Neil deGrasse Tyson Weighs in on Pentagon UFO Report and Alien Life | The View

The astrophysicist and “Cosmic Queries” author discusses Jeff Bezos’ upcoming space trip and if the UFOs allegedly spotted by Navy pilots could be extraterrestrial or foreign aircraft on “The View.”

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:

Full episodes:


24 Comments on “Neil deGrasse Tyson Weighs in on Pentagon UFO Report and Alien Life | The View”

  1. I really don't enjoy the gaslighting to be honest. I'm not saying that there is intelligent life out there but what I am saying is that we are constantly lied to by business and government and then they act confused as to why the people no longer trust them. If the government can hide spying on the entire world and lie to our faces the entire time what else are they hiding? If it's worth lying about it's got to be something interesting.

  2. If Dr. Tyson was presented with an actual alien spacecraft, he would claim that it was a top secret military creation. If he was show a living alien being or an alien cadaver, he would claim that either was the result of a genetic abnormality. There isn't a single shred of proof that would convince him that intelligent alien life forms exist because admitting this would be the equivalent of admitting that the human race (specifically scientists like him) are not the highest forms of life in the universe. If you want to learn about stars, planets, black holes, quasars, etc., he is knowledgeable and can provide some quality insight. You're wasting your time when asking him about aliens. He hasn't done the research because he doesn't feel the need. He doesn't acknowledge these other possibilities, so move on and stop trying to draw out insights from this man when it relates to extraterrestrial beings/crafts. He'll NEVER change.

  3. Neil once said that theories about aliens or alien bodies held by the government aren't real because someone who worked at these facilities would have posted a photo of the aliens on Instagram for their 15 minutes of fame or a chance to be famous. Wtf? That is such dumb logic. Do government employees post photos of classified information or new technology developed by the government on Instagram for clout? No! So why would the same happen with aliens?

  4. I had to stop watching as soon as he mentioned 3 billion phones and why are they not capturing it. Thats false. Its blocked in America. Anyone who has russian/Chinese/Indian server access KNOWS that they get flooded with UFO, 4k res visuals. More fake manipulated media in the US.

  5. Lol we are living in the Idiocracy. The proof is all these scientifically illiterate morons who think what Niels said was somehow controversial. If they knew even the most basic scientific understanding they would not have any problem with anything he said

  6. A scientist mentality is based on curiosity and investigative pursuits, the burden of proof is not from the witnesses, it is from the doubters. Their limitation is their misfortune.

  7. Neil is an Astrophysicist, what comprises of the Universe is the same force and energy that created the Planet and its inhabitants. With a 100 years of intense scientific progress in the 21st century, what will you be expecting of the 22nd century when portals of other dimensions are opened?

  8. Specious reasoning – navy have the technology to detect these, in a way that we used to not be able to. Lt. Graves specifically mentioned that these were popping up after upgrading their radar gear. So perhaps they’re not just popping up for the navy / its just that the military have the technology to detect them.

  9. Can we all agree that this guy should eat his hat on national television when he gets proven very wrong?

  10. I’ve come to discover in recent times starting with his very rude interviews with Joe Rogan that Neil isn’t as smart as I once thought. He is very biased. He’s just an ego-fumed note-taker who can’t think for himself.

  11. Your smart phone cant even capture the moon clearly how is it going to capture a light dot moving fast. This is stupid

  12. Why does it always have to turn into a joke about aliens? So frustrating for the people like me that want to learn what these UAP’s actually are.

  13. Here are Tyson’s arguments looked at using formal logic—they are all very easy to refute. (Note that although the more reasonable—though false—skeptical conclusion is “The belief that some UFOs are otherworldly devices is unjustified,” Tyson, in his second and third arguments, actually goes so far as to conclude that “There are no otherworldly visitors”!);

    Tyson’s first argument:

    He implies that, because we proponents of UFO reality want the conclusion to be true, our reasoning is stupidly simple:

    P1. If things are observed in the sky that we don’t understand, then they are alien spaceships.

    P2. Things are observed in the sky that we don’t understand.

    C. Therefore, the things are alien spaceships.

    RESPONSE: But we’re not, in fact, stupid; our conclusions are rationally, not emotionally, based; our actual argument goes something like this:

    P1. If things are, and have been for many decades, observed in the air, in the water, in space and on land—things whose appearance and performance (obviously intelligently controlled) imply a technology vastly beyond anything either conceived of in our respected scientific literature or applied to any known human-made devices—then those things probably are products of intelligent otherworldly species.

    P2. Things are, and have been for many decades, observed in the air, [etc.].

    C. Therefore, these things probably are products of intelligent otherworldly species. [Modus Ponens]

    In this way, we do, in fact, “rank possibilities by likelihood.”

    Tyson’s second argument:

    P1. If there are aliens visiting, then they would be seen all over (not just by Navy pilots)..

    P2. They are not said to be seen all over (but just by Navy pilots).

    C. Therefore, there are no aliens visiting. [Modus Tollens]

    RESPONSE: Tyson’s P1 here is not proven—it’s completely possible, of course, that the visitors would be on a mission that involves only our Naval operations.

    His P2 is false—they are and have been seen all over (it’s just that the recent Naval cases are particularly compelling).

    Since his premises are defective, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

    His third argument:

    P1. If there are a lot of smartphones on earth that can take high resolution video, and if aliens are visiting, then we’d see streaming videos of the alien visitors going viral.

    P2. We don’t see streaming videos of the alien visitors going viral.

    C1. Therefore, there aren’t many smartphones and/or there are no aliens visiting. [Modus Tollens]

    P3. There are 3 billion smartphones on earth.

    C2. Therefore, there are no aliens visiting [Disjunctive Syllogism]

    RESPONSE: P1 isn’t proven, simply because it may be that the visitors, who could be a million years ahead of us, might well be capable of avoiding situations where their presence could be streamed, and/or they might well be capable of interfering with the operation of smartphones, and/or capable of controlling the actions of the witnesses. So, C2 doesn’t follow.

    His fourth argument:

    “They could be foreign craft”

    RESPONSE: But they’ve been around for 70 years—it’s highly unlikely that they were Russian or Chinese back then, and if they had been, their existence would surely have become public knowledge by now.

    His fifth argument:

    There were bugs in the equipment.

    RESPONSE: But Commander Fravor and Lt. Commander Dietrich and their WSOs in the back seats SAW the things, and the objects were picked up on multiple sensors; as Fravor said to Lex Fridman, “Super Hornets…have the APG-79, which is the new phased array radar…usually if it’s out there and it sees it, it’s real; so, at first they thought they were ghost tracks when they started seeing stuff—then they actually threw one of the targeting pods out there; well, the targeting pod, there’s a heat signature, and you go, ‘Hey, dot heat signature, something’s there. It’s real….You’re not picking up some extraneous thing.’” Also, the Navy, always concerned about the state of its equipment, would not label these objects “unidentified” if it thought that equipment error was a realistic possibility.

    His sixth argument:

    Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” not monochromatic, fuzzy Navy video of something that looks like a Tic Tac.

    RESPONSE: Of course, the evidence is much stronger than the Navy videos alone. But let’s take a look at Sagan’s statement: the first “extraordinary” can’t just mean “out of the ordinary” or “amazing;” rather, it must mean “improbable” and the second “extraordinary” must mean “unusually strong,” and, in fact, it does seem true to say, “Improbable claims require unusually strong evidence.” But we simply cannot legitimately claim that alien visitation is improbable, because we have absolutely no idea what a vastly advanced alien technology might be capable of. (In fact, if we take “extraordinary” to mean “amazing,” we can say that any good evidence for alien visitation is extraordinary.)

    For an idea about debate reform, see

    For an idea about forming an organization to promote debating the UFO topic in public, see

  14. He literally disregards video evidence as if it’s not already on tape. He asks for iPhone recordings, but won’t accept military grade cameras and radar as evidence?? 😂 a bad scientist if he outright refutes absolutely all evidence that contradicts his opinion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *