How do you convince someone otherwise who thinks all these UAP's are ours?

To me, that conversation starts with a discussion of the flight characteristics and physical capabilities these things have demonstrated. It seemingly defies science—or, at least, science as we know it. Some of these things maneuver in ways that would make it impossible for a human to be onboard, which begs all kinds of other questions.

Of course that discussion gets murky in a hurry. Is the cutting edge of science informed by captured technology and reverse-engineering efforts? There are some intriguing patents out there.

originally posted by: Akaspeedy
I thought this was already in the public domain…..it was radar…..apparently……radar affected that ufo and brought it down

No, hadn't heard that, but everybody knows high frequency radio waves pack quite a wallop. I live in fear of a WiFi building collapse. The aliens could have forgotten to tell the crew to turn off their portable devices, too. Sad Bob Marley wasn't around. They could have simply played Jammin over those alien, anti grav speakers. You'd think an advanced alien civilization would have already known how many aircraft are brought down by radar. You must be a scientist!

a reply to: spacemanjupiter

How is it pretty clear these UAPs are not "ours"?

Think about the tech that exists.

Now think about all the prominent people who have first hand knowledge of the black projects that have said it's usually around thirty years before the public is exposed to such tech.

Even if there's off world beings involved it makes sense that what is seen in the skies are test projects.

a reply to: spacemanjupiter


Tell him these UAP's are documented in the late 1800''s and well documented in the 1920's 30's 40's.

Have him explain to you how we could develop such craft then.... craft the could travel at 10,000 miles per hour,, can turn on a perfect right angle at that speed,, has no visible means of propulsion, no wings of any sort....long before even the microchip was invented and when a large percentage of even the most developed countries were still using HORSES as their only means of transportation.

a reply to: spacemanjupiter

You simply refrain from convincing anyone about anything. You teach them to conclude. You just don't convince anyone that 2 plus 2 equals 4. You teach him/her maths for him/her to conclude that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

The moment you try to convince, you fail.

a reply to: TritonTaranis

So no answer to the logic problem then. Until you can answer that problem, you have a serious problem with the non-terrestrial explanation.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

In the 1800s they clocked one going 10,000 mph? Source?

originally posted by: Gandalf77
To me, that conversation starts with a discussion of the flight characteristics and physical capabilities these things have demonstrated.

Demonstrated how? Via unreliable eyewitness misperception?

The only video I've seen claiming to show physics-defying performance is the one made by Chad Underwood, and he doesn't understand his own technology, that UFO literally doesn't appear to do anything a balloon can't do. Not that it's identified as a balloon, but it showed no unusual flight characteristics in the video as he claimed, and the release form for the video shows "balloons" as one of the subjects in the released videos. So if you want someone to think these flight characteristics are real, you need some evidence of that and you don't have any reliable evidence, do you? Eyewitness misperceptions are not reliable when it comes to UFOs, as this example and many others clearly show:

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter
Me and a friend were having a friendly debate on all the UFO/UAP activity over the years. He believes it's all ours, experimental projects and craft via US black projects ran by groups unbeknownst to the public facing government we call congress. I stated that I wasn't making the claim that they are aliens, but that it's pretty clear they are not ours, and our government is fairly confident they are not Chinese or Russian. So what other options are there?

UFO researcher Hynek saw firsthand they are not all ours. He describes riding in a police car chasing one of them all over the place, and when he finally gets a good look at it he is sure it is not ours:


www.abovetopsecret.com...

We had many reports from people of good repute, yet we had no scientifically incontrovertible evidence--authenticated movies, spectrograms of reported lights, "hardware"--on which to make a judgment. There are no properly authenticated photographs to match any of the vivid prose descriptions of visual sightings. Some of the purported "photographs" are patent hoaxes. Others show little detail; they could be anything. Some show a considerable amount of detail, but cannot be substantiated.

The evidence for UFO's, then, was entirely without physical proof. But were all of the responsible citizens who made reports mistaken or victims of hallucinations? It was an intriguing scientific question, yet I couldn't find any scientists to discuss it with....

Not necessarily hallucinations, but sometimes misinterpretations of real objects as he would find out first hand:

Finally several squad cars met at an intersection. Men spilled out and pointed excitedly at the sky. "See--there it is! It's moving!"

But it wasn't moving. "It" was the star Arcturus, undeniably identified by its position in relation to the handle of the Big Dipper. A sobering demonstration for me.

So you can tell your friend that he's wrong, they are not all ours, because Arcturus is not ours.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Gandalf77
To me, that conversation starts with a discussion of the flight characteristics and physical capabilities these things have demonstrated.

Demonstrated how? Via unreliable eyewitness misperception?

The only video I've seen claiming to show physics-defying performance is the one made by Chad Underwood, and he doesn't understand his own technology, that UFO literally doesn't appear to do anything a balloon can't do. Not that it's identified as a balloon, but it showed no unusual flight characteristics in the video as he claimed, and the release form for the video shows "balloons" as one of the subjects in the released videos. So if you want someone to think these flight characteristics are real, you need some evidence of that and you don't have any reliable evidence, do you? Eyewitness misperceptions are not reliable when it comes to UFOs, as this example and many others clearly show:

I dunno, this one looked pretty good... Multiple people, Multiple camera angles...

originally posted by: gspat
I dunno, this one looked pretty good... Multiple people, Multiple camera angles...

Debunked years ago as an art project.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The only video I have seen that I found truly interesting was one made on a navy ship where the UFO appears to go into the water. But part of what makes it interesting was that a search yielded no wreckage ... but I don't think the Navy confirmed that any search took place.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The only video I have seen that I found truly interesting was one made on a navy ship where the UFO appears to go into the water. But part of what makes it interesting was that a search yielded no wreckage ... but I don't think the Navy confirmed that any search took place.

There has (as far as most of us know) never been any debris. UFOs are still like ghosts, regardless of all the fancy IR footage and compelling eyewitness accounts. They generally appear from "nowhere" and go back to it no matter who is watching or with what high-tech equipment. So you either have to bring in some kind of paranormal angle into the discussion or look really, really hard at exactly what's being presented and what context it's in.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Gandalf77
To me, that conversation starts with a discussion of the flight characteristics and physical capabilities these things have demonstrated.

Demonstrated how? Via unreliable eyewitness misperception?

The only video I've seen claiming to show physics-defying performance is the one made by Chad Underwood, and he doesn't understand his own technology, that UFO literally doesn't appear to do anything a balloon can't do. Not that it's identified as a balloon, but it showed no unusual flight characteristics in the video as he claimed, and the release form for the video shows "balloons" as one of the subjects in the released videos. So if you want someone to think these flight characteristics are real, you need some evidence of that and you don't have any reliable evidence, do you? Eyewitness misperceptions are not reliable when it comes to UFOs, as this example and many others clearly show:

If you listen to the people who witnessed these things—particularly people in a position to speak with some authority about aircraft—it’s pretty clear they’re in awe of the capabilities.

I personally knew a pilot with 30+ years in the cockpit of military, commercial, & private aircraft who witnessed an object perform maneuvers that defied everything he knew. He refused to call it a UFO or UAP; he didn’t want to use those words. He just said in all of his experience, he couldn’t explain how that object did what it did.

I consider him to be more than a reliable witness.

You really can't expect to convince people of anything, if the original Star Trek wasn't enough.

I've seen'em well enough to know they exist.
There is little point in trying to convince anyone who hasn't done the necessary ground work to see them for themselves.
How much time does the average person spend watching the sky?
I can answer that.
Not much, but they are still experts at what is not there.

a reply to: spacemanjupiter

Even if the objects are terrestrial, they are moving at rates of speed that should concern every citizen. Why? Because to do that you'd have to possess technology that could get us all off fossil fuels. That's an important climate issue.

I say this:

"The question we should ask ourselves is not 'are aliens visiting earth? There's not enough hard evidence for that. The question we should be asking ourselves is 'do these Govt reported UFO incidents warrant further investigation?'

originally posted by: NightVision
"The question we should ask ourselves is not 'are aliens visiting earth? There's not enough hard evidence for that. The question we should be asking ourselves is 'do these Govt reported UFO incidents warrant further investigation?'

As long as it's not just a dog and pony show designed to make a lot of questionable "researchers" money while teasing some big reveal later on.

originally posted by: spacemanjupiter

He insists they are still ours. I presented some issues, such as these objects have been recorded for decades going back to at least the 40s where they ('foo fighters') ran circles around Americans and Germans.

Totally awesome thread. So you can say to your friend "if even one of the countless accounts of UAPs since time began being recorded be it in the religious books, be it in the historical annals, be it on sites like this alone where countless people have experienced these things, be it in the general public where I estimate from my own research amongst people I've talked to is in the 10% region of experiencers (that makes it 700,000,000 witnesses to UAP worldwide), then the idea that these lights in the sky are all 'ours' is pretty much statistically total nonsense."

a reply to: spacemanjupiter

Its a rabbit hole.


it would not surprise me that ancient/timeless beings have left blueprints in other dimensions that are accessible with chemical keys.

That we most likely are civilization number 10, or maybe 110. And some individuals have these blueprints, maybe they have seen the rise and fall of a thousand civilizations. Maybe civilization, is a nicer word for drones, that are cast out of the hive when winter comes.

We know nothing.