4 ms·

There are legitimate reasons to believe that the United States Defense Department has in its possession one or more craft built by non-human intelligences, and

There are legitimate reasons to believe that the United States Defense Department has in its possession one or more craft built by non-human intelligences, and has been covering this up for decades. This hearing is to allow witnesses to testify in an effort to move forward in our understanding of the truth to these claims.

furyofantares 3y ago
There aren't.
- revscat 3y ago
  There are serious people who think otherwise. You're two word dismissal is not a rebuttal.
  - baseballdork 3y ago
    There are serious people who believe lots of silly things. Your assertion that someone who you consider serious believes a thing is not a "legitimate reason" to believe the US DoD has alien tech.
    - revscat 3y ago
      And we have mechanisms in place to filter those people out. They seem to be successfully passing those filters. This makes it more likely they are truthful. I will assume a reply of “that does not guarantee truth/the system is imperfect” has already been given. Of course it doesn’t, and of course it isn’t. There are few guarantees. Passing those filters makes it more likely to be true. More likely. Not certain. More.
      - baseballdork 3y ago
        What mechanics and filters are you referring to? They don't seem to be at all effective.
  - mc32 3y ago
    Serious people are also known to have, from time to time, agendas that steer them away from truth for ulterior motives. The laws of physics tell us that if is highly improbable for intergalactic intelligence to be able to visit us. Else we need a plausible explanation.
    - revscat 3y ago
      The laws of physics were developed relatively recently. It would not be surprising in the least to discover that a civilization 100,000 years more advanced had figured out how to manipulate the Higgs field, and with it negate the restrictions imposed by relativity.
  - orbitalmechanic 3y ago
    It is.
- RajT88 3y ago
  People are definitely seeing weird stuff which can't be explained. I personally haven't, but both of my brothers have (one is a police officer, the other is a decorated Navy vet). The latter brother saw something late at night on the deck of an aircraft carrier. He told me about it shortly after, but a couple years later (the next time I asked about it), he was suddenly evasive and noncommittal. It was the classic "lights in the sky, making right angle turns at high speeds". The other brother saw a huge perfectly silent blue orb slowly drifting over a cornfield. What's clear is for some reason - possibly good reasons - the Pentagon is stonewalling on any kind of response as to what's going on.
  - furyofantares 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - RajT88 3y ago
      I didn't say it was. We have a long way to go before we entertain that notion. Don't put words in my mouth.
      - furyofantares 3y ago
        You didn't, no, but we're in a reply chain stemming from a post saying "there are legitimate reasons to believe that the United States Defense Department has in its possession one or more craft built by non-human intelligences"
  - shawabawa3 3y ago
    The cornfield orb could have been ball lightning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning
    - RajT88 3y ago
      True. I have seen videos of that - seems smaller than what he saw, but who knows?
- ceroxylon 3y ago
  This type of dismissive attitude is indicative of the stigma that has followed these types of disclosure attempts across the years, and if you were familiar with the three people being interviewed right now, you would realize their credentials supersede yours and are worth being listened to with an open mind.
  - furyofantares 3y ago
    It would be nice if we could dismiss baseless, extremely unlikely conclusions, without stigmatizing disclosure of information. I don't want to support stigma, but I also don't want more baseless stuff added to my life (which it is because my family tends to want me to help process the information whenever someone seeks attention, be it the person disclosing information or journalists covering it or internet commentators.)
  - mindcrime 3y ago
    But credentials alone don't prove anything. So sure, let's listen to these guys... but their credentials only get them in the room. After that, it takes actual hard evidence to support these extraordinary claims, IMO.
criddell 3y ago
I want to believe.
next_xibalba 3y ago
No, there aren’t. Everything presented thus far has either been: - Third hand claims, “I was told by a credible source…” - low quality imagery whose validity is disputed (gimbal video, etc.)

furyofantares 3y ago

There aren't.

revscat 3y ago
There are serious people who think otherwise. You're two word dismissal is not a rebuttal.
- baseballdork 3y ago
  There are serious people who believe lots of silly things. Your assertion that someone who you consider serious believes a thing is not a "legitimate reason" to believe the US DoD has alien tech.
  - revscat 3y ago
    And we have mechanisms in place to filter those people out. They seem to be successfully passing those filters. This makes it more likely they are truthful. I will assume a reply of “that does not guarantee truth/the system is imperfect” has already been given. Of course it doesn’t, and of course it isn’t. There are few guarantees. Passing those filters makes it more likely to be true. More likely. Not certain. More.
    - baseballdork 3y ago
      What mechanics and filters are you referring to? They don't seem to be at all effective.
- mc32 3y ago
  Serious people are also known to have, from time to time, agendas that steer them away from truth for ulterior motives. The laws of physics tell us that if is highly improbable for intergalactic intelligence to be able to visit us. Else we need a plausible explanation.
  - revscat 3y ago
    The laws of physics were developed relatively recently. It would not be surprising in the least to discover that a civilization 100,000 years more advanced had figured out how to manipulate the Higgs field, and with it negate the restrictions imposed by relativity.
- orbitalmechanic 3y ago
  It is.
RajT88 3y ago
People are definitely seeing weird stuff which can't be explained. I personally haven't, but both of my brothers have (one is a police officer, the other is a decorated Navy vet). The latter brother saw something late at night on the deck of an aircraft carrier. He told me about it shortly after, but a couple years later (the next time I asked about it), he was suddenly evasive and noncommittal. It was the classic "lights in the sky, making right angle turns at high speeds". The other brother saw a huge perfectly silent blue orb slowly drifting over a cornfield. What's clear is for some reason - possibly good reasons - the Pentagon is stonewalling on any kind of response as to what's going on.
- furyofantares 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - RajT88 3y ago
    I didn't say it was. We have a long way to go before we entertain that notion. Don't put words in my mouth.
    - furyofantares 3y ago
      You didn't, no, but we're in a reply chain stemming from a post saying "there are legitimate reasons to believe that the United States Defense Department has in its possession one or more craft built by non-human intelligences"
- shawabawa3 3y ago
  The cornfield orb could have been ball lightning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning
  - RajT88 3y ago
    True. I have seen videos of that - seems smaller than what he saw, but who knows?
ceroxylon 3y ago
This type of dismissive attitude is indicative of the stigma that has followed these types of disclosure attempts across the years, and if you were familiar with the three people being interviewed right now, you would realize their credentials supersede yours and are worth being listened to with an open mind.
- furyofantares 3y ago
  It would be nice if we could dismiss baseless, extremely unlikely conclusions, without stigmatizing disclosure of information. I don't want to support stigma, but I also don't want more baseless stuff added to my life (which it is because my family tends to want me to help process the information whenever someone seeks attention, be it the person disclosing information or journalists covering it or internet commentators.)
- mindcrime 3y ago
  But credentials alone don't prove anything. So sure, let's listen to these guys... but their credentials only get them in the room. After that, it takes actual hard evidence to support these extraordinary claims, IMO.

criddell 3y ago

I want to believe.

next_xibalba 3y ago

No, there aren’t. Everything presented thus far has either been: - Third hand claims, “I was told by a credible source…” - low quality imagery whose validity is disputed (gimbal video, etc.)