4 ms·
"Hearsay" is a derogatory term used to disparage evidence. It is entirely unscientific, as evidence is not ignored solely based on the messenger. You have to th
by Loquebantur 3y ago
"Hearsay" is a derogatory term used to disparage evidence. It is entirely unscientific, as evidence is not ignored solely based on the messenger. You have to thoroughly evaluate the context, regardless of your personal preconceptions.
The guy has done a seven hour interview with Ross Coulthart, that is due to come out this week. He is reported to have such photos, documents, etc.
This story is bigger than Watergate by orders of magnitude. You playing ignorant here is ridiculous.
- nradov 3y agoNone of that constitutes actual evidence. Let's see some artifacts.
- Loquebantur 3y agoEvidence in real life is accumulative, not "holy grail style", like in the movies. You build a case step by step, systematically establishing a context. Here you already missed all the prior foundational work. On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". That is mere posturing. You miss the slightly more important point of having been lied to your entire life by the government about fundamental topics, which is beginning to unravel here.
- lisasays 3y agoEvidence in real life is accumulative, Right -- and so far there's an accumulation of precisely zero. On top of it you pretend to be able to judge the validity of "artifacts". I defer largely to (legitimate) experts, actually. But as of yet: there are no artifacts to evaluate.
- Loquebantur 3y agoDoes the account nradov belong to you as well? You not knowing about the already existing evidence is no proof of its inexistence. What "legitimate experts" exactly are you referring to and where? The whistleblower here is talking, among other important things, about a secret US military program attempting to reverse engineer non-human artifacts. Your demands here are out of context and nonsensical.
- lisasays 3y agoI might as well be the Queen of Romania as far as you're concerned. And hey, you can believe whatever you want about this stuff. I really don't care. I do find most of the line of discussion here to be quite silly, though.
- LargeWu 3y agoTo be fair, though, the claim here is "intact vehicles". That's as holy grail as it gets.
- kwertyoowiyop 3y agoLet’s see one, then.
- lisasays 3y agoExactly. Sure, let's have people come forward and show us what they got, or what they've seen. Until then -- all I'm saying is: C'mon, people -- hold your horses. We're scientists here, after all.
- Loquebantur 3y agoThis guy is doing exactly that, coming forward and showing what he's got. What you are is unclear to me.
- nradov 3y agoThis guy (David Charles Grusch) has come forward. He is not yet showing us anything. I eagerly await him showing some actual artifacts, or at least authenticated documents and images of such artifacts. Until then this is a big nothingburger.
- Loquebantur 3y agoThe mere circumstance of a person with his career going on record with such claims is a great deal and clearly indicative of something really unusual happening.
- lisasays 3y agoIronically this is what many people thought when they saw Colin Powell go in front of the UN and do his song and dance about Iraq's WMD program. Which surely must have been a clear and present danger to the world at large, for this guy to go on record and stake his whole reputation and legacy on it. And yet, when you actually listened to what the guy was saying ...
- Loquebantur 3y agoIndeed, you should actually listen to what this whistleblower is saying rather than relying solely on credentials. I don't know though, whether Colin Powell risked his career in any way, it doesn't look like it. You are weirdly not providing any reasoned arguments whatsoever, only illogical slander. Why is that?
- lisasays 3y agoWatergate had tapes, reams of documents - and riveting testimony under penalty of perjury. When we have that on the table in regard to this matter -- we'll have something to talk about. As it stands now -- we have nothing.
- Loquebantur 3y agoThe events here are clearly indicative of something unusually important happening. Your attempts to relativize that with nonsensical "Let's put the cart before the horse and our heads in the sand"-arguments are misleading.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- RealAberration 3y ago> The events here are clearly indicative of something unusually important happening. Yes, probably some kind of rather involved psychological/propaganda operation to jump-start the public's faith in technology as the solution to manifestly worsening conditions, or to restore faith in institutions whose credibility is in tatters.
- RyanCavanaugh 3y agoThis story is bigger than Watergate by orders of magnitude, if it's true. There have been "Retired intelligence officer says he has evidence of aliens" stories floating in fringe media for decades, and all of them have turned out to be cranks. Bob Lazar has been working this beat since 1989; where's the evidence? Maybe eventually one of these times it'll all be true, but skepticism -- extreme skepticism -- should absolutely be the default position here.
- Loquebantur 3y agoWhat is "extreme skepticism" other than ignorance? A real skeptic actually looks at the data and isn't content simply by ignoring it. Here, you simply imply this guy was a "crank". Maybe you should take a closer look first?
- RyanCavanaugh 3y agoGreat, where's the data? Right, he doesn't have any, and is asking for other people to come forward with the data.