4 ms·
> Another is a Stanford biologist who started producing debunked materials science papers about allegedly alien artifacts (that turn out to look a lot like ordi
by RetpolineDrama 3y ago
> Another is a Stanford biologist who started producing debunked materials science papers about allegedly alien artifacts (that turn out to look a lot like ordinary machine parts).
Source?
>At one point she cites the now-discredited "Gimball Video".
"Gimball" is not credibly discredited, calling it such highlights your bias and calls your other points into question.
EDIT: HN is a terrible website for having actual discussions because, inevitably, people reply to my comments and I end up typing a reply only to hit "you're doing that too fast". Occasionally I engage and inevitably am reminded of why this site sucks so much for anything more than a particularly unperformant RSS feed
So I don't know if this will even post, but I've posted up thread so hopefully you see it. (edit: it didn't post, so I edited it in to my original message)
Generally anyone who refers to "Gimball" as debunked/etc is referring to Mick West's preposterous video on the subject. It has been so thoroughly, repeatedly, taken apart by actual fighter pilots who have used these systems that _anyone_ still parroting the original claims of Mick West is either incredibly out of the loop or a straight-up denialist who is willing to accept even the most flimsy of arguments if it reenforces their prior beliefs.
https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc
- moffkalast 3y agoYeah it's more like been confirmed with the recent airspace intrusions? They're almost certainly all some kind of foreign spy drones which exploit the alien stigma by being designed to look as alien as possible. Any sightings would be instantly dismissed as nonsense, which is a real galaxy brain psyops move. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones-are-spying-on-the-u-s-and-the-pentagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones...
- ggm 3y agoAre you promoting radical scepticism and believe we should abjure from pro or con cases or are you a believer? They're not the same. Do you apply the same criterion to all rebuttals or only rebuttals of this kind? How topic specific is your concern with credibility ? And, forgive me but why should we care about your opinion over others? You are in some ways invoking appeal to authority but then... All debunking is at some level an appeal to authority. I am unquestionably promoting an appeal to authority above btw. Since there's no point discussing this "evidence" with a believer, I ask what you would consider viable credible discrediting. My suspicion is, no discrediting would meet your standard and you are not actually prepared to accept any alternate basis, such as lens flare.
- dekhn 3y agoThe stanford biologist- Garry Nolan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Nolan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Nolan
- throwaway743 3y agoHaven't some of the materials been found to be manufactured in a way that's not possible with our tech?
- wizofaus 3y agoAs opposed to somehow traveled here via a mechanism that's not possible by our current understanding of the laws of physics?
- dekhn 3y agoI think people have said that, but not in a way that means it's true, or unique, or helpful. Sufficiently advanced metallurgy is indistinguishable from magic.