, a shadowy figure told Torres he must never talk about the incident and he duly kept silent for more than 30 years.

His story was among dozens of UFO sightings in defense ministry files released at the National Archives in London.

In a written account, Torres described how he scrambled his F-86 D Sabre jet in calm weather from the Royal Air Force base at Manston, Kent in May 1957.

“I was only a lieutenant and very much aware of the gravity of the situation. I felt very much like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest,” he said.

“The order came to fire a salvo of rockets at the UFO. The authentication was valid and I selected 24 rockets.

“I had a lock-on that had the proportions of a flying aircraft carrier,” he added. “The larger the airplane, the easier the lock-on. This blip almost locked itself.”

At the last moment, the object disappeared from the radar screen and the high-speed chase was called off.


He returned to base and was debriefed the next day by an unnamed man who “looked like a well-dressed IBM salesman.”

“He threatened me with a national security breach if I breathed a word about it to anyone,” he said.

The documents contain no official explanation for the incident, which came at a time of heightened tension between the West and the Soviet Union. Planes were on constant stand-by at British bases for a possible Soviet attack.

The files blame other UFO sightings on weather balloons, clouds or normal aircraft. Torres said he had been waiting 50 years for an explanation.

“I shall never forget it,” he told the Times. “On that night I was ordered to open fire even before I had taken off. That had never happened before.”


UFO expert David Clarke said the sighting may have been part of a secret U.S. project to create phantom aircraft on radar screens to test Soviet air defenses.

“Perhaps what this pilot had seen was some kind of experiment in electronic warfare or maybe it was a UFO,” he said. “Something very unusual happened.”

The files are online at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ufos

Editing by Steve Addison

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

 

Good read -
Thanks!

 

My source on the firing of a missile at a UFO said the news he heard cited a Russian jet that fired the missile. The UFO destroyed the missile.

 

Yes, I think the report I heard did involve a Russian jet.

I agree that as far as WE know, the object fired upon is unknown. And, there may be evidence that the missile exploded, but we don't we know what caused that, either.

 

Would you become a citizen of Asgardia:

 

Sure if it looks like this.