-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
All About UFO's
- Thread starter Ron Texas
- Start date
Dan Ackroyd:OMG,
What happened to the Ghost Busters?
Different times i guess
Everything was fine until dickless here shut off the containment grid.
Mayor:
Is that true?
Bill Murray:
Yes it's true---that man has no dick.
Sorry, I meant cognitive bias as such, since we all have to live with it in a way. I will try to follow the Sagan standard "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in this thread. Math!
terryforsythe
Major Contributor
That video, as well numerous other videos (e.g., jellyfish, missile hitting the balloon, etc.) have been adequately debunked in my opinion. The media, however, keeps showing them over and over when discussing UAPs. It adds confusion to the UAP issue. But, maybe that is the point. Who knows.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
The fact that "disclosure" hasn't happened despite a putative strong motive to "change the subject" on the part of certain members and associates of the current administration suggests a few possibilities:
1. There is nothing interesting enough in there to distract anyone from the Epstein stuff.
2. Presidents and their cabinets are generally not allowed to know about the UAP stuff, for whatever reason.
3. The secrets, whatever they are, are SO BAD for the US government and presumably governments in general that they would rather we discuss Epstein.
I'd like it to be #2 or #3 but I think it's probably #1. #3 would either be extremely good or extremely bad news for the general public, like existentially so. #2 would probably be "alien technology etc etc etc".
terryforsythe
Major Contributor
I tend to agree.
The congressional UAP caucus is trying to get released evidence they have been briefed on in a SCIF. That evidence seems to have them convinced, but they may not have adequate training in physics to understand what they are seeing even if it is prosaically explainable. I'm looking forward to seeing that evidence for myself if it ever comes out. Also, I am interested in seeing Mick West's take on it. (For as much grief that guy gets from the UFO community, he really is providing a valuable service to the community to help weed out the crap).
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
I can virtually guarantee none of them have much scientific or engineering literacy, it's just not a qualification that seems to count in elections.
As for the evidence being shared in a SCIF, that doesn't really mean much to me either. If I put a copy of the National Enquirer in a folder marked Top Secret, the information does not thereby become true or important.
As for whether I will take any member of congress' word on whether aliens (or demons, or any NHI) are real, the answer is no with few exceptions. I trust them less than the guy who suspiciously uses the word "biologics" instead of answering directly.
Whether it's congress, a 5-star general, a decorated navy pilot, a PhD physicist, the ghost of George Washington, or anyone else, the standard remains the same: compelling, hard evidence or GTFO.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 17,093
- Likes
- 38,953
terryforsythe
Major Contributor
At this point, I doubt it exists. I predict that every bit of additional information that comes out will be disputable. Some people will be convinced, some will not.
I think the UAP discussion in mainstream is reaching a crescendo but, without better evidence, in time the conversation will subside. Sometime down the road it will peak again.
The thing that keeps nagging me is why the U.S. government has been acting the way it has, espeically with regard to FOIA requests pertaining to the UAP issue. Yes, they are hiding advanced weapons systems, as they should, but their actions seem to go beyond that. What else they are hiding I don't know, but it keeps my curiousity going.
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
I also doubt it exists. I think most of the noise coming from those supposedly in the know (if they don't actually know anything they hint at knowing) is explicable by regular human motives... fame, fortune, excitement.
If hard evidence of this nature DOES exist, then I'll be excited to take my first trip to another galaxy on a hyperspace ship in a few years post-disclosure. It would be nice to get a pleasant surprise from the government, just once.
I have to say, not bringing this up in any political sense, but before the Epstein stuff came out, nefarious globe-spanning conspiracies aiming at manipulating the public were a bit hard to believe in. Now... apparently there is recent precedent. So maybe they really are hiding something big for no better reason than to keep humanity under control. It doesn't sound as dumb as it used to.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,548
- Likes
- 5,132
sam_adams
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,635
- Likes
- 4,090
Of the twenty-five Republican members of the UAP committee, twenty-three of them are bona fide conspiracy theory believers ranging from election denial to trans-dimensional beings.
James Comer
Jim Jordan
Mike Turner
Paul Gosar
Virginia Foxx
Glenn Grothman
Michael Cloud Texas
Gary Palmer
Clay Higgins
Pete Sessions
Andy Biggs
Nancy Mace
Pat Fallon
Byron Donalds
Scott Perry
William Timmons
Tim Burchett
Marjorie Taylor Greene No links needed to explain this one
Lauren Boebert No links needed to explain this one
Anna Paulina Luna
Nick Langworthy
Eric Burlison
Eli Crane
Brian Jack Georgia
John McGuire Virginia
Brandon Gill
These people are wholly suited for this job as many of them are the very definition of this:
sam_adams
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 1,635
- Likes
- 4,090
Simone has it.
My book was orange (there were quite a few different covered versions). Damned if I can find it now through.
My book was orange (there were quite a few different covered versions). Damned if I can find it now through.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2021
- Messages
- 1,425
- Likes
- 1,214
Very interesting new paper supports prior finding of Dr Villarroel et al of objects in our space that existed before there were man made objects to account for them. These were determined to not be meteors, etc with a high degree of confidence.(1)
Now, another author has a paper supporting her findings. (2,3)
What ever they are, they apparently can't be explained away as usual suspects.
(1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92162-7
(2) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20407
(3) https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15896
For quick summary:
Now, another author has a paper supporting her findings. (2,3)
What ever they are, they apparently can't be explained away as usual suspects.
(1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92162-7
(2) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.20407
(3) https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15896
For quick summary:
Could be as simple as 'Why take a chance?'
As in 'We don't have any current reason not to give you this information but since we don't have to give it to you, we won't.'
Similar threads
- Locked
