politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Set aside David Grusch's claims for a minute.
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 that when scientists/organizations like UAPx are taking it seriously and have been analyzing the Nimitz videos.
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's a story in which there was physical evidence corroborating the eyewitness report. Included in the physical evidence was irradiated scrap metal melted into a rock, and an irradiated coin.
Unless you think we had a nuclear-powered craft like that in 1967, a simpler explanation really might be that hyper-advanced nonhuman entities may exist. Now, that doesn't mean all 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'm just wanting to share this because I find it interesting/exciting. I'm going to bed and not planning on debating.
Asking questions like "what do you think of this?" means nothing. It's one dude's experience decades ago. There was lots of irradiated stuff from back then. We were literally nuking shit just to see what would happen.
The problem with UFO enthusiasts is that they think they are qualified to guess what happened. At this point it's unknown what happened to that guy, or these pilots. "Unknown" doesn't equal aliens any more than it equals angels or my cousin Bob.
Burned metal doesn't mean anything. Surely someone examined it. Why don't they mention its composition? It's probably some basic metal that would never be from outer space. Spaceships are made of some crazy shit to deal with extreme heat and low pressure.
Are extra dimensional aliens really the simplest explanation for "Drunk man is burned, and finds radioactive stuff in the woods"?
Nice red herring. Ignore Grusch's testimony and actually watch/read the items I've shared with an open mind. Ignore the origin of the UAP, and focus on whether or not they themselves are real.
It has been established fact since 2017 that Harry Reid created a black program within the Pentagon to monitor/study UAP.
Whether or not they are human-origin or not, UAP do exist and therefore should be studied. 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. 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:
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/CFMRuMDNwKI
https://piped.video/4-MbGYAv7Cg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/HCOlDsrjU44
https://piped.video/Wt7Riw9jGlQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.