I just think it is 'likely' in comparison to any other 'origin' story, any of which is unlikely on its own.

Again I can totally see mankind doing that on Mars or some other planet long before we could realistically find any planet to live on.

I was disappointed to see the potential Lizard People aspect fizzle, though the hologram thing was pretty weird (though a rare time Lucky made a specific prediction).

As for aliens, guess I like to use the common sense sniff tests, and if they have the ability to get here then we would represent zero threat to them in any way, shape or form, so unless they have a Star Trek style prime directive - no need to be a secret. Maybe space travel in that sense is never going to be a thing. If it was easy to do it then we would have been discovered and visited by now.

As to the odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe - the over has to be the massive favorite, though aside from potential signs of life on places in our solar system - kind of hard to see how we will ever find it.

Yeah, I think the most boring possibility is the most likely - that there is life around the universe, but most of these life forms will never meet each other.

I mean I don't know what the plan is but drip drip drip of UFO stuff is turning into a steady trickle so it would seem to be something-- and that's basically what my concern here is and also what the OP is founded on-- the question of just what is happening with all of this "disclosure" and why.

Well, the conundrum is fairly simple. If it isn't possible to send matter or energy faster than light, different life forms would at best be presented with means of "communication" where lag would be counted in years, decades, centuries and millennia. For our form of life as we know it today, that scope is so vast that it borders on irrelevant. We might be able to detect life however, pending on relevant technology. But of course, there is the matter of understanding what we're looking for.

Still, who knows. Not too long ago an ocean was close to an insurmountable barrier with the understanding and technology available at the time.

Here's a fun article from what must be a pro-UFO site poo-pooing my ideas: IS MAINSTREAM “UFO DISCLOSURE” A “PSYOP” FOR A “FALSE FLAG” ALIEN INVASION?

Is Mainstream UFO Disclosure Deception? As many of you reading this probably already know, the UFO topic has been and is being completely legitimized within the mainstream. The subject is no longer taboo, and institutions like the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and multiple governments around the world have admitted that these objects are real. Not only that, but collectively they’ve released millions of pages of previously classified documents detailing the reality of the phenomenon. These documents include radar tracking data, high ranking military testimony, stories of unknown objects that have been retrieved, photographic evidence and much more. We’re talking about objects performing maneuvers that defy our understanding of aerodynamics that can perform maneuvers no known aircraft is capable of performing. Video footage of unidentified objects have also been released by multiple governments, and coverage from CNN and the New York Times, for example, also further this point.

Ok so far so good.

So is this all some sort of great deception? If you believe it to be I ask you this, why would governments and intelligence agencies around the world, for decades, completely ridicule this topic and encourage people to view it as a “conspiracy theory?” Why would they deny the phenomenon for so long? The same organizations who are now giving a tremendous amount of legitimacy to the topic are the same ones who, according to former CIA director Roscoe Hillenkoetter, initiated an “official campaign of ridicule and secrecy.” If you want to deceive a population and make them believe UFOs are real you don’t use ridicule and constantly tell the population that these objects are not real. Furthermore, you don’t push the idea that those who believe in UFOs are crackpots. If you wanted to deceive the public about UFOs this would be completely counterproductive.

Nah.

Has anyone ever denied that UFOs were real?

It is fairly well known that there are plenty of phenomena and sightings in the atmosphere which we do not fully understand.

Not commenting on what some crackpot convention cooks up is not the same as denying the existence of UFOs.

I don't think you have to deny that UFOs are real to deny that there are space aliens visiting earth. I'm not really sure I'm following you completely.
I guess you're saying that it was never a "taboo" topic and that everyone has always admitted to UFOs-- which seems odd.

Your own quoted text made the claim that there had been widespread denial that UFOs existed, and you said "Ok so far so good" about it.

People are using a lot of words to mystify classification of military observations, which to my eyes just shows basic misunderstanding, either purposeful or out of ignorance. If something weird shows up on radar or other type of sensor, the military isn't in the habit of calling newspapers. They're in the habit of filling reports, in a system where details about operations, technology and personnel are generally given some sort of classification almost by default.

There is a distinction between accepting that people have seen things that they cannot identity vs acceptance that UFOs as actual alien craft exist and are visiting earth. You seem to be conflating those.



It was just a couple of years ago when WN said he would likely close a hypothetical UFO thread and it was that post that prompted me to point out that the news on it was picking up. In that amount of time the news on it has only increased to point where a thread like this is even possible. So I don't see too much of a problem with the "widespread denial" claim. While that piece has various logic fails, they do at least grasp that "disclosure" is a trending topic.



My response to WN then so here we are approaching two years later and I get my thread.

I'm separating them, the quote you posted conflates them.

The point is that something is happening in the media with UFOs.
I don't really have a clue about "millions of pages released" or radar data-- I've never looked into that so I probably shouldn't have just said "so far so good" to that section as I don't mean to endorse the aspects I don't know about. The media stuff is observable just from paying attention to the news.
And it could still ultimately just be that they've decided to release everything they have and that it amounts to nothing because there is nothing, but along the way why not drum up some news stories? I think that's semi-plausible. I still can't help but feel like you're the one who has conflated here but it's probably mostly a misunderstanding.

Is there, though? I consume “the media” and there isn’t all that much UFO stuff out there. Like, if the Soros Illuminati are trying to get me excited about UFO stuff, they aren’t pushing it very hard.

Yeah when the Washington Post has a headline saying "UFOs are real and everyone needs to adjust to it", or when The Week puts them on its cover - I'd say something is happening.
That was two years ago but it isn't like the stories have stopped.
But I also don't think you should really consider yourself a person who knows how to look at media either.

Fermi's paradox suffers from the same egocentric fallacy that has bedviled cosmic theories since at least the days of Ptolemy.

In this case it's that our 'reality' is special. There's a significance chance that our universe is simulatable in which case so are an infinite number of universes that are just as 'real' as this one. Any sufficiently advanced civilisation will have access to these and that increases the fermi 'searchspace' to a completely different order of magnitude. (that's even ignoring that they could be bespoke).

Even better it guarantees one advanced life form per universe unless they happen to bump into each other in a higher level reality. Exactly as we observe!?

So just one WaPo story two years ago and some magazine I’ve never heard of? Kind of weak tea, no? Maybe the conspiracy yootoobe guys are talking about this, but the mainstream media definitely isn’t too focused on UFOs right now.

Yeah trolly it's two articles.

Well, going from your post, it appears there was a four month period in 2019 where a few big publications ran some stories. So, I guess something was happening, but I don't know how noteworthy it really was.

Nor had they stopped before.

IDK, it just strikes me that this is a cyclical news topic. Lots of people find the subject somewhat interesting, so when something happens in the field, it piques interest for a while and a number of stories are run. Then it dies down. Rinse and repeat.

FWIW, here's a Google Trends graph for the term "UFO":



You can see a couple blips in that 2019 period where those articles ran, then back down, and it had a big spike last April. The last year or two have definitely been one of the more active periods, but that's coming after a 10 year gradual decline. Might this be part of a longer-term trend? Maybe.

Obviously Google Trends aren't the same thing as the media, but I'd be pretty surprised if there wasn't usually a correlation.

I can't really speak to the previous nature of UFO stories or what caused the previous blips, but it seems like the nature of the current stories, is different than in times past, as these current ones hint at the government revealing some sort of secret knowledge. If that's ever been the case in the past then I'd be surprised. Also the amount of mainstream attention now seems fundamentally different than in times past-- and I don't mean that people are talking about it on main street or whatever but that it's coming straight from official sources and involves publications like WaPO, CNN.
You can of course be correct here and it wouldn't surprise me at all if nothing comes of this. It's more or less what I expect in the short term, and I appreciate seeing the google trends as I like using that myself-- although it does still show that from 2019 we're seeing increased activity. It was definitely not my claim that that was never the case in the past.

The coverage doesn't "seem" any different at all, you're just grasping at straws to back up the latest conspiracy theory you've invented.

The first blip before the current spike occurred in December 2017 with the publication of some stories in the NYT, Guardian, WaPO
Head of Pentagon's secret 'UFO' office sought to make evidence public
Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program
Pentagon admits running secret UFO investigation for five years
The big spike in 2008 was driven by sightings in Texas. And I'll have to search more to see what was being published in the intervening years.
It's definitely not current sightings that are driving the coverage now though.

Why do you think this thread even exists, or is allowed to exist-- a UFO thread in a politics forum that isn't exactly friendly to conspiracy theories-- do you have any idea?
Why do you think WN said he would not be inclined to have a thread on this, whereas now the idea of not allowing one would seem unthinkable?

It seems really, really silly to compare decisions made by two completely separate moderator teams and use that as evidence of how coverage of an issue has changed. I'm kind of surprised this is the direction you want to take this thread.

I assume it exists because all the steam ran out of the Qderp stuff when the 8th important day went by without anything happening. A small part of this forum is the fringy LOLstuff that people like Lucky cling to with answering questions with more questions. If the flat earthers were not banned then maybe something different would be the topic for the fringy stuff. Hopefully Lizard People get their day/week of proper attention in the future.

Bobo, not sure why you are surprised - in the end Lucky is a mundane conspiracyderp.

It seems silly to argue that things are the same as they have always been when it can be shown that they are not.
Also realize that Trolly doesn't actually have argument but there isn't a reason why an anecdote about the moderation doesn't address what he is trying to say.
And this is the also the direction that's most faithful to the OP.