5 ms·

Worth remembering that if in 2010 you claimed that the US government was spying on everyone via everything, you'd be called a conspiracy-nut, we now know that i

Worth remembering that if in 2010 you claimed that the US government was spying on everyone via everything, you'd be called a conspiracy-nut, we now know that it was true, what so many people were claiming before that. I agree that probably there needs to be more evidence than "trust me, I've done this for a long time" in order for us to assert there is extra-terrestrial intelligence. But, I wouldn't believe it's false just based on "it couldn't have been hidden for this long".

Loquebantur 3y ago
This isn't just "some guy claiming whatever". Not only is there an enormous backstory attached that people willfully choose to remain ignorant to, all kinds of people holding active positions in the highest relevant places are corroborating this. Even more importantly perhaps, part of the story is a decades-long disinformation program conducted against the US population and government itself, by rouge elements in the intelligence community.
lisasays 3y ago
Worth remembering that if in 2010 you claimed that the US government was spying on everyone via everything, you'd be called a conspiracy-nut, we now know that it was true, what so many people were claiming before that. For one thing your assumption here just isn't true. You might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged (since the late 90s or so) that such surveillance was most likely happening. And precursors of such technology were referenced in congressional hearings back in the 70s. This was all discussed openly and there was nothing conspiratorial about the topic at all. For another -- just because certain things in the past that have been derided as conpiracy-fodder and then turned out to be true (MKULTRA, say) doesn't mean that some other thing X (that you happen to find nifty to believe in at the moment) just might be true, or will also be validated as such some day. In short -- the presence "conspiracy-nut" stigma about something has no bearing on its scientific validity whatsoever. Either for or against. But, I wouldn't believe it's false just based on "it couldn't have been hidden for this long". No - one wisely judges them to be most likely false based on (1) lack of physical evidence, (2) Occam's Razor. Not because of what you're saying (which doesn't have any bearing on the topic at all).
- RiceAndWater 3y ago
  You might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged (since the late 90s or so) that such surveillance was most likely happening. You realize how easily this point can be applied to UFO discourse, right?
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Because as everyone knows the tech community has been acknowledging the probable existence of UFOs since the 90s, right?
- monkeynotes 3y ago
  > might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged... There is a huge UAP community of believers. I don't see why a community belief makes it more legitimate. It's speculation until you have hard evidence, for the NSA thing that evidence was a whistleblower, what's the difference here??

Worth remembering that if in 2010 you claimed that the US government was spying on everyone via everything, you'd be called a conspiracy-nut, we now know that it was true, what so many people were claiming before that. I agree that probably there needs to be more evidence than "trust me, I've done this for a long time" in order for us to assert there is extra-terrestrial intelligence. But, I wouldn't believe it's false just based on "it couldn't have been hidden for this long".

Loquebantur 3y ago

This isn't just "some guy claiming whatever". Not only is there an enormous backstory attached that people willfully choose to remain ignorant to, all kinds of people holding active positions in the highest relevant places are corroborating this. Even more importantly perhaps, part of the story is a decades-long disinformation program conducted against the US population and government itself, by rouge elements in the intelligence community.

lisasays 3y ago

Worth remembering that if in 2010 you claimed that the US government was spying on everyone via everything, you'd be called a conspiracy-nut, we now know that it was true, what so many people were claiming before that. For one thing your assumption here just isn't true. You might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged (since the late 90s or so) that such surveillance was most likely happening. And precursors of such technology were referenced in congressional hearings back in the 70s. This was all discussed openly and there was nothing conspiratorial about the topic at all. For another -- just because certain things in the past that have been derided as conpiracy-fodder and then turned out to be true (MKULTRA, say) doesn't mean that some other thing X (that you happen to find nifty to believe in at the moment) just might be true, or will also be validated as such some day. In short -- the presence "conspiracy-nut" stigma about something has no bearing on its scientific validity whatsoever. Either for or against. But, I wouldn't believe it's false just based on "it couldn't have been hidden for this long". No - one wisely judges them to be most likely false based on (1) lack of physical evidence, (2) Occam's Razor. Not because of what you're saying (which doesn't have any bearing on the topic at all).

RiceAndWater 3y ago
You might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged (since the late 90s or so) that such surveillance was most likely happening. You realize how easily this point can be applied to UFO discourse, right?
- lisasays 3y ago
  Because as everyone knows the tech community has been acknowledging the probable existence of UFOs since the 90s, right?
monkeynotes 3y ago
> might have been called that in major media outlets -- but within the tech community it had been widely acknowledged... There is a huge UAP community of believers. I don't see why a community belief makes it more legitimate. It's speculation until you have hard evidence, for the NSA thing that evidence was a whistleblower, what's the difference here??