[macspoofing]

>Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the U.S. government believes that some of these objects are not human in origin.

Huh??? How is that 'reasonable' to conclude.

>This leaves two possibilities: either UAP are natural terrestrial phenomena or they are extraterrestrial in origin.

Or a third option: Something else we aren't clever enough to think of. Maybe it's a sensor issue coupled with active human imagination. Or... something else entirely.

[gfodor]

The specific claim is that if the US is acknowledging these objects publicly as real and denying they are of US origin, then it is likely they are not human in origin, because if they could possibly be adversaries, this would not be being disclosed.

This is sound reasoning, but is based upon the beginning assumptions which are not yet fully determined to be true, and if determined to be true would not rule out non-human, natural origins.

[macspoofing]

>The specific claim is that if the US is acknowledging these objects publicly as real

'Real' as in those are 'real' videos (i.e. not created in photoshop or after effects). Not 'real' as in 'advanced technology like nothing else on Earth'.

>then it is likely they are not human in origin, because if they could possibly be adversaries, this would not be being disclosed.

No. If you see some phenom and it's not X, not Y, not Z, you can't say THEREFORE it must be 'Aliens'.

The default position is 'I don't know', not 'aliens'.

[gfodor]

No, you're not understanding anything I wrote.

The "if" is "if the US claims they are real", as in, the military claims specifically the most plausible explanation of the evidence to them is that these objects are physical, solid objects, not illusions or artifacts.

Something real in this sense but unexplainable and not originating from humans does not mean space aliens. Just like it doesn't mean leprechauns or unicorns. Where'd "aliens" come from? The answer "I don't know, but we can rule out humans" is an insane possibility, but is one which seems both increasingly likely to be the truth and also much less insane than "it's aliens."

[34679]

>If UAP originated from China or Russia and were a national security risk, their existence would have never been revealed to the public.

I agree with that part.

However, I think it's more reasonable to assume it belongs to the US Government, which would perfectly explain why they don't really view it as a threat.

[macspoofing]

> I think it's more reasonable to assume it belongs to the US Government, which would perfectly explain why they don't really view it as a threat.

You can't just conclude this. It could be other things like a sensor glitches. Or sensor confusion (e.g. tracking a bird heading in the opposite direction, or out of focus commercial plane). Or it could be something else entirely you aren't creative enough to think of.

The default position is "I don't know", not "Aliens" or "US Government" or "Unicorns"

[gfodor]

I don't think it's reasonable to assume it belongs to the US Government under the condition that these objects are confirmed to be real and capable of pulling, say 100G. I think that reality, if confirmed, would leave us rather short on low-surprise explanations fully consistent with it.

[34679]

If it's confirmed that these objects are performing controlled maneuvers at 100Gs, then that would also confirm such a thing is physically possible here on Earth. Why would we need to make the leap that someone somewhere else must have brought them here?

[gfodor]

I didn't. But if these are determined to be solid objects performing 100G then it's very, very unlikely humans have developed this technology, particularly if the world's militaries explicitly deny it.

Saying humans didn't create it is a lot different than saying anything about where it came from.