this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
288 points (85.3% liked)

politics

19243 readers
2883 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] afraid_of_zombies 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[–] Kilamaos 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which he seemed eager to present if he could get in a scif with them.

Will we ever know those info ? We might only know in a couple of weeks, or a couple of decades. But if he was flat lying and then gets into a scif, tells more lies to congress, his ass gonna end up in jail real soon.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

People are acting like he's going to get into the SCIF then tell the committee "I was lying lol, I have no names or other info" like they wouldn't drag him out onto the main floor and Charles Summer his ass

[–] GONADS125 -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Putting all the focus on Grusch is a mistake when there was verifiable video footage and radar to match multiple eyewitness accounts for the Nimitz/Tic Tac event. There was a good foundation established for the need to address the near-misses between the UAP and airforce as well as commercial aircraft. People can just pocket or dismiss Grusch's claims, but that's not all there is to this subject...

What do you make of Comander Fravor's testimony on the Nimitz/Tic Tac event, in which there were multiple eyes on the object, video footage, and radar that was all in line with the reported event? (The radar data was seized by high-ranking Navy officials, if you believe the words of the Cheif Radar Operator on the Nimitz that day)

Seems unreasonable to totally dismiss the possibility of non-human intelligent life, especially when scientists/organizations like UAPx are taking it seriously and have been analyzing the Nimitz videos. There's also the Galileo Project at Harvard, which believes they may have recovered manufactured material from an interstellar object (believed to have been aided by propulsion) from the ocean floor off Papua New Guinea. Scientists and physicists are starting to give this subject credence (not necessarily Grusch's claims, but all of the other information and evidence) and I disagree with the literal anti-intellectual rejection of all information because of one man's claims.

This National Geographic docuseries on Hulu really made me confront the notion that there may be some truth to the idea that there are more advanced non-humans out there. This documentary isn't like the big-haired History Channel nonsense... It is based off of declassified reports, credible former government officials, military, airforce, etc. Highly recommend at least just giving that first episode free on YouTube a shot.

Here is The Falcon Lake incident, in which there was physical evidence corroborating the eyewitness report. Included in the physical evidence was irradiated scrap metal melted into a rock at the claimed landing site, and an irradiated coin. He also had physical wounds from the event that corroborated his claims, and he fell very ill immediately after.

Unless you think we had a nuclear-powered aircraft like that in 1967, a simpler explanation really might be that hyper-advanced nonhuman entities may exist. Now, that doesn't mean all or any of Grusch's claims are true. I'm not even touching on that when there is already so much compelling information out there.

I'm not going to pretend we're anywhere close to having all the answers as a species. We're just hairless apes that are too smart for are own good, but not as smart as we think we are. Healthy criticism is a good thing, but dismissing everything outright is not. I consider myself a very skeptical person. But it's not up for debate whether or not our government had a UAP monitoring program. That has been established, having been created by Harry Reid. That's been established fact since 2017.

Whether or not they are of human-origin, UAP do exist and therefore should be studied. Here is some declassified UAP footage other than the widely covered Nimitz encounter.

Here is a very compelling photograph that a National Geographic mapping plane captured in 1971, during a project funded by the Costa Rican Electricity Institute. They believed they captured a flying disc at the moment of entry or exit of the water, as the camera captured a photo about every 13 seconds. It was estimated to be about 160ft in diameter.

These metalic orbs have been observed all over the world, they have no obvious signs of propulsion, and our government has admitted this is not our tech, and that it's beyond our capabilities.

There is a YouTube channel with years worth of apparent footage of these orbs tagging and being pursued by aircraft (from the Navy to the Sherrif's department choppers equipped with infrared cameras). I don't agree with all of this individual's views, but his footage is in line with the accounts of pilots and some of the declassified footage. It's definitely not verified, but it's there for the people who ask "Why isn't anyone capturing these things on film?" This guy has been allegedly recording these around Marina Del Rey since 2017.

Let's not forget project Blue Book, General John Samford's address, the Congressional UFO hearings 50+ years ago, and the information available in the national archives... Here is a French government/military/civilian scientific collaborative study on the subject from 1978 (PDF warning), which determined the most reasonable explanation for the objects was the E.T. hypothesis (their conclusion). Not to mention this tidbit from Canada recently:

"A Manitoba member of Parliament wrote Canada's minister of defence this spring suggesting the country has participated in a secret multi-nation program devoted to "the recovery and exploitation" of material from unidentified aerial phenomenon, more commonly known as unidentified flying objects or UFOs."

In the face of all this information, I now am at this impasse in which I'm forced to consider that it's actually more reasonable to believe there are other, more intelligent species in the universe. It's one thing to argue this is secret human tech we're seeing right now, but it's outlandish to me to consider the notion that we had tech like this going back to the 40s.. or even just dating back to the Falcon Lake incident.

There were mass sightings across the US to the point that our Airforce openly acknowledged their existence and initiated Project Blue Book. There's just no way that was our tech back then, right around the time in which we first discovered the power of the atom. There's no way we had atomic flying aircraft without any obvious signs of propulsion, rapid acceleration, and moving at enormous speeds without breaking the sound barrier dating back earlier than the 50s...

I personally reached the tipping point in which I genuinely believe it's less reasonable to deny the existence of UAP. Characteristics of these UAP have remained consistent across decades, our government has admitted they exist, secret black projects have been uncovered, many documents have been declassified and leaked... I find it much harder to believe that all of this consistency across decades is merely coincidence.

If anyone reading this truly considers themselves a rational skeptic, please at least watch the first episode of the documentary I linked and read the information from my comment before responding to me.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] GONADS125 2 points 1 year ago

That's pretty nifty that the bot did that for every link..

[–] afraid_of_zombies -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gish gabbing.

Are you going to address what I wrote or copy and paste your text wall again?

[–] GONADS125 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What do you want me to address? How about you try acting like a mature adult instead of just dismissing things without consideration and insulting me?

I wanted to provide additional context that there is a lot more to the UAP topic than David Grusch's testimony. That's all everyone is focusing on. I perceived your comment as an open invitation for information on the subject.

If you want to be an ass to me and just reject everything, that's just your poor judgment. Don't mistake your arrogance for intelligence, and your arrogance doesn't justify being an ass to others.

Even if I'm wrong, at least I'm treating others with respect and trying to have a substantive discussion. You're just commenting like a toxic redditor.

[–] afraid_of_zombies -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] GONADS125 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ha, so cringeworthy and pathetic. God forbid you see a dissenting view.

[–] strawberrysocial 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, kind of overkill for someone to block you over that exchange.