Navy Confirms Existence of UFOs Seen In Leaked Footage

[DamianTV]

https://entertainment.slashdot.org/s...leaked-footage

A Navy official has confirmed that recently released videos of unidentified flying objects are real, but that the footage was not authorized to be released to the public in the first place. From a report:

Joseph Gradisher, the spokesman for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, confirmed to TIME that three widely-shared videos captured "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." Gradisher initially confirmed this in a statement to "The Black Vault" a website dedicated to declassified government documents. "The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena," Gradisher told the site.

He tells TIME that he was "surprised" by the press coverage surrounding his statement to the site, particularly around his classification of the incursions as "unidentifiable," but says that he hopes that leads to UAP's being "de-stigmatized." "The reason why I'm talking about it is to drive home the seriousness of this issue," Gradisher says. "The more I talk, the more our aviators and all services are more willing to come forward." Gradisher would not speculate as to what the unidentified objects seen in the videos were, but did say they are usually proved to be mundane objects like drones -- not alien spacecraft. "The frequency of incursions have increased since the advents of drones and quadcopters," he says.

The three videos of UFOs were published by the New York Times and "To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science," a self-described "public benefit corporation" co-founded by Tom DeLonge, best known as the vocalist and guitarist for the rock band, Blink-182.

Typically, the title is absolutely forgettable as it is on the main page of The Enquirer every other week, and like-minded garbage media. This is the second time I've seen this pop up, and this link comes from Slashdot, and even references NY Times.

Thoughts?

[Anti Globalist]

Obviously aliens exist. It's hard to believe that earth is the only planet in the universe that has life on it. Hell, a few years ago there was an earth like planet that was discovered 10,000 light years away from us. I'm pretty sure that planet has some form of life on it.

[Zippyjuan]

"Unidentified" does not necessarily mean alien- just not identified exactly what it was.

they are usually proved to be mundane objects like drones -- not alien spacecraft.

[Mach]

Here's an interview, the specific subject of the UFO starts at about 25 minutes.

Here is a "tic tacs" reenactment.... USS Nimitz in 2004.
(same story)

[Occam's Banana]

Obviously aliens exist. It's hard to believe that earth is the only planet in the universe that has life on it. Hell, a few years ago there was an earth like planet that was discovered 10,000 light years away from us. I'm pretty sure that planet has some form of life on it.

Actually, it is not obvious at all.

The mere existence of "earth-like" planets (for any value of "earth-like") is not even remotely close to being sufficient to warrant such a conclusion.

We have no idea how life begins, let alone what the "odds" are of it happening under any particular set of conditions.

And once life does begin, we have no idea what the "odds" are that (some of) it will develop the kind of "intelligence" we refer to as sentience.

And once sentience develops, we have no idea what the "odds" are that it will be technologically capable.

IOW: Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how likely any of these things are or are not.
The only thing we can be certain about is that the chance is non-zero (because we exist).
Beyond that, though, all we can do yet is guess ...

"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."

-- R. Buckminster Fuller

[Mach]

Actually, it is not obvious at all.

The mere existence of "earth-like" planets (for any value of "earth-like") is not even remotely close to being sufficient to warrant such a conclusion.

We have no idea how life begins, let alone what the "odds" are of it happening under any particular set of conditions.

And once life does begin, we have no idea what the "odds" are that (some of) it will develop the kind of "intelligence" we refer to as sentience.

And once sentience develops, we have no idea what the "odds" are that it will be technologically capable.

IOW: Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how likely any of these things are or are not.
The only thing we can be certain about is that the chance is non-zero (because we exist).
Beyond that, though, all we can do yet is guess ...

"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."

-- R. Buckminster Fuller

As a pure and authentic rationalist/skeptic, I can recognize and accept that I have no idea where the universe came from - I can also recognize and accept that no one else does either. Additionally, I see no reason to think that we, as a species, are even capable of understanding the true nature of things, so I take other people's speculation for what it is - wishful thinking and projection born of ignorance and limited scope.
- Kilgore Trout

[Schifference]

Why not meant for public release? What is wrong with an informed public? Is not informing the public a form of indoctrination or propaganda?

[Origanalist]

Actually, it is not obvious at all.

The mere existence of "earth-like" planets (for any value of "earth-like") is not even remotely close to being sufficient to warrant such a conclusion.

We have no idea how life begins, let alone what the "odds" are of it happening under any particular set of conditions.

And once life does begin, we have no idea what the "odds" are that (some of) it will develop the kind of "intelligence" we refer to as sentience.

And once sentience develops, we have no idea what the "odds" are that it will be technologically capable.

IOW: Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows how likely any of these things are or are not.
The only thing we can be certain about is that the chance is non-zero (because we exist).
Beyond that, though, all we can do yet is guess ...

"Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering."

-- R. Buckminster Fuller

So you don't believe in flying dolphins?

[Occam's Banana]

So you don't believe in flying dolphins?

Well, of course I do ...



And speaking of Douglas Adams ...

As a pure and authentic rationalist/skeptic, I can recognize and accept that I have no idea where the universe came from - I can also recognize and accept that no one else does either. Additionally, I see no reason to think that we, as a species, are even capable of understanding the true nature of things, so I take other people's speculation for what it is - wishful thinking and projection born of ignorance and limited scope.
- Kilgore Trout

Great quote, but it doesn't quite go far enough, I think.

In particular, I have a bone to pick with his statement that he "can recognize and accept that [he has] no idea where the universe came from."

This is like saying that he can recognize and accept that he has no idea how colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Such a statement grants that there is indeed a way that colorless green ideas can and do sleep furiously, but that he has no idea what that way actually is. The problem is that the notion of colorless green ideas sleeping furiously is meaningless (not to mention contradictory) gibberish to begin with. For the same reason, the notion of there being a "where" from which the "universe" could have come (and of there being a "before" and "after" relative to it) is also meaningless gibberish.

The concept of the "universe"[1] - or the WGMMOT (Whole General Mish-Mash Of Things), as Douglas Adams called it - denotes the set of all existent "wheres" and "froms" and "befores" and "afters." Thus, it cannot make any sense to speak about "where" the WGMMOT came "from," or of what happened "before" or "after" it - even if it is just to say that we don't know those things. Those things are not "knowable," not even in theory, because they are meaningless gibberish in this context - just as the concepts of "colorless" and "green" and "furious sleep" are meaningless gibberish in the context of "ideas" (except, perhaps, in poetic metaphor).

We can break the WGMMOT down into parts and then, within the context of the whole, we can meaningfully talk about "where" these parts came "from" relative to those parts, and we can sensibly speak of what parts came "before" or "after" what other parts, and so forth.

But the WGMMOT itself is just ... well, it just is.

It is a metaphysically given absolute beyond which we cannot go ... (not even to say that we don't know "where" it came "from" ...)



[1] Or the "multiverse" or "polyverse" or whatever, if you prefer.