5 ms·

No, it's expert testimony. I can't believe I have to explain that on HN...

lisasays 3y ago
By someone with no scientific credentials whatsoever -- and who presents no evidence. I mean sure -- he's a great guy, and has served his country and all. But still.
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  Why on earth would the whistleblower have to be a scientist here? That's utter nonsense. This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse by demanding "evidence" of some mystical quality, while entirely ignoring the information that is actually presented.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. In a world of agencies famously riddled with incompetence, whose people have not only have been shown to be liars, time and time again -- but guess what: Their very purpose is to lie. That's why we need something more to seek our teeth into than some whistleblower who says he's seen reports about such and such.
  - PKop 3y ago
    He could simply be lying, pushing a propaganda message of the state. Why would you without evidence believe he is being truthful whatsoever? There is geopolitical advantage to making the world think you have advanced weapons tech, or that it exists and has to be found somewhere.
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      I do not "believe" anything if I can help it. Here, the guy has supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions. The context checks out. To assume he was "lying" is what is preposterous. You frame the events as if some noname-guy came up in a vacuum claiming incredible stuff. That is not at all what is happening. You not knowing about all that and not even recognizing that this circumstance is affecting your judgement is remarkable.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jl6 3y ago
        Given the history of this subject, it’s not unreasonable to assume that a mundane explanation like “he’s lying” is more likely than the extraordinary explanation of a worldwide decades-long conspiracy theory. I mean, I hope it’s true. Aliens would be cool. But we’ve been here before.
      - PKop 3y ago
        I'm sorry, are you under the impression that high level government agents don't lie? That he isn't no-name makes the lie more plausible of course. We're talking hypothetical and possibilities here, that you're completely rejecting the possibility of a government lie is pretty silly. >supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions C'mon man lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
        Loquebantur 3y ago
        I don't think you understand in the slightest what is being said here. If you assume, this guy was lying on behalf of the government you might want to try to rationalize that, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. That idea about the US wanting to impress other nations with bogus UFO tech is ridiculously stupid. You completely underestimate other countries for instance.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sowbug 3y ago
  Witness testimony is evidence. You don't have to believe him, but it is specious to reject a witness's testimony primarily on the grounds that it is not evidence.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    He hasn't seen the stuff (or even photos of the stuff) himself - he's only spoken to people who claim they have, or who claim to know of it. Why are you, then, hallucinating that he's some kind of "witness"?
- graderjs 3y ago
  Well, he is an expert on the subject matter, so....like, what are you an expert on? He he he :)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

By someone with no scientific credentials whatsoever -- and who presents no evidence. I mean sure -- he's a great guy, and has served his country and all. But still.

Loquebantur 3y ago
Why on earth would the whistleblower have to be a scientist here? That's utter nonsense. This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. Again, you are putting the cart before the horse by demanding "evidence" of some mystical quality, while entirely ignoring the information that is actually presented.
- lisasays 3y ago
  This guy has worked exactly where it is necessary in order to get hold of the claimed information, in a faculty with the necessary clearances. In a world of agencies famously riddled with incompetence, whose people have not only have been shown to be liars, time and time again -- but guess what: Their very purpose is to lie. That's why we need something more to seek our teeth into than some whistleblower who says he's seen reports about such and such.
- PKop 3y ago
  He could simply be lying, pushing a propaganda message of the state. Why would you without evidence believe he is being truthful whatsoever? There is geopolitical advantage to making the world think you have advanced weapons tech, or that it exists and has to be found somewhere.
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    I do not "believe" anything if I can help it. Here, the guy has supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions. The context checks out. To assume he was "lying" is what is preposterous. You frame the events as if some noname-guy came up in a vacuum claiming incredible stuff. That is not at all what is happening. You not knowing about all that and not even recognizing that this circumstance is affecting your judgement is remarkable.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jl6 3y ago
      Given the history of this subject, it’s not unreasonable to assume that a mundane explanation like “he’s lying” is more likely than the extraordinary explanation of a worldwide decades-long conspiracy theory. I mean, I hope it’s true. Aliens would be cool. But we’ve been here before.
    - PKop 3y ago
      I'm sorry, are you under the impression that high level government agents don't lie? That he isn't no-name makes the lie more plausible of course. We're talking hypothetical and possibilities here, that you're completely rejecting the possibility of a government lie is pretty silly. >supporting testimony from a whole array of decorated people in important positions C'mon man lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
      - Loquebantur 3y ago
        I don't think you understand in the slightest what is being said here. If you assume, this guy was lying on behalf of the government you might want to try to rationalize that, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. That idea about the US wanting to impress other nations with bogus UFO tech is ridiculously stupid. You completely underestimate other countries for instance.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sowbug 3y ago
Witness testimony is evidence. You don't have to believe him, but it is specious to reject a witness's testimony primarily on the grounds that it is not evidence.
- lisasays 3y ago
  He hasn't seen the stuff (or even photos of the stuff) himself - he's only spoken to people who claim they have, or who claim to know of it. Why are you, then, hallucinating that he's some kind of "witness"?
graderjs 3y ago
Well, he is an expert on the subject matter, so....like, what are you an expert on? He he he :)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]