The UFO/UAP disclosure thread

[bzb]

Breh, that's the exact same language posters on this board use, the same language everyone uses. You're reaching now.

not sure how that's considered reaching. posters on this board don't have access to the same intel as the pentagon's leading ufo expert. he's choosing his words and statements very deliberately in his testimony before congress.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

not sure how that's considered reaching. posters on this board don't have access to the same intel as the pentagon's leading ufo expert. he's choosing his words and statements very deliberately in his testimony before congress.

But he's "deliberately" choosing the most regular-ass words that everyone uses when talking about UFOs. If they were unusual words to use then you might have a point, but "extraterrestrial activity", "offworld technology", and "objects that defy the known laws of physics" are literally the exact phrases you would expect anyone to use in that situation.


What alternate words do you think he even could have used to get his point across? You're claiming he "qualified" his claims or "intentionally avoided making statements"... so what's the alternate phrasing that you would consider more normal?

 

[bzb]

But he's "deliberately" choosing the most regular-ass words that everyone uses when talking about UFOs. If they were unusual words to use then you might have a point, but "extraterrestrial activity", "offworld technology", and "objects that defy the known laws of physics" are literally the exact phrases you would expect anyone to use in that situation.


What alternate words do you think he even could have used to get his point across? You're claiming he "qualified" his claims or "intentionally avoided making statements"... so what's the alternate phrasing that you would consider more normal?

i would expect him to slam the door shut like..."found no credible evidence thus far of any activity considered alien, ufo, or uap using inexplicable technology defying laws of physics". in my experience people use additional qualifying statements or specific wording to give themselves a future "out". almost like an attempt to avoid perjuring themselves in follow up testimony.

i find it interesting the pentagon and military continue to hold a lot of information about these phenomena very close to the vest if its "nothing". why do you think that is?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i would expect him to slam the door shut like..."found no credible evidence thus far of any activity considered alien, ufo, or uap using inexplicable technology defying laws of physics".

But that's what he said. Scientists don't believe in magic or the supernatural, thus in this context they use the phrase "known laws of physics", rather than simply "laws of physics", because it is an obvious truism that nothing could ever violate the actual laws of physics.


Scientists avoid the word "alien" when possible because it's casual and has multiple meanings, "offworld" is much clearer. And if he used "UFO" or "UAP" in this context, you could easily claim that those are the wiggle words, because if the government had identified the craft then it wouldn't be UFO/UAP anymore, would it?

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

L

Very interesting video that goes over some recent scientific papers regarding the phenomenon


As a side bit he seems to be a bit skeptical of alien hypothesis as well. A lot of the accounts and encounters are completely irrational. Why would aliens travel over vast distances just to deliberately confuse us. I personally think the phenomenon may be basis of a lot of folklore throughout human history which makes it a lot weirder. As I mentioned before it may be something that is outside our paradigm of reality.

He has one of my favorite channels on Youtube. I've spent hours over the years watching his vids.

The God-dier.

 

[bzb]

But that's what he said. Scientists don't believe in magic or the supernatural, thus in this context they use the phrase "known laws of physics", rather than simply "laws of physics", because it is an obvious truism that nothing could ever violate the actual laws of physics.


Scientists avoid the word "alien" when possible because it's casual and has multiple meanings, "offworld" is much clearer. And if he used "UFO" or "UAP" in this context, you could easily claim that those are the wiggle words, because if the government had identified the craft then it wouldn't be UFO/UAP anymore, would it?

i'll agree to disagree. scientists are usually very specific in their word usage and statements for a reason. to avoid doubt/confusion as to what they are/are not saying or do/do not know. and we do know the pentagon and military have classified intel, footage, and perhaps physical evidence on the phenomena they decline to release. again, if that info was easily explainable or otherwise refutable they wouldn't be so secretive about it imo. that fact contributes to the reason threads like this have traction.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

i'll agree to disagree. scientists are usually very specific in their word usage and statements for a reason to avoid doubt/confusion as to what they are/are not saying or do/do not know.

But that's the part you don't understand. Saying they don't have any evidence of violating the "known laws of physics" IS the specific, correct thing to say. There's no doubt/confusion being sown there.

Claiming that he is alluding to secret laws of physics that only government scientists know about is ridiculous. Less than 0.00001% of listeners are going to get that out of his statement. Even if such "secret laws" existed, they would still be known by those scientists and thus would be the "known laws of physics", so your attempted reinterpretation doesn't even make sense.

and we do know the pentagon and military have classified intel, footage, and perhaps physical evidence on the phenomena they decline to release. again, if that info was easily explainable or otherwise refutable they wouldn't be so secretive about it imo. that fact contributes to the reason threads like this have traction.

There's a dozen reasons to decline to release information on potential enemy UAP activity even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with aliens. Our government's policy is to avoid releasing any information whenever it can. Even if there's only a 1% chance it's relevant to national security, they're going to value that 1% more than they value making UFO buffs happy.

 

[bzb]

But that's the part you don't understand. Saying they don't have any evidence of violating the "known laws of physics" IS the specific, correct thing to say. There's no doubt/confusion being sown there.

Claiming that he is alluding to secret laws of physics that only government scientists know about is ridiculous. Less than 0.00001% of listeners are going to get that out of his statement. Even if such "secret laws" existed, they would still be known by those scientists and thus would be the "known laws of physics", so your attempted reinterpretation doesn't even make sense.






There's a dozen reasons to decline to release information on potential enemy UAP activity even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with aliens. Our government's policy is to avoid releasing any information whenever it can. Even if there's only a 1% chance it's relevant to national security, they're going to value that 1% more than they value making UFO buffs happy.

missed where i attributed this claim to his comment in your the first bolded statement. my comment was his statement could be made to avoid the chance that such a possibility exists. there's no way to know this for sure without us having access to all the information which his statements are based on. otherwise everyone is left to make guesses based on pov.

for your second bolded statement it's just as reasonable to assume otherwise. especially when they have already released footage and testimony on these phenomena. how do they or we know that footage and testimony released by our gov is not of enemy uap activity? we do know it's relevant to national security because it was explicitly stated as a reason for establishing these agencies. and for the record, it was never claimed to be "alien".

at the end of the day, you, as with everyone else in this thread, is guessing at the context and background of his statements since we don't know the details of the accumulated evidence. who's to to say you're more right than anyone else?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

missed where i attributed this claim to his comment in your the first bolded statement. my comment was his statement could be made to avoid the chance that such a possibility exists.

You still haven't even stated how it could have been worded to avoid that ridiculous possibility of "secret laws of physics". Your suggested alternative wouldn't have been any different from his actual statement. How about:

"We have no proof that any craft we have observed violates the known laws or physics nor any secret laws of physics we may be hiding from you."

Is that really the clarifying statement you would have needed from him?

for your second bolded statement it's just as reasonable to assume otherwise. especially when they have already released footage and testimony on these phenomena.

For the most part they released footage that had already been leaked. Those videos were already out there long before they "officially" released them.

I'm not sure what you're arguing now though - that they released the lame stuff, but not the good stuff? That would contradict all the brehs who believe the videos they realized show something amazing.

at the end of the day, you, as with everyone else in this thread, is guessing at the context and background of his statements since we don't know the details of the accumulated evidence. who's to to say you're more right than anyone else?

I'm just using the normal English meaning that 99% of listeners are going to get out of his statements. I'm not guessing at anything. Turning "extraterrestrial activity" and "known laws of physics", completely regular-ass phrases that everyone knows what they mean, into some double-tricky secret code is a lame move.

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

But this is killing the premise many posters were holding back in 2020, which was that the Pentagon already knows all about extraterrestrials and is just looking for the right way to disclose it to the public.

There's been certain con men "sources" posted here who have claimed the government is already in possession of off-world material, or reverse-engineering alien spacecraft, or even in contact with extraterrestrials. And this is the top Pentagon official testifying under oath that those narratives are false.

Again, all of which goes against the narrative that the Pentagon already has a ton of info and is only deciding how to disclose it.

Listen, I appreciate you playing doubles advocate but we all know that on Feb. 20, 1954, Ike met with Aliens that offered to trade tech with the US if nukes were disabled. Ike said "Eat a dikk". Later that year Ike met with another species; the Greys. They didn't give a fukk about nukes. They just wanted to take some people. What the US got in exchange is unknown. Probably tech of some sort.

Are you claiming that the same species would have evolved multiple times independently? That's virtually impossible, the genetic code is far too complex for that. It's like saying that just because there's billions of people on Earth, someone with your same DNA is going to be born somewhere else so you have an unrelated person who is still your twin. Nah, that shyt doesn't happen.

 

[bzb]

You still haven't even stated how it could have been worded to avoid that ridiculous possibility of "secret laws of physics". Your suggested alternative wouldn't have been any different from his actual statement. How about:

"We have no proof that any craft we have observed violates the known laws or physics nor any secret laws of physics we may be hiding from you."

Is that really the clarifying statement you would have needed from him?





For the most part they released footage that had already been leaked. Those videos were already out there long before they "officially" released them.

I'm not sure what you're arguing now though - that they released the lame stuff, but not the good stuff? That would contradict all the brehs who believe the videos they realized show something amazing.






I'm just using the normal English meaning that 99% of listeners are going to get out of his statements. I'm not guessing at anything. Turning "extraterrestrial activity" and "known laws of physics", completely regular-ass phrases that everyone knows what they mean, into some double-tricky secret code is a lame move.

i can't put words in other people's mouths. especially in an effort to satisfy your skepticism or some etched in stone definition of what is in their minds.

why would the pentagon and military hold the good stuff, but release the lame stuff..or better yet..re-release the stuff that already leaked? other than it already being leaked are you that trusting of the gov to think they don't have other info that would qualify as "good stuff" (to you) and that they're only withholding it under the premise of it being enemy uap or related national security?

at this point it seems you're arguing for proof of something i can't provide. just as you can't confirm it doesn’t exist or confirm the intent of the expert's statement. initial point i was making is the statements being made by the pentagon's expert seem to be qualified, imo. if you're appeased by what was said and can take it at face value without question then so be it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You didn't seriously just make "argument by clickbait youtube title", did you?

The actual video discusses why crustaceans repeatedly evolve squat bodies. The different crustaceans that evolved squat bodies aren't actually closely related to each other, nor do they look the same, nor did non-crustaceans repeatedly evolve into crustaceans.

 

[Chrishaune]

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

You didn't seriously just make "argument by clickbait youtube title", did you?

The actual video discusses why crustaceans repeatedly evolve squat bodies. The different crustaceans that evolved squat bodies aren't actually closely related to each other, nor do they look the same, nor did non-crustaceans repeatedly evolve into crustaceans.

 

[Hood Critic]

Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to respond to all points but I wanted to touch on a few quickly

Are you claiming that the same species would have evolved multiple times independently?

No, it was a contrast to our current accepted theory of evolution.

Of course we play a role in the natural ecosystem.

We actually do not, we feed on and use the ecosystem as we see fit. But everything about this planet continues to go on if you remove humans, we're not integral to its function.

We've only been classifying species scientifically for about 400 years and we've been looking at their DNA for just 60 years, so you're exaggerating how much observation has been going on.

My point was not about scientific classification, it was about documented history, in which there is a lot more than 400 years worth.

Breh, you literally just watched Covid evolve genetically multiple times in the course of three years.

We did not see major genetic evolution, we saw genetic mutations between variants and even some cases of recombination - there is a difference.