TFTRH #26: UFO Jesus

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1mpwyAsBwY


UFO Jesus is a popular advocate of UFO "disclosure", the belief that the US Government is close to revealing that it knows that some UFOs actually are the result of alien visitors. We talk about this and our different interpretation of the evidence used to support this case. In particular, we focus on the 2004 case of the USS Nimitz, where, over several days, unexplained sightings and radar returns culminated in two fighter planes observing what one pilot, Commander David Fravor, described as a "white Tic-Tac shaped craft" performing impossible maneuvers. A later video was also taken, which I think shows a distant plane, and UFO fans think is this Tic-Tac. There are rumors of a higher-resolution longer video that shows more.
UFO Jesus closes with six prophecies, and I'm a bit skeptical. But he gives a nice short timeframe of six years, so we'll see.

UFO Jesus on Twitter @PostDisclosure - https://twitter.com/postdisclosure
UFO Jesus on Youtube – Post Disclosure World - https://www.youtube.com/postdisclosureworld
The USS Nimitz UFO Incident (Wikipedia) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident
Accuracy of Memories of 9/11 - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/911-memory-accuracy/
Episode Website: https://www.tftrh.com/2019/10/03/ep...sclosure-the-nimitz-tic-tac-and-ufo-evidence/
Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...mitz-tic-tac-ufo/id1462120258?i=1000452175724

 

Mick — now that the deadlines have passed, I'd be interested in your retrospective on the bets and Ryan Robbins/UFO Jesus's six predictions.(i may have missed any public recapped you have made on)
The bet: In the 2019 podcast you and Ryan discuss an already-running five-year wager: roughly three years remained, and you said you had put the deadline in your Google Calendar. The podcast doesn't establish how the bet originally arose or attach a monetary value. Ryan later referred on Twitter to a "$50 bet with Mick West (that he initiated)", involving a head of state acknowledging "UFO reality," and said the precise terms were recorded on Twitter. I haven't established whether that was definitely the same bet or how it was ultimately settled. There was also a separate later $20 bet over the 180-day UAP report, which shouldn't be conflated with it.

Ryan's six 2019 predictions, due within six years:

1. Disclosure would occur.
2. Previously unknown UFO programs would emerge, older/other than AATIP and much better funded.
3. More evidence would increase the odds that some UFOs are "not from here."
4. UFO coverage would continue escalating into the mainstream rather than fizzle out.
5. Many books would be written criticizing how skeptics/scientists approached UFOs.
6. Disclosure would produce many scientific breakthroughs significantly helping humanity.

My provisional scores: 0, 0, 2, 5, 0, 0 / 10 — 7/60 overall.

Mick, could you clarify how the original five-year bet was formed, its exact terms/deadline, whether it was the $50 bet Ryan later mentioned, and what the eventual outcome was? And, six years later, how would you score Ryan's six predictions?
attached is an op-ed style piece i have put together around this topic, im not a professional writer but have thought about posting less technical more accessible pieces in skeptical online communities like here/discord and reddit maybe

 

Mick — now that the deadlines have passed, I'd be interested in your retrospective on the bets and Ryan Robbins/UFO Jesus's six predictions.(i may have missed any public recapped you have made on)
The bet: In the 2019 podcast you and Ryan discuss an already-running five-year wager: roughly three years remained, and you said you had put the deadline in your Google Calendar. The podcast doesn't establish how the bet originally arose or attach a monetary value. Ryan later referred on Twitter to a "$50 bet with Mick West (that he initiated)", involving a head of state acknowledging "UFO reality," and said the precise terms were recorded on Twitter. I haven't established whether that was definitely the same bet or how it was ultimately settled. There was also a separate later $20 bet over the 180-day UAP report, which shouldn't be conflated with it.

Ryan's six 2019 predictions, due within six years:

1. Disclosure would occur.
2. Previously unknown UFO programs would emerge, older/other than AATIP and much better funded.
3. More evidence would increase the odds that some UFOs are "not from here."
4. UFO coverage would continue escalating into the mainstream rather than fizzle out.
5. Many books would be written criticizing how skeptics/scientists approached UFOs.
6. Disclosure would produce many scientific breakthroughs significantly helping humanity.

My provisional scores: 0, 0, 2, 5, 0, 0 / 10 — 7/60 overall.

Mick, could you clarify how the original five-year bet was formed, its exact terms/deadline, whether it was the $50 bet Ryan later mentioned, and what the eventual outcome was? And, six years later, how would you score Ryan's six predictions?
attached is an op-ed style piece i have put together around this topic, im not a professional writer but have thought about posting less technical more accessible pieces in skeptical online communities like here/discord and reddit maybe

Hi, I'm not Mick, but he'll probably reply to you.
Don't you think these predictions are rather vague and generic?
I remember Ryan saying that we already all live in a post disclosure world, it was 6 years ago.
Some information was disclosed, yet we're very far from any "revelation" about alien life on earth.
On UFO programs, they always emerge since the damn 40s, airforce wants to know what flies in their skies, so it studies unidentified stuff in the skies.
UFOs "not from here", what makes you think this is a specific prediction? That's literally the whole discussion on UFOs as aliens vs. UFOs as something prosaic (mostly clutter). How is that a prediction?
Regarding books, was there actually an increase in "anti skeptic" UFO literature? I would bet there were always believer UFO books, scientific or skeptic UFO books even 80 years ago.
Scientific breakthroughs regarding supposed alien revelations or disclosure? Not seeing them anywhere. No new ways of propulsion or anything of that kind, it's claims and claims from whistleholders, no tech anywhere.
I wouldn't give Ryan that much credit, he's just a UFO Youtuber afterall, I don't think he's treating the subject objectively or seriously.

 

More evidence would increase the odds that some UFOs are "not from here."

We've had more videos and more verbal reports. We haven't had more "evidence". Indeed, it would be difficult to have less evidence, since the score so far has been zero. You talk about "increasing the odds", but the number of unsubstantiated claims is meaningless, since zero times a very large number is still zero.

 

I'm pretty new to posting around here and didn't want to create a mountain of text. I went through the claims made in the interview and believe I portrayed them accurately. I scored the six predictions 7/60 overall. I explain the reasoning behind the scoring in the attached PDF and finish with some thoughts about the broader belief in imminent "disclosure."
Mick raises the vagueness and probability of some of these claims during this and other interactions. I felt he was being courteous and fairly accepting during the interview, and was happy to concede that Ryan had at least established a clear timeframe for the predictions.
Six years later, Ryan and his community seem to be carrying on much as before despite the deadlines having passed. Although i will admit i dont know much about either. That was really the point I wanted to explore, along with getting some clarification around the bets. I may have missed some interactions, or perhaps some tweets were deleted?
Below is the final paragraph from the piece:

"A movement that remembers every apparent confirmation while forgetting its failed forecasts is not steadily accumulating evidence; it is manufacturing confirmation. Until yesterday's promises are audited with the same enthusiasm as tomorrow's revelations are promoted, 'disclosure' will remain less a testable prediction than an article of faith: always imminent, always transformative, and always just around the corner.

 

We've had more videos and more verbal reports. We haven't had more "evidence". Indeed, it would be difficult to have less evidence, since the score so far has been zero. You talk about "increasing the odds", but the number of unsubstantiated claims is meaningless, since zero times a very large number is still zero.

lol I didn't say that(i didn't like seeing that quoted as said by me). That is I believe a fair representation of the claim ryan made, I pulled all quotes from a transcript of the interview they are all referenced in the pdf along with my conclusions.

3. Evidence that some UFOs are "not from here" - approx. 59:17
"More evidence will be released that increases the odds that some UFOs are not from here."

I agreed with your comment and I may have missed the mark with my post in a effort to keep it brief, Im new to posting here and developing an approach to the less technical skeptical stuff. I thought it was a good approach to look at these predications, look at the outcomes, look at how the maker has dealt with the outcomes and infer a comment on larger mindset without pointing fingers and remaining fair. Maybe 7/60 was overly generous. I gave prediction no.5 5/10 its was half right at best I thought mainly due to vagueness in which it was stated

 

I like UFOJ. It's nice to get a variety of views. He's very enthusiastic! It's intersesting how many people have made the topic their own, or claim an experience.
Witness testimony under oath is considered evidence in legal courts. If you have corroboration, as some do, that's even better. Some have been convicted based mostly on circumstantial evidence. But it is not the extraordinary or replicable evidence many demand for proof of anomalous objects.. Other life or intelligences visiting Earth is considered "extraordinary". It is an extraordinary experience to see one, but they usually turn out to be mundane objects.

 

Mick, could you clarify how the original five-year bet was formed, its exact terms/deadline, whether it was the $50 bet Ryan later mentioned, and what the eventual outcome was? And, six years later, how would you score Ryan's six predictions?

I don't really have any more insight than what is available in public. I think I'd score them pretty much as you did. There's more continued interest than I anticipated. But nothing has really been disclosed.

 

fair enough thx for input was an interesting interview to look back at

 

lol I didn't say that(i didn't like seeing that quoted as said by me). That is I believe a fair representation of the claim ryan made, I pulled all quotes from a transcript of the interview they are all referenced in the pdf along with my conclusions.

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you; I was just quoting your paraphrase. But I see you've scored that a 2, so apparently you think there has been some evidence. I haven't seen any worth taking seriously.

 

Sorry, didn't mean to accuse you; I was just quoting your paraphrase. But I see you've scored that a 2, so apparently you think there has been some evidence. I haven't seen any worth taking seriously.

we all good,was just how the interface presented it to me.

on good faith i gave it a 2, as in more evidence as Ryan would describe it, would increase the odds that some UFOs are "not from here." from infinity large to slightly less infinity large-that may be failed logic-again it was a poorly framed prediction

 

on good faith i gave it a 2, as in more evidence as Ryan would describe it, would increase the odds that some UFOs are "not from here." from infinity large to slightly less infinity large-that may be failed logic-again it was a poorly framed prediction

Evidence does not work that way. Every time a purported 'UFO' stays unidentified it adds exactly zero to the probability of UFOs existing (or not existing): it's just 'no data'. While everytime a purported UFO evidence is shown to be mundane this decreases the probability the next 'UFO evidence' will actually be an UFO.

Think about this: every unidentified claim is a marble of unknown colour inside a big bag. Knowing there are many marbles inside the bag tells you nothing about their colour. But every time you extract a marble and you see it's black (not an UFO) this decreases the probability the next marble won't be black (an actual UFO).

 

Evidence does not work that way. Every time a purported 'UFO' stays unidentified it adds exactly zero to the probability of UFOs existing (or not existing): it's just 'no data'. While everytime a purported UFO evidence is shown to be mundane this decreases the probability the next 'UFO evidence' will actually be an UFO.

Think about this: every unidentified claim is a marble of unknown colour inside a big bag. Knowing there are many marbles inside the bag tells you nothing about their colour. But every time you extract a marble and you see it's black (not an UFO) this decreases the probability the next marble won't be black (an actual UFO).

i look at it like he said that marbles would be pulled from the bag and it would proved to hes a great marbler. the marble got pulled-thats what he said not me. he made a vague claim and some of it hit