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.