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/MrJoshOfficial]

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/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.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​