American UFO disclosures

Mohsin77 said:

People who believe in the Multiverse as a way to explain the Fine-Tuning of the universe have zero actual proof that the multiverse exists, and their solution has basically the same explanatory power as simply believing in God.

Click to expand...

Translation: One unproven theory is equally valid as another unproven theory.

Holy cow, this is bad science.

Most scientific theories are unproven - case in point: Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still unproven, all of Einstein's Theories are still unproven. However, they are very accurate when put to the test, and match observations every single day, all day long. Everytime Einstein's theory makes an accurate prediction, confidence grows. It still unproven. It only takes one firm unshakeable contraindicated observation to screw it all up.

Other theories that are unproven include "Creationism" Theory, which is unproven till this day. However, Creationism Theory has firm, unshackable observations that contradict the theory that require it to be re-evaluated. There are observations that cannot be explained away with mental gymnastics. It's ridiculous to conflate all theories as somehow equal in explanatory power.

Proof is not the same as explanatory power. They are entirely different things.

TLDR: NOT ALL UNPROVEN THEORIES ARE EQUAL IN EXPLANATORY POWER, holy cow.

Phead128 said:

Translation: One unproven theory is equally valid as another unproven theory.

Proof is not the same as explanatory power. They are entirely different things.

Click to expand...

Your entire post and premise is a strawman argument. You're arguing against a point that I never made and are trying to wiggle out of a problem you can't solve. Unfortunately for you, I can see such tactics a mile away, so I'm not going to be falling for it.

This is what I told you and this is what you have to deal with: "People who believe in the Multiverse as a way to explain the Fine-Tuning of the universe have zero actual proof that the multiverse exists, and their solution has basically the same explanatory power as simply believing in God."

This point above is not just me saying it, it has been made by many well known and respected theoretical physicists, who are themselves atheist or agnostic (I already cited a book written by one of them). This is what you have to deal with. Instead, you're trying diversionary tactics, which won't work.

Also, I don't think you understand what the word "theory" means in Physics. "Creationism" is not a "theory." You're using these terms like a layman does in everyday language. But they have technical meaning and you're using them incorrectly. Creationism is just a belief, and a belief that actually contradicts theory. Rational theists reject the claims of "creationism." We don't need it for our belief in God at all. For example, my scripture (the Quran) is fully compatible with both the Big Bang theory and Natural Selection etc. Rational Theism is always in harmony with science. Incidentally, the modern Scientific Method was created by Ibn al-Haytham, in the Book of Optics, to get closer to God. (This is something Western historians of Science don't tell you because they want to steal credit for creating science, but it is a historical fact, and you can read Columbia University professor George Saliba's book for details on the shenanigans by Orientalist historians.) Therefore, by the definition of the Muslim Physicist who literally created modern science, Science itself is an Islamic tool.

The key here (again), is that as long as the claims made by people who believe in God do not contradict science, you can't really do anything to criticize that belief using science, especially when the alternative explanation is on equal footing in terms of evidence and explanatory power. And this is where you are completely wrong in comparing General Relativity to the Multiverse. There is no comparison between these two. GM is a solid theory with a ton of experimental and observational proof, plus a lot of explanatory power. Whereas the Multiverse is a hated and divisive proposal in the theoretical physics community because its proponents have zero evidence of its correctness (in fact, there is even evidence against it), and it has basically no real explanatory power. It is simply a desperate attempt the 1/3rd of the physicists who are hardcore atheist, to try and find a way to explain the Fine-Tuning of the universe without invoking God. Even the agnostic physicists hate the Multiverse (actually, even some well-known atheist physicists hate it.) And that is to say nothing of the theist physicists (which by the way, are still around 1/3rd of the total community, by the last poll I saw.)

This is not "god of the gap". This is just a few of us speculating on what the US is up to and whether there is any honesty behind these new UFO (and implications) recognition. The recognition itself is kept fairly sensible by not outright saying much beyond it officially but the two distinct groups in this conversation are not even on the same page. If the argument is the space in between - over whether there is any merit and honesty to these releases, there is simply no way to tell yet. They have some strong motivations to play mind games and be deceitful but there is some chance that even though there are political motivations (almost definite in fact) for this stuff, they might still be genuine and honest, an attempt to score certain political goals using a slither of very selective disclosure/admittance.

Mohsin77 said:

This is what I told you and this is what you have to deal with: "People who believe in the Multiverse as a way to explain the Fine-Tuning of the universe have zero actual proof that the multiverse exists, and their solution has basically the same EXPLANATORY power as simply believing in God."

Click to expand...

Bro, I'll put it in as simple terms as possible. Please don't twist my words and go off in tangents.

All theories are unproven (e.g. zero actual proof), whether it's God, Multiverse, or Einstein's famous Theory of Special Relativity. Some theories (like Theory of Special Relativity) make very accurate predictions that we observe in real world, so we can say it is a stronger theory, but nonetheless, still unproven. Two unproven theories does NOT mean they have equal explanatory power.

The absence of evidence (e.g. proof) is not evidence of equal explanatory or predictive power. Only by testing observations in real world can you say they have equal explanatory power. Through the process of quantifying how accurate it makes predictions, then you make comparisons of explanatory power. Only putting these theories to the test and observing contradictions can you compare predictive power of a theory.

I think you made sufficient ad hominem attacks and character assassinations but you never answered my basic questions or directly answered my points. I'll leave it up to others to make their own judgement of what is correct and not correct.

Phead128 said:

Please don't twist my words and go off in tangents.

Click to expand...

.... that's what you've been doing.

Your biggest problem though is that you haven't comprehended the following core concepts:

Phead128 said:

All theories are unproven (e.g. zero actual proof), whether it's God, Multiverse, or Einstein's famous Theory of Special Relativity.

Click to expand...

Again, please stop using the word "theory." You clearly don't understand what it means yet. "God" is not a theory. The Multiverse is also not a theory yet, it's barely a hypothesis, and some even object to that status (that means its not even really accepted as Science.)

Moreover, your claim that all theories have "zero actual proof" exposes a deep misunderstanding. I think you're confused about how the inductive empirical Scientific Method works. It seems that you're confusing it with Mathematics, where the terms "proof" and "theorems" have a deductive meaning. General Relativity, for example, is a theory with a ton of empirical proof/evidence. But this does not mean it is deductively "proven" like the Pythagorean Theorem. However, this also does not mean that GR is on equal footing with the Multiverse, because Einstein's hypothesis has earned the status of a Theory, and it also has immense explanatory power in Cosmology. Whereas the Multiverse can't even really provide a testable hypothesis, nor does it have any explanatory power.

As for rational theism, it is neither a hypothesis, nor a theory. It is a philosophical position which does not contradict any scientific theory. What it does do, is explain the extreme Fine-Tuning of the universe which we have observed in fundamental physics and cosmology. And since the only other solution to explain this Fine-Tuning is the Multiverse, this is a serious problem for people like you. But you have still not understood this problem, let alone countered it.

Phead128 said:

I'll leave it up to others to make their own judgement of what is correct and not correct.

Click to expand...

That's fine by me. See ya.

More "leaks" a few days ago. This time what seems to be an iPhone recording of radar screen of the USS Ohama in 2019.


Unsurprisingly "Chinese drones" are a popular opinion.

Elizondo is appearing left right and centre on independent podcasts and youtube channels. He's avoided MSM apart from a single appearance on Fox where he hinted he may run for senate.

I'm sure whatever is going on, this "former" counter intelligence agent Luis Elizondo is a big part of it. On the one hand he seems to talking as if he is being persecuted, almost sounds Snowden like. Then he talks from an authoritative position as if everything he is saying and doing is part of a plan from the government. Which one is it?

Suddenly the US have gone from being bombarded by conspiracy theories (Pizzagate, Epstein, QAnon, etc) to having a counter intelligence agent at the top of the biggest one. There's no way this isn't EW.

Abominable said:

More "leaks" a few days ago. This time what seems to be an iPhone recording of radar screen of the USS Ohama in 2019.



Unsurprisingly "Chinese drones" are a popular opinion.

Elizondo is appearing left right and centre on independent podcasts and youtube channels. He's avoided MSM apart from a single appearance on Fox where he hinted he may run for senate.

I'm sure whatever is going on, this "former" counter intelligence agent Luis Elizondo is a big part of it. On the one hand he seems to talking as if he is being persecuted, almost sounds Snowden like. Then he talks from an authoritative position as if everything he is saying and doing is part of a plan from the government. Which one is it?

Suddenly the US have gone from being bombarded by conspiracy theories (Pizzagate, Epstein, QAnon, etc) to having a counter intelligence agent at the top of the biggest one. There's no way this isn't EW.

Click to expand...

Jeremy Corbell? Move on.

Besides, I don't believe the USN would be too happy with such leaks IF footage is genuine.

Abominable said:

More "leaks" a few days ago. This time what seems to be an iPhone recording of radar screen of the USS Ohama in 2019.

Unsurprisingly "Chinese drones" are a popular opinion.

Elizondo is appearing left right and centre on independent podcasts and youtube channels. He's avoided MSM apart from a single appearance on Fox where he hinted he may run for senate.

I'm sure whatever is going on, this "former" counter intelligence agent Luis Elizondo is a big part of it. On the one hand he seems to talking as if he is being persecuted, almost sounds Snowden like. Then he talks from an authoritative position as if everything he is saying and doing is part of a plan from the government. Which one is it?

Suddenly the US have gone from being bombarded by conspiracy theories (Pizzagate, Epstein, QAnon, etc) to having a counter intelligence agent at the top of the biggest one. There's no way this isn't EW.

Click to expand...

Probably NEMESIS and psychological warfare mindgames against capable US military adversaries like Russia and China.

It's basically their own version of presenting deterrence and making the other side/s believe they have some truly next level weaponry. Whether it's a bluff or double bluff, and what the complete nature of the agenda is, who knows.

Maybe the US intelligence expected PRC to actually initiate military reunification option and require something to make mainland forces second guess. Maybe they're only showing a slice of what they're capable of and all this barely scratches the surface. Maybe it's all made up for that purpose. Who knows lol.

Han Patriot said:

That's because YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ONE BEFORE.

Click to expand...

How the f..k do you know that I haven't? Don't be too presumptuous here man. You're entitled to have your views and the convictions to believe whatever it is you want to believe because you're not trying to harm anyone. But don't impose your views upon others that your version of truth is the one and only.

Bellum_Romanum said:

How the f..k do you know that I haven't? Don't be too presumptuous here man. You're entitled to have your views and the convictions to believe whatever it is you want to believe because you're not trying to harm anyone. But don't impose your views upon others that your version of truth is the one and only.

Click to expand...

If you have seen one, you still think its a secret US craft? I doubt so, the shit I saw is not human made, and wtf it is doing in a Malaysia city 20 years ago? What, spy on Malaysian nukes? Lol