Spherules determined to be interstellar

Post Reply New Topic

Sure, the spherules MAY have interstellar origins -- as do all elements  except Hydrogen and Helium .

But to claim that they were artificially made by an intelligent extraterrestrial life-form is an extreme stretch of faith in one man's fantasy.  The only way to prove (beyond any reasonable doubt) that there was intelligence behind their manufacture would require the alleged manufacturer to step forward and support the claim.

Last edited by Fnord on 03 Sep 2023, 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

So, no actual proof then.

"I can't explain it, therefore, aliens!" is not evidence. "I can't explain it" is the opposite of evidence, innit?

Also the government is just a paragon of telling the truth, yeah? Like they're just gonna be like "oh sure, that was our top secret experiment, you got us", and totally wouldn't be like "yeah we got no idea..."

C'mon now...

Someone should tell Dr Loeb that Rendezvous with Rama wasn't meant to be a documentary.

Never assert a claim beyond the capability of available evidence to support it.  There is no valid empirical evidence to support the claim of extraterrestrial intelligence behind the alleged manufacture of Mr. Loeb's spherules.  I guess some people would rather believe in things they can not explain, than put forth the effort to find the truth.

Everybody is entitled to make up their own minds, but not their own facts.  Facts do not come into existence simply because they are believed.

Examination of the alloys + retrieval of larger samples from the site of the splash zone in the Pacific would likely also answer that question

Wait...are you suggesting the the dept of defense which is funded by trillions of your taxpayer dollars is making a complete outright lie? for what purpose?

Well if they haven't done that, you don't have your proof.

At this stage the burden of proof is on scientists to demonstrate humans are capable of making craft that can do this
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... gon-study/

I have not heard a single explanation that has attempted to this yet Fnord

We are waiting. Loeb seems publicly confident he's going to be vindicated

You can wait. And maybe you'll get your evidence in a little while. But you don't have it right now so at the moment you can't claim it was aliens.

Are you suggesting that no government has ever lied or covered up something it did, that it didn't want people to know about? That no government would lie about or cover up classified information or experimental weapons? And what difference does the amount or source of funding make?

As for "why", to hide what they're spending trillions of dollars on. Pretty sure I alluded to that in the text you quoted above. If a government is making a new top secret aircraft, eventually it has to be tested. If someone spots it, do they just go "oops, yeah you caught us testing our new craft", or do they go "wow, yeah, we don't know what it was either"...?

Would the department of defence lie? Here, I made a list for you.

1. Gulf War and WMDs: The U.S. government, including the Department of Defense, claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) as a primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. However, after the invasion, no substantial evidence of WMDs was found, leading to criticism and accusations of misinformation.

2. Pat Tillman: Pat Tillman was a former NFL player who enlisted in the U.S. Army and was killed in Afghanistan in 2004. Initially, the Army reported that he was killed by enemy fire. Later investigations revealed that he was killed by friendly fire, and there were allegations that the Army had initially concealed this fact.

3. Jessica Lynch: During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Private Jessica Lynch was captured by Iraqi forces and later rescued by U.S. Special Forces. The initial reports of her rescue portrayed a dramatic and heroic operation. However, it was later revealed that her capture and rescue were not as initially depicted, and the story had been embellished for propaganda purposes.

4. Pentagon Papers: While not directly related to the Department of Defense's actions, the release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg exposed a history of government deception and misleading information regarding the Vietnam War. The documents, which were classified Department of Defense reports, revealed the extent to which the U.S. government had concealed information about the war's true nature.

5. Abu Ghraib Scandal: The abuse and torture of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which came to light in 2004, raised serious questions about the actions of some U.S. military personnel and the oversight provided by the Department of Defense. The scandal led to investigations and convictions of those involved.

6. Tuskegee Syphilis Study: While not directly under the Department of Defense, it's worth mentioning the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. This unethical study, conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972, involved misleading African American participants about the nature of the study and withholding treatment for syphilis, even after penicillin became a standard cure.

7. Friendly Fire Incidents: The Department of Defense has faced criticism over several instances of friendly fire, where U.S. military forces accidentally targeted and harmed their own troops during conflicts. These incidents often lead to questions about communication and coordination within the military.

8. Cluster Munitions in Yemen: Concerns have been raised about the use of cluster munitions by the Saudi-led coalition, which includes U.S.-supplied weaponry, in the conflict in Yemen. The Department of Defense has faced scrutiny regarding the potential use of these controversial weapons in civilian areas.

9. Inaccurate Reporting on Civilian Casualties: During the U.S.-led coalition's military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, there were instances where the Department of Defense was accused of downplaying civilian casualties caused by airstrikes. Human rights organizations and investigative journalists have raised questions about the accuracy of reporting in these cases.

10. Black Sites and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: The Department of Defense, along with other government agencies, has faced criticism over its involvement in the use of black sites (secret detention facilities) and enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, during the War on Terror. These practices raised ethical and legal concerns.

I'll address this issue that both you and Retrogamer raise which is governments lie all the time so why not now?

In the past the US military has run black projects throughout the 1940s/50s/70s and 80s. The various secret aircraft they tested during this time are too numerous to mention but I assume you would follow the argument they hid behind the smokescreen of UFOs to cover up what they were really doing in Area 51
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... 1-history/

I am fairly certain this is the angle you are also taking...but here's the thing
Between 1945-2017 the standard communication from the US government was that UFOs don't exist. Infact the Condon report outlines the US government position exactly - the data does not support the existence of unkown entities and does not warrant funding into this phenomena. Read the conclusion they came up with 1969
"Unusually strong temperature inversions provide favourable conditions for both visual and radar mirage effects"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1725090

but strangely funds were secretly approved to keep studying UFOs in 2004
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_ ... on_Program
I mean why do that if the public already accepted UFOs were tricks of weather??

So if the US government is lying, it would seem (based on empirical evidence) they are lying about what they know about UAPS

Something that intrigues me is that interest in UFOs seems to correlate with general existential angst. UFOs were a big topic on talk shows etc. during the Cold War but haven't been much of a thing since. Now suddenly we're hearing about them again.

Hmmm.

Otherwise you can make logical arguments until you're blue in the face. People will believe what they want to believe and will condemn whoever disagrees with them as closed minded.

I'll just bet you are "certain". Which is amazing, since I speak very little about what I personally actually believe. But you go on and keep being "certain". You "certainly" have a knack for picking my angle for me, which "certainly" makes it easier for you to try to counter-argue. Also nice of you to "assume" for me. After all, it would be silly to just, I dunno, ASK, instead of "assuming" things with "certainty".

Remind me... What does the "U" stand for in "UFO" or "UAP"? I'm pretty sure it's not "underpants". I'm pretty sure it's "unidentified". And last I checked, "Unidentified" means you DON'T KNOW what it is. If we "knew" it was aliens, it wouldn't be "unidentified", would it?

Now, since several nations have been, and continue to, experiment with new aircraft, it's not a stretch to think that we'd be scanning the horizon, for enemy experimental aircraft. Claiming it's UFO research is technically not untrue, since an unknown enemy craft IS a "UFO" until it's properly identified.

However, there is benefit to the various nations to keep abreast of the goings-on of other nations. "Studying UFOs" is a great alterative to saying "spying on your airspace".

In addition to that, there's nothing wrong with LOOKING for "aliens", and if the gov launched said plan quietly, odds are it's cos some wingnut would see the government willing to spend money on it, and conclude that it must therefore mean they DO exist, rather than they're trying to find out IF they exist. Because UFO's can be MANY things, once we identify them - meteors, gas clouds, a kite with glow-stix taped to it... But until we DO find proof of aliens, were still just "looking" and don't actually have any PROOF.

Although that is "empirical evidence" in the most literal sense, the conclusion does not follow the evidence. It's a bit like saying "Stonehenge is made from stone not indigenous to that area!", which is iirc a true fact, and then concluding "therefore, aliens!", which doesn't follow, despite the previous "empirical evidence". It's a supposition, not an iron-clad conclusion.

Are you really all that ignorant of the fact that any alloy can be manufacturer right here on Earth?  Finding an unusual alloy would not prove extraterrestrial intelligence any more than finding bananas in a grocery store would prove the presence of monkeys in the produce section.