This is literally the Whitest Kids You Know moon bears skit. If you haven't seen it, watch it. It's a distraction, a means to control the narrative. That's it.
Here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eztgcwvfPjM
US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
531–540 of 615 posts
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments I’m seeing are more like: “This sandwich is bad , also we’re ignoring their covering for sex trafficking.”
Or "the public asked the government for transparency about sex trafficking, maybe it isn't transparency for the government to excitedly reveal the contents of a sandwich are a nothingburger"
Are these your thoughts when you're having a lunch?
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#533Anyone has a convenient download all dump link? It seems the site is blocked from anywhwere but usa.
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes yes, because the right was completely tolerant of democratic administrations. both sides are blind to their own faults which is natural as nobody likes wallowing in their own issues. it's much easier to whataboutism the topic instead. Trump has blamed his predecessors to the point it seems obsessive. As someone that leans left more than right, I'm willing to accept the faults of the platform. would you be willing…
Too much text. It’s much simpler to me. Do I have the right to choose a preferred political party? Yes. Do I have the right to express which political party I prefer? Yes. Yet people attack me for that ... it seems deranged.
People also have the right to question your decision. Freedom goes both ways.
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing anti-science about the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence. In fact its apparent absence is has a name -- it's called the Fermi Paradox. And the facts are just ... released. It's the interpretation of the observations that are disputed. And unless you think they are all fake, the explanations that do not involve alien tech are non-trivial to say the least. I'm not sure why you'd think there is any…
Extraterrestrial intelligence existing somewhere in the universe, and extraterrestrial life visiting Earth are two distinct things, and the former is vastly more probable than the latter.
Yes, and to bring it back to GP's point, if someone comes telling you they just saw a flying saucer rise on a big chem trail above the flat earth's horizon, then you perhaps don't take their next claim all too serious.
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Have you looked through the “releases”? Ooooo! Blurry dots on the horizon combined with an “artist rendition” of an oblong flying object. And believe me I so wish we could be visited by intelligent life. Maybe they can share some tips on how to reclaim sanity.
I haven't really. Yes, it's reasonable to feel underwhelmed. I'm more interested in the normalization and development towards further disclosure than the exact specifics of digital records being released, which I expect to be relatively mundane.
That's why it's not enough these days to just see something weird. There preferably needs to be elements of the 5 observables, and extensive witness testimony of the exact nature of the sighting. Many of the sightings include no such testimony, so there's just not much to go on.
An example of good sighting with detailed testimony is https://www.narcap.org/blog/narcaptr20
We need to get to the point where the scientific community gets access to these supposed crashed craft and study them. Physical evidence.
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
An article about a topic doesn’t mean it’s endorsed - are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn’t host an article that describes a theory if you don’t like the theory?
Are you seriously suggesting an encyclopedia should be packed with crackpot conspiracy theories, academic charlatanry, quackery, and agitprop? Or does that not defeat the point? Keep the author's biography, but his "theories" are best left for a footnote in the biography, or websites that explicitly serve as a museum for failed ideas.
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
*sigh* No, it wasn't not renamed, in the same way that a cape-wearing 4-year-old isn't actually changing his legal name to SuperBadguyKillerMan.
I mean, apparently they didn't legally but he did sign an executive order, and they do use war.gov ; so it's a de facto versus de jure situation.
The executive order doesn't purport to rename the department, it explicitly authorizes executive agencies to use a set of additional “secondary titles” for the department and its officials whose legal title includes the legal name of the department.
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, everything is just something boring. The chances of us espying extraterrestrials in our atmosphere by chance are essentially nil. People looking for secret photos and buried evidence will absolutely positively never find it. People inside the DoD are just as crazy and irrational as the general public if not moreso. If a flying saucer lands in your front yard and little green men come out and say "take me t…
If we are being visited we would never see them unless they decided to show themselves, and if they did it would be absolutely unambiguous. Someone with the tech to travel the stars (or something weirder like between dimensions) could make probes the size of bugs, sand, or dust. They could also image us at incredible resolution from afar, receive all our signals, and so on. They might be able to do even weirder and c…
Or just manipulate our senses.
Re: US Government releases first batch of UAP documents and videos
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
An article about a topic doesn’t mean it’s endorsed - are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn’t host an article that describes a theory if you don’t like the theory?
Are you seriously suggesting an encyclopedia should be packed with crackpot conspiracy theories, academic charlatanry, quackery, and agitprop? Or does that not defeat the point? Keep the author's biography, but his "theories" are best left for a footnote in the biography, or websites that explicitly serve as a museum for failed ideas.
A) that’s a very biased view of it that you clearly are emotionally invested in B) an encyclopedia should describe all things factually. It’d be one thing if it described it as truth, but describing it truthfully is far different