• GladiusB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Air Force? There are definitely UFOs. Now are they local? Or otherworldly? Not sure.

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In this case op is clearly referring to aliens.

        Otherwise saying UFOs are confirmed real is bit of a conundrum. It’s like saying not knowing the contents of this closed box are confirmed real.

        • GreenMario@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Was definitely referring to aliens. Catching “balloons of unknown origin” aren’t as exciting unless it’s shot down by a F22.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well yea. Failing to identifying what it actually is makes it unreasonable to say it’s not an alien craft.

          • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s debatable. Are you saying that a closed box has an equal chance to contain an alien than any other object? Is it reasonable to say there is a chance that any closed box is containing an alien? I would say the answer is no.

            • GladiusB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a weird way to phrase a question. It’s unknown. Being unknown it could be remote controlled, secret, or not of this world. What is in there? Only who or what is inside would know.

              • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You are suggesting that any flying object, prior to identification, can reasonably be suggested to be of alien origin?

                I’m saying that it is unreasonable, because we currently have no evidence to suggest that any flying object has been of alien origin. There is no evidence of land based objects with alien origin. There has been no hard evidence in the history of human record to suggest that even a single thing on Earth has ever been linked to extra-terrestrial intelligence.

                Yet, you are saying that it’s completely reasonable to suggest that any flying object that is yet to be identified by one or more observers has any likelihood of being of alien origin.

                By extension you have to admit then that any object (whether flying or not), while unidentified, could reasonably be suspected of being of alien origin. So whatever is in that box could be extra terrestrial.

      • Blue and Orange@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think people sometimes get confused on the term. “UFO” does not mean the same thing as “alien spacecraft”. Anything in the sky that can’t be identified is a UFO.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re talking about that one guy who (I think) was in the Navy and was addressing the US Congress, or something.

      It’s a nothing burger and likely just a distraction tactic for other American political stuff.