How the Pentagon Started Taking U.F.O.s Seriously

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, Brick said:

 

Well I'm not so interested in microscopic life which we know is on Mars. I want to see more complex like. Imagine an animal about the size of a wolf, or hell the size of an elephant, or even a giant like our dinosaurs, but it's on another planet. 

 

I think it was either Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking who said that many scientists are too narrow in their search for planets that can sustain life because they're looking for planets that can sustain human life; life can evolve to adapt to many kinds of environments, so it's possible that a planet that has an environment that is inhospitable to humans because it's atmosphere is, I don't know, made up of nitrogen, helium, and krypton, but no oxygen is still home to life because the plants and animals there evolved and adapted to breathe those gases. 

 

Scientists also talk about how all life on Earth is carbon based, but there could exist silicon based life, so imagine what a silicon based lifeform would look like. 

[SuperSpreader]

@mclumber1

 

 

Dorse number 3

M.IMGUR.COM

---

Imgur: The magic of the Internet

 

[Jason]

[Jason]

[Jason]

[Jason]

[Brick]

40 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

 

What? 

[Uaarkson]

@Jason u alright there buddy 

[Zaku3]

Just now, Uaarkson said:

@Jason u alright there buddy 

 

His favorite game is Impossible Creatures and he is spreading the love. 

[Jason]

5 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

@Jason u alright there buddy 

 

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, Brick said:

 

What? 

 

Those are the Chmmr from Star Control 2. They were a merger of sentient machine life (Mmrnmhrm) and silicon-based life (Chenjesu).

[Brick]

39 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Those are the Chmmr from Star Control 2. They were a merger of sentient machine life (Mmrnmhrm) and silicon-based life (Chenjesu).

 

OK. The picture is just weird and doesn't really show anything. 

[cusideabelincoln]

I'm glad I just skipped to the last paragraph of the article, when the entire thing is based on the "factual evidence" of some old person's 40-year-old memory of some event that may or may not have been completely imagined, hallucinated, or illusioned.

[Uaarkson]

32 minutes ago, cusideabelincoln said:

I'm glad I just skipped to the last paragraph of the article, when the entire thing is based on the "factual evidence" of some old person's 40-year-old memory of some event that may or may not have been completely imagined, hallucinated, or illusioned.

Yep. These quacks have been attention-whoring like this for decades. I didn’t even give one shit about UFOs until the Pentagon started releasing their own footage.

[best3444]

If I'd have to guess I'm pretty sure we're not the only living beings in the universe. Just a guess, though. 

[Guest]

I would love for aliens to visit our planet even though it is highly unlikely to happen

[Keyser_Soze]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I would love for aliens to visit our planet even though it is highly unlikely to happen

 

Would you accept their currency at your movie theater?

[Kal-El814]

9 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Would you accept their currency at your movie theater?

 

He’s already hedged and has some in his portfolio.

[AbsolutSurgen]

 

 

It will be interesting to see the final report.  If there are aircraft that have capabilities that are significantly beyond what the NATO powers currently believe are possible flying around our airspace -- does it matter if they are alien, time travelers, Russian, or Chinese?

What would really matter is that someone with super-advanced technology is teasing the US Navy.

[CitizenVectron]

Something to keep in mind is that many of these cases (not saying all, or even none!) will not even be aircraft at all, they could be imaging artifacts. Certainly not the case all the time, but anything that captures light (or any form of radiation) suffers false artifacts that appear to be things in the background, often moving erratically (to an observer). Combine this will eye-witness testimony (which is completely untrustworthy, even from pilots), and many or most of these cases will be bunk to begin with. So it's like, yeah, maybe these things appear to be moving in violation of known laws of physics, and beyond anything humans have developed...but that could be because they aren't even things to begin with, just imaging artifacts.

 

I'm not saying there isn't something flying around, sometimes...but we also can't trust the government when it says "wow, this is neat, and it sure wasn't our secret stuff!"

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

Something to keep in mind is that many of these cases (not saying all, or even none!) will not even be aircraft at all, they could be imaging artifacts. Certainly not the case all the time, but anything that captures light (or any form of radiation) suffers false artifacts that appear to be things in the background, often moving erratically (to an observer). Combine this will eye-witness testimony (which is completely untrustworthy, even from pilots), and many or most of these cases will be bunk to begin with. So it's like, yeah, maybe these things appear to be moving in violation of known laws of physics, and beyond anything humans have developed...but that could be because they aren't even things to begin with, just imaging artifacts.

 

I'm not saying there isn't something flying around, sometimes...but we also can't trust the government when it says "wow, this is neat, and it sure wasn't our secret stuff!"

You're absolutely right.  Visual sightings don't mean very much (most of the time).  Visual sightings with corresponding RADAR confirmation are harder to explain.  That's why the report will be so interesting to see -- potentially seeing, for the first time, what data sources they do (or don't) have.