This is a story about possible scientific evidence for signs of life (probably simple) on nearby planets, still many light years away. It is not a story about pseudoscientific claims that aliens are visiting us already, for which there is no, and never has been any, scientific evidence at all.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think there's anything pseudoscientific. It's pure speculation (as far as I know). I just it fascinating how often "aliens" comes up lately. Chuck Schumer is introducing legislation to compel private business and individual who have artifacts of non-human intelligences to release them to the government under eminent domain.

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-rounds-introduce-new-legislation-to-declassify-government-records-related-to-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-and-ufos_modeled-after-jfk-assassination-records-collection-act--as-an-amendment-to-ndaa

He was a protege of Harry Reid, known fan of disclosure. Hillary Clinton famously is fascinated by UFOs as is John Podesta, her confidante.

I just find it very interesting. Why is this even being discussed.

We don't have congressional hearings about Bigfoot or the financial impact of Leprechaun gold, etc.

Why do you think there's so much attention paid to this? I have no idea but I do find it interesting.

[–] Tatters 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

“Chuck Schumer is introducing legislation to compel private business and individual who have artifacts of non-human intelligences to release them to the government under eminent domain.”

Absolutely pointless - it has never been proven that there are any such artifacts. What there are, are lots of baseless conspiracy theories which various politicians are pandering to, for their own political agenda.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's it is. You are saying there's a significant enough group of people who would think this was a reason to vote for, say a Democrat to carry a wide net, who a large enough group of them will hear about this little known, barely mentioned addition to a spending bill to make a difference in which election?

This sounds like some very hamfisted and ineffective politicking. Larry, in Butte, is going to love this. He and his MUFON buddies are going to put us over the top come next election when surely this will be big news!

Yes, that must be it.

[–] Tatters 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am glad that you agree with me now. After all, it seems far more likely that politicians will be politicking, compared to the alternative, that there is big, cross-party conspiracy to hide first contact with alien intelligences.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I want to make sure that you think there's a political voting block that will be swayed by this, is aware of the legislation, and that this is the only reason?

Could you just say yes or no on that?

[–] Tatters 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I really have no idea. Politicians can be political without there having to be a voting block as their target.

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

Ok, so the most logical explanation for this is a career politician at the apex of his career did this despite the fact that the vast majority of people and his colleagues hearing about it would think he was a nut job. And he did this, risking appearing mentally incompetent to his financial backers, the party members who made him majority leader of the Senate, and his constituents to secure the votes of a fringe ufo motivated voting block.

Edit - actually your thesis is he did this without necessarily even wanting those fringe votes. Sounds like he is not making very good decisions.

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

I repeat, I really have no idea what his motives are, people do all sorts of irrational things, and politicians are not immune to that. I find it much easier to believe that this is someone being irrational, rather than we are being visited by aliens for which there is no proven evidence.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Last question and I'll stop.

Have you had an opportunity to review classified information on this that might be available to people like Chuck Schumer?

If not, what you are saying is there is no public evidence that you consider credible.

If you have been privy to the same information, I'm impressed. I have not so I try to consider motivations under the assumption that we're dealing with rational human beings. Not that every ufo nut is rational,I assure you they are not, but that the people writing legislation, sitting on committees, running the inspector generals offices looking into this, the director of NASA , etc. are rational.

They are not publically announcing anything definitive but there are far, far too many resources being devoted to this up simply handwave it away.

I remain skeptical until I see proof, I respectfully ask you to do the same. I'm using the word skeptical as its actual meaning: I have imperfect knowledge so I have not made a decision.

[–] Tatters 3 points 1 year ago

“I remain skeptical until I see proof, I respectfully ask you to do the same. I'm using the word skeptical as its actual meaning: I have imperfect knowledge so I have not made a decision.”

I totally agree with that. Until there is generally accepted scientific evidence of alien artifacts on Earth, I think it is irrational to believe otherwise. The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not the other way round, so my default position is not to believe without evidence, anything else is not rational.

I strongly suspect, however, that such evidence will not be forthcoming in the near future. There appears to be a lot of political pressure and motivations behind the current investigations, which does not bode well for objective scientific enquiry.