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/Prestigious_Bug583]

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/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

The argument you’re having is meaningless when you factor in the fact that YOU HAVENT READ THE BOOK

Edit: also will be leaving this comment up as my most recent so that when others click my profile and look at my comments they can see this most recent reply to you that sums up the hilarity of your participation in this thread, have a nice day

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

That’s not how arguments or evidence work. I’ve heard this same claim thousands of times, “you can’t discuss this until you’ve read X.” It’s nonsense.

I don’t need to read Dianetics to discuss the problems with Scientology’s claims. I don’t need to read the Quran to discuss the burden of proof for religious claims. And I don’t need to read this specific book to discuss standards of evidence for claims about UFOs and nuclear facilities.

You’re using this book as a shield to avoid engaging with basic principles of skeptical inquiry. If the evidence in the book is as compelling as you claim, you should be able to present specific examples and have them stand up to scrutiny.

What you’re actually doing is trying to create a Catch-22: “You can’t question these claims until you’ve read the book, and once you’ve read the book you’ll accept these claims without question.” That’s not how rational inquiry works.

The fact that your only response to skeptical questions is “YOU HAVEN’T READ THE BOOK” just shows you don’t understand the basic principles of evidence and argumentation.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

I’m not using it as a shield lmao. I’m wondering why you’re even arguing with me when this entire discussion revolves around a book you haven’t read. LOL

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

You keep circling back to this idea that no one can question claims without reading this specific book. That’s fundamentally flawed reasoning.

The principles of skeptical inquiry and standards of evidence exist independently of any particular book. I don’t need to read Hastings’ work to discuss how we evaluate extraordinary claims or what constitutes reliable evidence.

What’s actually happening here is that you’re using “LOL” and “LMAO” to dismiss basic questions about methodology while refusing to engage with any specific evidence. If the book contains compelling evidence, you should be able to present it and have it stand up to scrutiny.

This isn’t about whether I’ve read the book. It’s about your consistent refusal to engage with any actual arguments while hiding behind “you haven’t read it” as some kind of universal defense against skeptical inquiry.

Notice how in all these exchanges, you haven’t once presented any specific evidence from the book. Instead, you’ve resorted to mockery, personal attacks, and repeated appeals to authority. That’s not how we determine what’s true. That’s how we entrench beliefs without proper justification.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Now present evidence, here, right now:

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/Prestigious_Bug583]

Your inability to not downvote my comments speaks volumes to your character.

Again, I invite any and all reading this comment chain to read the book UFOs & Nukes by Robert Hastings and to come to their own conclusions based off the evidence that is presented.

Never let someone in a Reddit comment section decide that for you.

[u/Prestigious_Bug583 → u/MrJoshOfficial]

Your repeated copy-pasting of the same message about downvotes and reading the book shows you’ve abandoned any attempt at actual discussion.

You keep using this copy-paste tactic because it’s easier than engaging with substantive points about evidence and methodology. But repetition doesn’t make an argument stronger.

Simply telling people to read Hastings’ book over and over while refusing to discuss any specific evidence isn’t convincing anyone. It’s just demonstrating an unwillingness to engage with basic skeptical questions.

If copy-pasting the same message about downvotes and character is your response to reasoned argument, you’re proving exactly why skeptical inquiry is so important. When challenged, you’re not defending your position - you’re just hitting ctrl+v and calling it a day.

Valid claims can stand up to questioning. They don’t need to be protected by repeated copy-paste shields and accusations about downvotes.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/MrJoshOfficial → u/MrJoshOfficial]

Hello readers of my comment history, please click here to fully understand the ridiculousness of the very egotistical user below me.