I never believed until today

[u/Possible_Use3849]

Edit: so many bullies here, I just don't see how anyone wouldn't believe after seeing. Plus it's kind of weird to think we may be the only intelligent life in the universe. I'm having admins lock this. Also for the last time I left my phone inside to charge even if I had it, it would have died before a video or picture.

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.

[u/Moonpig16]

Even if true, how does that explain anything?

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Moonpig16]

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

Edit, the fact that there’s downvotes on this comment speaks volumes to the amount of bots and shills in this subreddit. Anyone who’s followed this topic for a decade plus knows that book is damning and has some of the best information on the subject. Even Elizondo and Grusch would agree on that.

But nah, let the uneducated assume I am wrong. When I am not.

[u/Moonpig16 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

How do anecdotes prove anything?

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Moonpig16]

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.

[u/Loxatl → u/MrJoshOfficial]

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.

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Loxatl]

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.

[u/AlphakirA → u/MrJoshOfficial]

All I see is an appeal to authority. It's just stories without actual evidence.

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/AlphakirA]

I’m curious. Under what authority would you accept the reality that UFOs are seemingly interested in our nuclear facilities?

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

The question itself contains a presumption that needs examination - it assumes we’ve already established that “UFOs are interested in nuclear facilities” rather than simply establishing a correlation of sightings near these locations. This is a crucial distinction.

What would constitute sufficient evidence? A scientific approach would require:

1. Comprehensive data collection showing consistent patterns
2. Verified sensor data (radar, electromagnetic, etc.)
3. Multiple independent observation methods
4. Clear documentation of incidents

5. Statistical analysis showing the correlation isn’t random

6. Elimination of conventional explanations

7. Military activity

8. Civilian aircraft

9. Atmospheric phenomena

10. Testing of classified technology

11. Other known phenomena

12. Evidence of intentionality

13. This is crucial for claims about “interest” in facilities

14. Need to demonstrate pattern isn’t coincidental

15. Evidence of responsive or interactive behavior

16. Consistent characteristics across multiple incidents

17. Reproducible observations

18. Predictable patterns of appearance

19. Consistent characteristics

20. Verifiable by multiple independent parties

The issue isn’t about “accepting reality” - it’s about establishing what reality is through verifiable evidence. Simply having unexplained phenomena appear near nuclear facilities doesn’t automatically establish intent or origin. That requires additional evidence and investigation.

The goal isn’t to deny observations but to understand what those observations actually tell us with certainty versus what remains speculative.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

If you seriously think there isn’t hard evidence out there, then you’re not even trying to look for it.

How about instead of assuming I don’t know shit about fuck instead you take a look at my profile and see my latest post. This shit has been going on for decades. Educate yourselves people, stop listening to schmucks who generate comments with ChatGPT.

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

A personal attack and accusation of AI-generated responses doesn’t advance the discussion about evidence and epistemology.

The claim that “hard evidence is out there if you just look” is a common rhetorical device that shifts the burden of proof. It’s similar to saying “do your own research” - it’s not actually engaging with the specific critiques or methodology being discussed.

Looking at someone’s profile or post history also isn’t relevant to evaluating the strength of evidence or arguments. Evidence stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who presents it.

Yes, these phenomena have been reported for decades. Yes, there are documented incidents, sensor data, and credible witnesses. But the key epistemological question remains: what conclusions can we reliably draw from this evidence?

The frustration in your response is understandable - when someone is convinced of something based on their research and experience, it can be irritating to have others question it. But that’s exactly how scientific progress works - through rigorous questioning and examination of evidence, not through appeals to authority or personal research.

If there’s specific hard evidence that conclusively demonstrates particular claims about UAP, let’s examine that evidence directly. What specific piece of evidence do you find most compelling? What methodology was used to verify it? What alternative explanations have been ruled out and how?

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

Literally government whistleblowers have said that. The proof is out there.

I’m sorry you don’t take the words of government and military seriously when it comes in the form of whistleblowers that aim to get more transparency on this topic.

I’m also sorry you feel the need to play so much devil’s advocate specifically towards me. Feels targeted in a way, especially given the complete lack of progression in discussion that you’ve offered. Your replies to every single one of my comments in this thread hasn’t pushed your narrative further and has only served in making debunkers or devils advocate styles users such as yourself look even less credible, especially given the bastion of truth that has been talked about here (UFOs & Nukes by Robert Hastings), all you have to say about that book are word games.

Nothing you have said even remotely tackles the book and its subject matter. And I will always trust your words less than one of the most peer reviewed UFOlogy books out there given the long list of credible names that have put their hands on it and asserted the same thing I am about to say.

UFOs and Nukes should be considered as part of the education on UFOlogy once it reaches universities. Period. Especially if it means less people like you going around playing dumb devil’s advocate games in comment sections for internet brownie points.

Robert Hastings & dozens of military personnel eyewitness testimonies: 1

You: 0

That’s just how it works in science. Or are you upset that we can’t reproduce it in a lab? Even though there isn’t a single astronomer that can reproduce their findings in a lab… (cause then they would literally be creating stars/black holes/etc on the surface of the earth, not a good idea imo)

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

Your argument is riddled with logical fallacies and misunderstandings about scientific methodology.

First, appealing to government whistleblowers isn’t the slam-dunk you think it is. People in authority can be wrong, can misinterpret things, or can promote false information. Their credibility in one area doesn’t automatically extend to their interpretations of unexplained phenomena.

You’re treating this like it’s a competition, but that’s not how evidence works. Science isn’t a scoreboard of authority figures. It’s a methodology for understanding reality.

Your comparison to astronomy is completely off-base. Astronomers can’t create stars in labs, but they can make testable predictions, gather empirical data, and verify their findings through multiple independent methods. That’s fundamentally different from relying primarily on testimony, no matter how credible the witnesses.

This isn’t “playing devil’s advocate” - it’s applying basic skeptical thinking. The fact that you see basic questions about evidence as some kind of personal attack is telling. Nobody gets a free pass from skeptical inquiry, no matter how many credentials they have.

And your argument about peer-reviewed UFOlogy books? Peer review isn’t just other people agreeing with you. It’s about rigorous methodology and reproducible results.

The irony is that you’re accusing me of “playing games” while you’re the one avoiding direct engagement with the methodological issues. Instead, you’re relying on: - Appeals to authority - Ad hominem attacks - False equivalencies - Emotional reasoning

You want this taught in universities? Great. Then it needs to stand up to the same rigorous scrutiny as any other field of study. That’s not “playing dumb”…it’s intellectual integrity.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Grow a pair, chief.

[u/AlphakirA → u/MrJoshOfficial]

I don't understand the question. Do you mean which authority figure it'd have to come from to believe it? No one. A community of scientific minded people that can do proper research, I'll listen to. Someone on a podium with a badge, no, that's insane.

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

The assertion that “you’ve never heard anyone say that” isn’t an argument - it’s an appeal to personal experience. Whether someone has heard a methodological critique before has no bearing on its validity.

1. Yes, there are documented correlations between UAP sightings and nuclear facilities. This is interesting data that deserves investigation. However, correlation isn’t causation - we need to establish why this relationship exists before drawing conclusions.

2. “Some of the best evidence proving UFOs have a strong likelihood...” - this phrasing reveals a problematic leap in logic. Evidence showing UAP appear near nuclear facilities doesn’t “prove” anything about their nature or origin. It’s an observation that needs explanation, not proof of any particular hypothesis.

3. The appeal to “credible military witnesses” needs examination. Military training and credibility in one area doesn’t automatically translate to infallibility in observation or interpretation. This isn’t dismissing their testimony - it’s understanding its limitations.

4. The accusation of “lying” and being on the “wrong side of history” is rhetoric, not reasoning. Scientific investigation isn’t about sides - it’s about following evidence where it leads.

The key point remains: documenting unusual phenomena is different from establishing their cause. If there’s a genuine pattern of UAP activity around nuclear facilities, that’s significant and worth studying. But jumping from “there’s a pattern” to “therefore X must be true” is precisely the kind of reasoning that proper skepticism helps us avoid.

Rather than accusing others of lying or choosing sides, the focus should be on what the evidence actually demonstrates - not what we hope or believe it might suggest.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

Okay, cool? I know exactly what I said and I’ll say it again, why are you defending and playing devil’s advocate for someone who is so obviously uneducated on the subject at hand?

What do you have to gain from posting 4 comments that are walls of BS other than to stroke your own Ego?

I’m hijacking your narratives. I’m getting the last say. How does that make you feel?

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

Your emotional response and attempts at “hijacking narratives” or “getting the last say” demonstrate exactly why skeptical methodology is important - it helps separate evidence from ego.

Devil’s advocacy and questioning aren’t about defending anyone - they’re tools for testing claims and reasoning. If pointing out logical fallacies and asking for evidence makes someone uncomfortable, that discomfort should prompt reflection rather than hostility.

The assertion that asking for evidence means someone is “uneducated on the subject” reverses proper skeptical thinking. Being educated on a topic means understanding: - The quality and limitations of available evidence - The importance of methodology - The difference between data and interpretation - The need to rule out conventional explanations

Writing detailed responses isn’t about ego or “BS” - it’s about careful reasoning and examination of claims. The length of a response has no bearing on its validity.

If someone feels threatened by questions or responds with personal attacks rather than addressing the substance of arguments, it suggests their confidence might be based more on belief than evidence.

Rather than trying to “get the last say,” focus on demonstrating why your position is correct through evidence and reasoning. That’s more productive than attempting to shut down discussion through rhetorical dominance.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

Oh, so because I said out loud what you’re literally doing that then means I’m guilty of it too? Well that means you’re guilty as well then I guess!

Seriously people, whoever is on this comment chain, go read the book and decide for yourself. /u/Prestigious_Bug583 is vehemently making sure that anyone reading this comment chain is forced to focus on dumb Redditor takes instead of the actual hard evidence at hand.

Go read UFOs & Nukes by Robert Hastings, analyze the dozens of reports from Military personnel, and decide for yourself.

When you see comment sections littered with accounts that are Noun-Noun#### and they’re actively trying to convince people that evidence isn’t worth looking at, look at it for yourself, then decide. Always do this.

Godspeed to you all and good luck with your internet brownie points /u/Prestigious_Bug583

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

You’re exemplifying a classic technique used to avoid actual discussion - painting skeptical inquiry as some kind of suppression campaign. I’ve seen this exact same pattern in religious debates, conspiracy circles, and pseudoscience promoters.

Nobody’s trying to stop anyone from reading anything. But you’re doing exactly what I’ve seen thousands of times - rather than engaging with specific arguments, you:

1. Attack the person asking questions
2. Paint yourself as some kind of truth-bearer being suppressed
3. Make vague appeals to “hard evidence” while refusing to discuss any specific evidence
4. Try to create an us-vs-them narrative
5. Dismiss criticism as “dumb Redditor takes”

This “Godspeed” sign-off combined with mockery about “internet brownie points” is just rhetorical theater. You’re trying to position yourself as above the discussion while simultaneously refusing to engage in it.

If these phenomena are real and the evidence is solid, it deserves better advocacy than this. Attacking people who ask questions doesn’t advance understanding - it hinders it. And no amount of sarcastic comments about usernames or internet points changes that basic fact.

The irony is that you’re accusing others of distracting from evidence while you’re the one turning this into a personal drama instead of discussing actual evidence and methodology.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

Reposting my comment and ignoring yours (again, as you have to mine):

This entire comment thread started because of that book. So yeah, I’m going to keep bringing it up. Again I will assert what I’ve said before, /u/Prestigious_Bug582 seems very adamant in being “right” and adding walls of text to a comment thread that’s really about Robert Hastings’ UFOs & Nukes book.

Good read the book for yourself people, disregard the comments of the person above and decide for yourself.

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

Simply reposting your comment and declaring you’re ignoring mine doesn’t strengthen your position - it just demonstrates you’re not interested in actual discussion.

You’re using classic thought-terminating techniques here: “Just read the book.” “Disregard the skeptic.” “Decide for yourself.” These aren’t arguments, they’re ways to avoid having arguments.

I deal with this exact behavior in religious debates. When questioned, they say “Just read the Bible.” When pressed for evidence, they say “You have to read it yourself.” When faced with skeptical analysis, they say “Ignore the doubters.”

The irony is that while accusing me of needing to be right, you’re the one trying to shut down any critical examination of these claims. You’re not actually engaging with any points raised - you’re just repeating “read the book” like it’s some kind of magical ward against skeptical inquiry.

This isn’t about the length of comments or who’s being “adamant” it’s about basic standards of evidence and critical thinking. And copying and pasting the same response while proudly declaring you’re ignoring counterarguments isn’t the powerful move you seem to think it is.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

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.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

You haven’t read the book. And it shows.

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

No, I don’t need to read that specific book to discuss standards of evidence and logical reasoning. This is a common tactic - “you can’t discuss this until you’ve read X source” - that misunderstands how burden of proof works.

If the book contains compelling evidence, you should be able to present that evidence directly. Simply appealing to authority or telling someone to “go read the book” isn’t an argument - it’s a deflection.

The existence of a book documenting incidents, even with credible witnesses and official documentation, doesn’t eliminate the need for proper skeptical analysis. If there’s specific evidence you find compelling from the book, present it and we can examine it directly.

You know what’s actually troubling? Trying to shut down rational discussion by attacking people who ask for evidence. That’s not how we get to truth. That’s not how we understand reality. That’s how we entrench beliefs without proper justification.

The fact that you’re getting hostile about being asked for evidence suggests you’re more interested in belief than truth. You’re trying to make this personal - about egos and attitudes - instead of addressing the actual arguments.

I’ve been doing this a long time, and I recognize these rhetorical tactics. They’re the same ones used by religious apologists, conspiracy theorists, and others who want their claims accepted without proper scrutiny.

If UFOs are genuinely interfering with nuclear facilities, that’s an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence. No amount of telling me to “read the book” or attacking my character changes that fundamental principle of skeptical inquiry.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​