r/UFOs • u/Possible_Use3849 • 1d ago

I never believed until today Sighting

I was outside, grabbing stuff out the car after me and my husband went shopping for our daughter. It was just me and him, of course I saw it first and he didn't so he's been busting my chops since. I saw a freaking ufo and I couldn't believe it. I didn't even have a phone. The weird thing is you could see search lights after I spotted it. It had blueish green lights and it was definitely a ufo I feel crazy but I figured I'd join here and let others know.

I'm sorry I didn't believe any of you who did before, but now I know it's real.

Time: ECT Location: Princeton NC Date: 12/27/24

Update: changes drone to ufo sorry if it was misleading! Update: https://imgur.com/gallery/art-EZZ9mtm

I drew this image above I am by no means an artist but this is what I saw.

750 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

View all comments

310

u/Arroz-Con-Culo 1d ago

No need to “believe” this is our reality whether we like it or not. you have a right to know.

Believing implies it may or may not be true, like if we believe in fiction or fairy tails.

87

u/CoqeCas3 1d ago

THANK YOU

Gdam, this is the first time ive ever heard anyone else with this perspective. To believe is to inherently possess doubt, and there are just certain things surrounding this topic that one cannot reasonably doubt.

32

u/uncanny27 1d ago

To me, it’s like someone saying “I believe in glass.”

54

u/HanakusoDays 1d ago

They claim glass is real. But I can see right through that malarkey.

16

u/subatomicaccess 22h ago

That's what we're after, isn't it? TRANSPARENCY!

5

u/BusyBoonja 17h ago

I've got some news that may shatter you

17

u/_Nychthemeron 1d ago

Hey, now. You gotta let tempered glass know you believe in it; it has very low self-esteem and you don't want your shower door or fancy glass desk to fall to pieces.

4

u/forestofpixies 1d ago

But you acknowledge glass exists, therefore there’s no saying you believe glass exists because then someone else could say they do not believe in glass existing.

11

u/bsmith149810 1d ago

Everyone knows glass isn’t real.

4

u/WhatDoItypeHereHuh 1d ago

whats glass

2

u/Chung_House 22h ago

Richard glass?

1

u/CuteFactor8994 12h ago

Just glorified sand.

0

u/forestofpixies 19h ago

That’s just like, your opinion, man.

2

u/Long_Preparation_227 16h ago

Cue Philip Glass sound track

2

u/No_Produce_Nyc 1d ago

Or: “I don’t believe in Climate Change.”

1

u/belliJGerent 1d ago

I’ve touched it!

12

u/Muted_Muscle1609 1d ago

There is plenty of reason to doubt

3

u/MrJoshOfficial 1d ago

You should look into the UFO sightings over nuclear bases then see if you still doubt the existence of the phenomenon.

6

u/Moonpig16 1d ago

Even if true, how does that explain anything?

2

u/forestofpixies 1d ago

UFO/UAP means unidentified in both acronyms. Meaning no one, not even the government, knows the origins of the craft and cannot explain it. They exist. Their origin is a whole other can of worms that we most definitely haven’t quite cracked open yet (depending on whom you ask, of course).

6

u/Loxatl 1d ago

Or, they have. And there is zero real mystery to the people that "needed" to know. Either seems plenty plausible.

Like the narrative that these drones were looking for nuclear material. They'd never fuckin tell us about that until later. I'm unconvinced we know enough - and until then beyond awknowledging something is happening, it's all belief.

-1

u/forestofpixies 20h ago

Sure, and if it’s true the government has had contact with alien races since Truman, then they wouldn’t be concerned about their presence over nuclear sites or all of New Jersey. Chances are they know what they’re doing, and are in contact with them, and know it’s nothing to fear. That’s one possibility, even as wild as it seems.

And that nuclear material thing was one guy saying, well, for instance, they COULD use them to do that. And the internet locked on and started all kinds of wild conspiracy theories that have no basis in certain fact except some drones COULD potentially do that. That’s a belief they are being used for that, but there’s doubt because it was just a random guy.

The point is, we KNOW UAP exist. That’s a fact. Belief implies disbelief, which you can’t disbelieve in something that is fact. You can’t say you believe we breathe oxygen because that’s a fact. What those UAP are, we don’t know for certain, some believe it’s aliens, some believe it’s government tech, no one knows for sure, but they are unidentified and that’s a fact.

1

u/Prestigious_Bug583 2h ago

There’s a fundamental misunderstanding here about epistemology and the relationship between knowledge, belief, and facts. When you say “belief implies disbelief, which you can’t disbelieve in something that is fact” - that’s not actually how belief works. Belief is simply being convinced something is true. Facts exist independently, but our acceptance of them is still a form of belief based on evidence.

Let’s take your oxygen example. Yes, we breathe oxygen - that’s a demonstrable fact. But our acceptance of this fact is still a belief based on overwhelming evidence. We can measure it, test it, and verify it. The distinction isn’t between “facts” and “beliefs” - it’s between justified and unjustified beliefs.

Regarding UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), you’re making several jumps in logic:

  1. Yes, we have evidence that unexplained phenomena exist in our airspace
  2. Yes, this is documented and verified
  3. But saying “we KNOW UAP exist” needs clarification - what we know is that there are observations we cannot currently explain

The problem isn’t with accepting that these observations exist - it’s with the leap to potential explanations. You’re actually demonstrating good skepticism when you say “what those UAP are, we don’t know for certain” - that’s exactly right!

As for the conspiracy theories about nuclear material and drones - this is precisely why we need skeptical thinking. We need to distinguish between: - What’s possible - What’s probable - What’s demonstrated - What’s speculated

Remember: “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer. In fact, it’s often the most honest one. The time to believe something is when there’s sufficient evidence to support it, not before.

Don’t confuse uncertainty for false equivalence though. Not all explanations are equally likely just because we don’t have a definitive answer. We should proportion our confidence to the available evidence, while remaining open to new data.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

u/Prestigious_Bug583 2h ago

Just because “we” don’t know what they are doesn’t necessarily mean no one knows. You cannot assert what the government doesn’t know.

-2

u/MrJoshOfficial 1d ago

There are plenty of true stories if you look into the right sources. I recommend reading Richard Hasting’s “UFO’s & Nukes”.

4

u/Moonpig16 1d ago

How do anecdotes prove anything?

-2

u/MrJoshOfficial 1d ago

You’re completely glazing over the scientific evidence presented in that book. And if anecdotal evidence doesn’t matter in UAP investigations, why does it matter in every other single type of investigation? Pick a lane.

2

u/Loxatl 1d ago

Not the slam dunk you think this is. It's well known shitty evidence, even if used in other places? Even worse here where it's anecdotes of people from a distance being inherently unreliable viewers of 'complex' (meaning we see shit from the outside in a hugely limited context - perspective, knowledge of even mundane shit like how airliners work, etc). Not even mentioning the mildly nefarious and multitudinous ways humans seek attention and make meaning out of experiences.

2

u/MrJoshOfficial 1d ago

I’ve actually never heard anyone say that and you’re the first person. So no, actually it’s well known as some of the best evidence proving that UFO’s have a very strong likelihood of appearing over or near nuclear facilities.

If you dig deep enough you can find the book for free online. There’s countless credible stories from other investigators that have also discovered the same thing in the anecdotal evidence presented by some of the most credible military witnesses to talk about the subject.

Or you know, you can just lie to the people with your bold-faced comment and be on the wrong side of history my friend. Your choice.

→ More replies

1

u/Prestigious_Bug583 2h ago

The challenge about “picking a lane” with anecdotal evidence misunderstands how evidence is weighted in different contexts. Anecdotal evidence isn’t worthless - it varies in value based on the magnitude of the claim being made. When investigating a house break-in, eyewitness testimony about seeing someone climb through a window is evidence of something we know happens regularly. But when dealing with potentially revolutionary phenomena, the evidence bar must be higher.

This isn’t inconsistency - it’s proper calibration of evidentiary standards. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” isn’t just a catchphrase - it’s a fundamental principle of rational investigation.

Regarding Hastings’ book and its scientific evidence - documentation of radar data, electromagnetic effects, and other physical measurements absolutely deserve serious investigation. But there’s a crucial distinction between documenting anomalous events and establishing their cause. Scientific investigation requires:

  • Verification of data accuracy
  • Elimination of conventional explanations
  • Establishment of clear causal relationships
  • Reproducibility where possible

The real issue isn’t whether the evidence exists - it’s about what conclusions that evidence can reliably support. Identifying genuinely unexplained phenomena is different from determining their origin or nature.

This methodological skepticism applies consistently across all fields of inquiry. The legal system requires different levels of evidence for different claims. Science requires stronger evidence to overthrow established theories than to suggest minor modifications. This isn’t “glazing over” evidence - it’s examining it within its proper context.

If there’s specific scientific evidence from Hastings’ work that particularly supports certain conclusions, that deserves direct examination on its own merits.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

u/Prestigious_Bug583 2h ago

This is actually a perfect example of why we need skeptical thinking. When someone says “there are plenty of true stories if you look into the right sources,” we need to ask some crucial questions:

  1. What makes these sources “right” compared to others?
  2. How are these claims verified?
  3. What methodology was used to investigate these incidents?
  4. Are there alternative explanations that haven’t been ruled out?

Regarding Hastings’ book “UFOs & Nukes” - while it contains interesting accounts and documentation, we need to be careful about conflating compelling narratives with demonstrated facts. Just because a book is well-researched or contains military testimonies doesn’t automatically validate its conclusions.

Here’s why this matters: Personal testimony, even from credible military sources, is still anecdotal evidence. Yes, it can point us toward areas that deserve investigation, but testimony alone isn’t sufficient to establish extraordinary claims. That’s not dismissing the witnesses - it’s understanding the limitations of different types of evidence.

The problem with saying “look into the right sources” is that it often translates to “look into sources that already agree with this conclusion.” That’s not investigation - that’s confirmation bias. Real investigation means: - Looking at ALL available evidence - Considering alternative explanations - Understanding the limitations of different types of evidence - Being willing to say “we don’t know” when the evidence isn’t conclusive

Remember: we’re not trying to debunk or prove anything. We’re trying to follow the evidence where it actually leads, not where we want it to lead. If there’s compelling evidence for extraordinary claims, great! But that evidence needs to be more than just collected anecdotes and speculation, no matter how authoritative the source might seem.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

u/Flaky_Safe_276 1h ago

A great book on the topic is, “UFOs and Nukes,” by Robert Hastings. It’s really well researched and written.

1

u/Muted_Muscle1609 23h ago

We just had a Chinese spy balloon fly over military installations

Im sure it's a unidentified government drone of some sorts

6

u/MrJoshOfficial 23h ago

You should read the testimonies of military personnel that have witnessed UAPs interact with our Nuclear technology.

The world is stranger than fiction friend.

0

u/COstargazer 20h ago

For experiencers, like myself, what doubt would we have exactly?

1

u/Muted_Muscle1609 15h ago

You've had an experience sure but that doesn't mean it was what you think it is Are these drones weird yes

Are they most likely government ran yes

1

u/COstargazer 15h ago

First of all your comment is response, to belief. No where were we talking about the drones. Which yes are most likely government ran. Has nothing to do with my experience or others. Experiences that are 100% not drone related. And yet you automatically dismiss and categorize with broadstrokes. That's a great example of the inherent bias and unscientific thought process we have to combat every day on here.

1

u/Muted_Muscle1609 15h ago

The most simply explanation is the most Likley for any and all of these experiences

In terms of belive you have to look at these experiences in a outside way

If a person believes in God then they are more likely to see miracles!! Does that mean miracles are occurring no

0

u/Muted_Muscle1609 15h ago

You've had an experience sure but that doesn't mean it was what you think it is Are these drones weird yes

Are they most likely government ran yes

1

u/Prestigious_Bug583 2h ago

You’ve hit on something really important about doubt being inherent to belief, but let’s dig deeper. Skepticism isn’t about doubting everything…it’s about proportioning our confidence to the available evidence. When you say there are “things surrounding this topic that one cannot reasonably doubt,” that’s a claim that needs support. What specifically can’t be doubted, and why?

I’ve been having discussions about extraordinary claims for decades now. The UFO question isn’t about “believing” or “not believing” - it’s about what the evidence actually demonstrates. An unidentified object in the sky is just that - unidentified. Going from “I saw something I couldn’t explain” to any specific conclusion requires additional evidence.

Here’s what matters: Do you care if your beliefs are true? If so, then you need a reliable methodology to separate fact from fiction. That’s what skepticism provides, not as a way to deny claims, but as a toolkit to evaluate them properly.

Want to believe aliens visit Earth? Great! Show me the evidence. Want to claim there are things we “cannot reasonably doubt” about UFOs? Fantastic! Let’s examine those claims specifically. But remember…saying “you have a right to know” doesn’t eliminate our obligation to verify and validate claims with actual evidence.

The goal isn’t to believe or disbelieve. The goal is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. That requires intellectual honesty and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if that means admitting “I don’t know.”​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

0

u/hmm2003 1d ago

That's why I just can't purchase Mulder's "I want to believe" poster because it isn't quite correct.

3

u/Rude_Worldliness_423 1d ago

Someone should make a photoshopped: ‘I know’ poster

4

u/hmm2003 23h ago

That, my friend, isn't a bad idea.

-14

u/Joth91 1d ago

To say you believe in Jesus Christ is to inherently possess doubt, and there are certain things surrounding Him that one can not reasonably doubt.

4

u/forestofpixies 1d ago

You can say he (likely) existed but there is no actual proof of his genetic father, his miracles, or anything other than him (likely) being a really good minister to returning the people back to their faith in God.

1

u/Joth91 1d ago

My point is there's not enough evidence that is verifiable to make any claims or assume any significance with just pixel sized lights in the sky or random unidentified drones. Claiming something "is happening whether you believe or not" is just wrong.

1

u/forestofpixies 19h ago

But whatever it is, it’s happening. That’s fact.

5

u/JustUsDucks 1d ago

Like what?

3

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago

Very good way to say it.

5

u/Arclet__ 1d ago

It is 100% a belief. It is a belief that there is some NHI out there and it is responsbile for some UFO sighting.

People have no idea if the NHI exist, they don't even know what a UFO or UAP is, yet people think it is true that NHI are the cause. How is that not a belief.

0

u/TheSuperMarket 14h ago

What people?

YOU might not be sure if NHI exist....or what UFOs are...... don't speak for the rest of us.

1

u/Arclet__ 14h ago

You could say that's what you believe...

1

u/TheSuperMarket 14h ago

Again, you are simply seeing through your own personal lense.

When was the last time you told someone they "believe" in computers? or "houses"?

At this point you are just using "belief" as an arbitrary word.

If someone has a direct experience - it produces a knowing - not a believing.

8

u/Moonpig16 1d ago

Objective fact is what makes it reality, though.

Belief is all you have, which is why you keep falling for nonsense, your standards are so low.

2

u/Neither_Amphibian165 1d ago

I see where you're coming from but I don't 100% agree. For instance, you can believe in something that is true, before you have any scientific evidence. That's kind of the nature of a hypothesis - it's a belief or conjecture. Then you go about attempting to prove it.

0

u/Arroz-Con-Culo 23h ago

But thats not my point. The slogan “i want to believe” is outdated.

2

u/confusers 1d ago

I was going to take your side when responding to another comment, but as I started to piece together the point I wanted to make, I realized that I think "your side" needs some clarification. So, rather than oppose or defend anything, I'll just state my own perspective, and it may or may not be aligned with your intent.

What are things that can be believed? The Oxford dictionary has two definitions for "believe," the main difference between them being whether the focus is on opinion or truth. The thing is, neither opinion nor truth are compatible with empiricism. Empiricism (by which I mean, essentially, the scientific method and falsifiability) is one of the few tools we have for examining reality that is hard to argue with, other than that it does not accept inductive reasoning; although this is merely a fact about what it means to be empirical, it can be upsetting to people that a chain of thought that they find completely intuitive and that "proves" something about reality (that is, claims a truth, which is one of the things that "believe" can apply to) can be so easily dismissed. Empiricism is not the only way to reach some sort of conclusion about the world. Inductionism is a perfectly valid approach. Empiricism can explore the entirety of falsifiable physics, but there is a lot of our reality that we cannot observe (metaphysics) and a lot of theories that are unfalsifiable. Induction can break right through these barriers, and is arguably the method of thinking we as a species are more inclined toward, for whatever reason.

When it comes to UFOs, there is only one thing I can think of that is both falsifiable and for which there is tons of empirical evidence for but which is not widely accepted outside of the UFO community: there are things in the air that seem to move kind of like aircraft but do not have human origin. Note the absence of any kind of interpretation. It's also falsifiable, but has not been falsified. The thing that makes people so doubtful about it, I think, is that most of the overwhelming amount of data is utter horse shit. Only a small percentage of it (which still amounts to a large amount of data) supports the existence of UFOs. If most of the evidence you see for UFOs is clearly identifiable, you won't be convinced by it. Worse, this is a subject that people make hoaxes about, meaning our filter for whether data is good or bad is low quality, and so we (correctly!) become accustomed to not trusting our own eyes.

So, UFOs are "real." Does that mean their existence is "true"? Truth and reality are very different things. Truth goes beyond the real, and both it and "existence" are rabbit holes. We don't want to get too hung up on such ideas. This is the point I've been trying to build toward. "Belief" implies a search for "truth," which is not empirical. We don't need to believe anything, in particular, for empiricism to work. Empiricism has the best track record, so far, of producing results. If we want to create change, coming to believe something or convincing somebody else to believe something is not the way to do it.

1

u/Prestigious_Bug583 2h ago

Appreciate what you’re trying to say about reality existing independently of belief, but there’s a subtle but important misunderstanding here. Belief isn’t optional - it’s simply the state of being convinced something is true. When you say “this is our reality whether we like it or not,” you’re actually making a belief claim. The key isn’t to avoid beliefs, but to make sure our beliefs are properly justified by evidence.

Look, I’ve been having discussions about extraordinary claims for decades now. The UFO question isn’t about “believing” or “not believing” - it’s about what the evidence actually demonstrates. An unidentified object in the sky is just that - unidentified. Going from “I saw something I couldn’t explain” to any specific conclusion requires additional evidence.

Here’s what matters: Do you care if your beliefs are true? If so, then you need a reliable methodology to separate fact from fiction. That’s what skepticism provides - not as a way to deny claims, but as a toolkit to evaluate them properly.

Want to believe aliens visit Earth? Great! Show me the evidence. Want to claim there are things we “cannot reasonably doubt” about UFOs? Fantastic! Let’s examine those claims specifically. But remember - saying “you have a right to know” doesn’t eliminate our obligation to verify and validate claims with actual evidence.

The goal isn’t to believe or disbelieve. The goal is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. That requires intellectual honesty and a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads - even if that means admitting “I don’t know.”​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

1

u/Bowtie16bit 1d ago

There is so much unknown and speculative, and so much to not trust, that there is only believing or not believing. There is no knowing yet.

1

u/jcrobinson57 11h ago

This sounds very Yoda like: Believe or not believe. There is no knowing.

0

u/Mammoth_Elk_3807 1d ago

Then produce empirically testable proof.

0

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago

Can you please look up empirical evidence and come back.

2

u/Mammoth_Elk_3807 1d ago

Cool, please list it.

-2

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago edited 1d ago

Ok let me say this in a more clear way. Can you show me empirical evidence of consciousness? How about the idea of beauty? What about love? Friendship?

Can’t science only prove when things aren’t true? Some would say that. So…can we prove that there is NO other life in the hundreds of billions of galaxies

8

u/Mammoth_Elk_3807 1d ago

It’s called materialism, my dude.

Non-human animals exhibit consciousness, demonstrate preferences for certain aesthetic forms, display affection, and form voluntary social associations.

Because they have brains and, arguably, nascent minds + the beginnings of genuine sentience/sapience.

So, yeah, there’s that.

Then, there’s the three R’s of scientific integrity: Replicability, reproducibility, and robustness.

You’re making a claim about material reality. It’s your obligation to justify that claim with the provision of corroborating data.

Or it’s “leprechauns exist until you prove they don’t” world.

Numerous Bayesian statistical analyses have been published in high impact journals over the last two years that very plausibly demonstrate/argue that it’s highly probable that we’re the only technological civilisation currently extant in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Google Scholar is entirely free.

0

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago edited 23h ago

What claim did I make?have you researched telepathy and autism?

6

u/Mammoth_Elk_3807 1d ago

That it’s somehow “more rational” to assume that UFOs evidence extraterrestrial visitation than not… but only through implication. Natch! lol

0

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago

I asked for someone to look up empirical evidence. There is no claim there, unless you’re seeing someone else’s comment and assuming it’s mine.

Regardless, to each their own

3

u/Mammoth_Elk_3807 1d ago

Yes, and I responded quite comprehensively to all of your asks and received no substantive reply.

I reiterated the most central precept of any/all scientific research. That’s an answer.

You evaded.

Again, how does your “evidence” meet even the most rudimentary empirical standard?

I’m really not trying to be combative or contrary! I’m a huge fan of science fiction and am entirely open to these sorts of discussions. However, they needed to be grounded in reality.

→ More replies

6

u/DrAuer 1d ago

We aren’t talking about abstract concepts though. Everything you listed is a concept and not a reality. We are talking about actual life and physical object. Things that can be empirically proven if they are happening.

You are saying that without a shadow of a doubt you know these things are happening. To back up extraordinary claims you need extraordinary proof and so far all I’ve seen is rumors and hearsay.

I’m a believer in the possibility of life from other worlds but so far nothing I’ve seen here is any different than the random “sightings” we’ve gotten for years that contain no real proof of anything. Everything contradicts each other and the government officials with stories all seem to be 3rd hand stories or guys in their 80s who have partially lost it.

-2

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago

I get what you’re saying…but I guess my thought is if something is happening, it can be empirically proven by directly observing and documenting it through sensory experiences. This is all I do in my work,daily. I work in healthcare so it’s clearly different but empirical evidence can absolutely be “proven” by observing. You can gather empirical evidence by simply seeing, hearing, or measuring the event as it occurs.

I’m not trying to argue with anyone. For what it’s worth, I didn’t claim anything. I simply asked someone to look up what empirical evidence is and come back lol

4

u/DrAuer 1d ago

I’m literally a social science researcher observing and recording empirical research is what I do too which is why this is sticking in my craw.

You CAN do that but what we are seeing here is not that. A blurry picture of lights in the sky is not empirical evidence of anything. A story told by a guy to an another guy who says it to a congressional hearing is not empirical evidence. First hand accounts of things can be but when they contain nothing to measure or benchmark it by it’s the same level of evidence as someone saying the earth is flat because they can’t see a curve. Sure that is technically evidence against a round earth but it misses any actual measurement or context that it’s effectively useless.

4

u/Mammoth_Elk_3807 1d ago

Yeah, high energy biophysicist here, lol, these people really don’t understand empirical rigour.

-2

u/aintnothin_in_gatlin 1d ago

I’m glad you literally do that, seems like my ask of someone to report back about what empirical evidence is…really chapped your cheese

5

u/Mammoth_Elk_3807 1d ago

I responded comprehensively and you deflected, lol.

-1

u/tripping_yarns 1d ago

“To believe this or that does not depend on the will” ~Locke

-1

u/SexualPie 1d ago

regardless of the intent of your message this really comes off as schizophrenic behavior. "believe only what you want to"

0

u/Economy_Penalty_4697 17h ago

That would imply that everyone who believes in religion is schitzo, like 70 to 80%+ of the world population. Belief is merely a conviction that their perception is universal and undeniable. It doesn't matter how they got there. Their perception will persist until there's incontrovertible evidence against. Schitzo is actually a natural and reasonable reaction to the brain giving incorrect signals.