GONADS125

You continue to jump to false conclusions about me, obfuscate things I’ve said, and ignore other things entirely. Disingenuous argumentative tactics.

The experts I’m referring to are not armchair individuals. I’m referring to the scientists from France, the UK and US who participated in the studies on UAP. Also the scientists in the Galileo Project, UAPx, as well as independent scientists who have been studying the topic.

I’m also referring to the individuals within our government who have participated in the programs or other roles within the intelligence community and have become whistle-blowers (like Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon–not referring to David Grusch).

I was completely skeptical and always dismissed UFOs as crazy Dale Gribble nonsense. But when I started to actually look into it, I found enough reason to believe that a percentage of Category D UAP may represent crafts possessing breakthrough/disruptive technology. That’s not such a wild belief.

This is a view held by many members of our government, from elected officials to those within our intelligence community privy to information neither of us have access to.

You, on the other hand, are claiming that all of these individuals and government agencies are all completely wrong, you’re dismissing the declassified records, and dismissing the clear patterns represented in credible eyewitness accounts (some of which have corresponding data from radar and across multiple sensors).

“If these things didn’t fit patterns, then there’s no way of studying it. But when you get reports from Australia, Japan, France, then you have to say: ‘Well either there’s a virus going around that’s causing everybody to become crazy at the same time, or there’s something to it.” - Dr. Alen J Hynek

ODNI stated that there exists concern that a percentage of UAP represent disruptive/breakthrough technology. They also stated that some most likely do represent physical objects (not simply instrument malfunctions as you continue to assert).

I’m not basing my beliefs off crackpots. No matter how much you try to misframe my argument and gaslight, it’s not going to work.

My beliefs are based off of declassified government records and the statements made by credible experts and government officials, not bogus abduction stories. It’s categorically different from my brother who is unable to discern credible sources.

Even if you disagree with my views, the sources I cited were not some wild QAnon level nonsense. The documentaries I cited were for direct quotes from primary sources. Also, I stayed the hell away from History Channel big-haired nonsense. You’re trying to frame it along those lines.

I actually thought that I could approach my QAnon crazy brother with this, thinking it was something he’d like to talk about. But lo and behold it wasn’t crazy enough for him… He began to drone on about all these ridiculous conspiracies about different alien races working within world governments, and also god somehow…

You’re wrong to misframe my argument in line with the QAnon conspiratorial mindset. You also just keep repeating the false claim that there are no experts taking it seriously.

Our governments believe there may be validity, seeing as how they have continued to monitor/study UAP. Same for some scientists and even Harvard University. And again, NASA has advocated against people stigmatizing the subject as you are doing here.

No matter how many times you falsely claim that there are merely crackpots and no experts, it doesn’t make it true. That is blatantly false.

Easy, get a physics degree. I already pointed out how the data was clearly incorrect.

Ha, all you did is assert it’s invalid without any supporting information. Explain how it’s wrong and I will consider your argument.

I already discussed Harvard’s Galileo Project lead by experts. Or UAPx, which is a scientific organization studying the subject. NASA is also gearing up to study study UAP, and have argued against stigmatizing the subject as you are guilty of here. Source

Let’s not ignore Project Blue Book, AATIP, and now currently AARO, which are/were US government agencies/projects devoted to studying/monitoring UAP.

There’s also the UK’s historical government UAP investigations, as well as France’s studies by GEIPAN (essentially their NASA). And if you want to criticize their legitimacy, consider how NASA regarded the COMETA Report.

Just because all experts aren’t taking it seriously doesn’t mean none are. So if your criterion for validity is experts investigating the subject, it is met.

This is exactly why I use Semmelweis’s discovery of handwashing as analogous to this situation. He couldn’t explain why there was such a significant reduced mortality rate from handwashing prior to surgery, and he was ridiculed for his findings by the medical community, and he was eventually institutionalized in an asylum where he died.

His findings were rejected on the basis of preexisting beliefs; not lack of validity or ability to study the subject. This is where we currently are with UAP, where there is a growing number of scientists and experts beginning to lend the subject credence, but there is an overwhelming toxic stigma perpetuated by closed-minded individuals which discourages experts from jeopardizing their career/credibility.

This is also seen in both commercial and military pilots, but more and more are coming forward to share their testimonies. Ryan Graves, one of the whistle-blower pilots, founded the Americans for Safe Aerospace organization to provide a confidential means for pilots to report their encounters.

I’m not ignorant of my ignorance in regard to technical understanding of aircraft and physics. That is why my request for you to actually expand on your argument is sincere.

I want to test my beliefs and modify them in the face of new and valid information to maintain congruence. I am a skeptic after all, whether or not you believe it.

As it stands, I am basing my beliefs off of an overwhelming body of government documents and government/military whistle-blowers, as well as expert testimony.

On the other hand, you are a random internet stranger who has been overly hostile and not countering so much as blanket dismissing what I have stated and cited.

If you want me to take you seriously, you’ll have to do a better job explaining how all of the historical international UAP monitoring programs, experts, government/military officials, and pilots around the world are all wrong.

Are you purposefully dodging the obvious difference between actual research and “doing your own research”?

What I was citing is an example of how “doing your own research” (colloquialism) can yield something productive and valid when I was sharing my article. I was using that as a example, and comparing it to my brother who “does his own research” (again, we’re talking about the colloquial meaning…) and believes QAnon insanity and conspiracy theories about everything.

That is what the original post topic is referring to. Not literal scholarly research as you appear to be stuck on.

What I wrote on UAP is not the equivalent of QAnon crazies. I cited declassified documents from the National Archives and quoted various pilots/military/government personnel.

Your retort here just tells me you read snippets of my UAP article and are not acknowledging most of the information. Kevin Day was the Cheif Radar Operator, and this is a direct quote:

"…Immediately we were thinking: ‘Are these things real? Are they some type of glitch?’ So when we ran a bunch of diagnostic tests and we brought all our systems back up, the contacts were stronger now. That’s when I became concerned about these things and I strongly recommended that we take one of the aircraft that just launched off the Nimitz and go intercept one and go see what it is.”

The pilots witnessed the object/its movements with their own eyes, which corroborated the data from their sensors and radar data on the Princeton. I’m going to trust the concerns of the Cheif Radar Operator, multiple Top Gun pilots from a world famous squadron, and their weapons systems specialist over you and your arrogant condescension.

I guess I should have specified that what I am referring to is the category D UAP (see the COMETA report). I believe that some percentage of category D UAP could be possibly explainable by more conventional explanation.

I’m also not arguing that there is evidence of extraterrestrials; I’m only arguing that a percentage of category D UAP represent intelligently controlled physical objects, which represent disruptive/breakthrough technology.

That does not mean the technology could not be of human origin. But this technology represented in the Nimitz Event outperformed our F/A-18F Superhornets, and that same type of craft was identified on a mass scale beginning in 1947.

The sightings were so prevalent in the 50s that the US Air Force issued a public address on UFOs to the nation.

The reason I don’t rule out the possibility of non-human technology myself is because this kind of technology being invented and concealed since 1947 somehow seems even less reasonable to me.

You can disagree with me, the expert individuals’ accounts, and refuse to acknowledge the documents from the National Archives, but it doesn’t make my argument crazy.

I am simply arguing there is breakthrough/disruptive technology represented in a percentage of the category D UAP. That is supported by ODNI’s report as well, in which it states a potential national security concern is that they could represent breakthrough/disruptive technology by an adversary.

Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained “uncharacterized and unattributed,” and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis."

I am up for debating the subject. If I am wrong about anything and you have expertise and can share it/information, I’m all ears. Unlike most people, I want to challenge my beliefs and will gladly shift my beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.

There’s more supporting evidence of disruptive/breakthrough tech represented in category D UAP than there is evidence of any religion.

And if this is a bogus area not worhy of study, why is Harvard’s Galileo Project so invested in studying UAP? Or UAPx? And why was there such unprecedented unanimous bipartisan support passing UAP related bills in the least productive House in history?

You have no clue what my opinion is of myself. You’re just jumping to conclusions. You talk down to me about being stupid, yet your argument against me is juvenile and half of it is just ad hominem (not valid criticism).

I never claimed to be anything either, so what exactly are you accusing me of being fraudulent about?

What’s wrong with the information I have cited within my articles on radicalism and on violence and mental illness? Do you not like the information? Do you have a complaint about a particular source?

As far as your criticism about my UAP write-up, are you referring to the section on the Nimitz Event in which I mentioned some UAPs’ movements reminded me of the quantum locking and quantum levitation of super-cooled superconducting? The part where I say that is out of my depth?

Yeah, admitting something is beyond my education/comprehension screams fraud, genius…

The vast majority of my UAP write-up is reporting information. I speculate a few times, but I make that clear and do not make wild claims like you’re misframing it to be. I reported information and expert testimony.

Kevin Day is the one who said the radar was confirmed by Fravor’s (as well as others’) visual observations that day. The pilots said that it wasn’t visual instrument malfunctions, because they saw it with their naked eyes.

If you have a problem with their accounts, take it up with them. I truly don’t care what you think of me or your petty criticism and insults.

I’ll readily admit I’m not educated in avionics, which is why I quoted all of those individuals who were in various roles of expertise.

If your critism is that all of my arguments/beliefs are bogus because it’s out of my depth, then surely you concede on the grounds of expert testimony, as in the Nimitz Event?

Or do you think you know more than our greatest pilots and military personnel?

Edit: Just took more notice of this:

Weird that you would showcase a vacuous article as an example of “research”.

I would not consider my articles legitimate research, which was not being discussed in this thread. “Doing your own research” is a common saying, and that’s what was being discussed here.

I don’t know if you’re doing it intentionally or unintentionally, but you certainly misconstrued the colloquialism to try to make fun of/discredit me, which is dishonest and a disingenuous argumentative tactic.

If you think I’m such an idiot, you can surely make a stronger case than this disingenuous argument full of ad hominem. You argue like a poor man’s sophist.

Doing your own research being good/bad depends entirely on one’s ability to scrutinize reliable sources. When I “do my own research” it looks like this.

When my brother “does his own research” he presents horrendously false information from terribly bias and debunked sources. He’s the primary family member which influenced my writing that piece on radicalism.

If someone is unable to comprehend/recognize valid from invalid/biased sources/information, “doing their own research” is very dangerous in fueling further extreme/conspiratorial beliefs.

QAnon and covid/anti-masking are great examples in which people “doing their own research” resulted in a lot of unnecessary suffering and stupidity.

People should learn how to effectively scrutinize sources before they attempt to “research” something themselves. “Doing your own research” can be productive or unproductive, and it depends entirely on the individual.

Man… I’m having deja vu…

What are you even talking about? Making what up?

Are you confused by my analogy I put in quotes?

Yes, I can count…

Someone voiced struggling with addiction and your overly simplistic response could easily be interpreted negatively in a demeaning way.

Person 1: “I’m having so much trouble with my obesity…”

Person 2: “People can lose weight.”

Can you see how that is not very helpful and potentially demeaning? How someone can feel that trivializes their struggle?

If you had stated something like “Addiction is so difficult, but it can be broken. Don’t give up hope.” That is totally different.

When I would take clients to a smoking cessation therapist, one fact that she would cite was the fact that quitting cigarettes is more difficult than quitting heroin.

I would also be told anecdotally by many of my clients that it was harder to quit than other hard drugs like meth and one person even said crack.

It can certainly be broken, but addiction is a disease and your comment could come off as condescendingly minimizing an incredibly difficult task.

The Native American culture could have developed much differently if they had been better able to transport resources. Maybe larger societies. That is an interesting thought.

This is why we can’t have nice things… On reddit, so many subs lost their purposes and became shit-posting clones and circle-jerks.

Too many of the toxic redditors migrated here, and the same shitty user behavior is happening here too.

Maybe he was a redditor who watched as every subreddit became an r/AdviceAnimals and r/funny clone, where relevant discussion was buried under the same lame ass jokes on every post.

When morons posted r/funny material in r/nonononoyes, but were too ignorant to understand how that was a problem, this example was usually helpful:

Do you think it’s okay for r/wtf material to be posted in r/awww or r/EyeBleach? If r/TheOnion posts were posted in r/WorldNews?

There exist different communities for a reason. This is so obvious it’s painful to imagine how some people can’t grasp such a simple concept.

Why should the boundaries of the two different communities with different purposes errode? Because of laziness? Stupidity? What’s the point of even having communities if people just post the wrong content?

When you’re at a grocery store, are you one of the jackasses who decides “Actually, I don’t want this steak” and just set it on some random unrefriderated shelf in the wrong section?

This is the type of bad user behavior that turned reddit to shit.

I 100% agree with you. I was downvoted a lot of times years ago saying about as much on reddit. I like the iron-sights and some mechanics of NV that 3 didn’t have, but the storyline in 3 was so much better.

In 3, there was a tremendous core story that you played a pivotal role in and had a grand sense of purpose. But in NV, you’re just a random courrier doing random tasks and just kinda meandering around for “revenge” which comes and goes pretty anticlimacticly. And then you get to decide which factions to support in a battle that’s going to happen regardless.

In NV, it feels more like the player character is a side-character in the main story’s plot. In Fallout 3, you were the main plot.

This line from New Vegas is my favorite line from any game in the series.

So hilarious given the additional context and dialogue in the game.

You say you stopped at FO3. Have you tried FNV?

I always preferred the story of 3, but the gameplay of NV had quality of life improvements and way better gun-play.

I’d definitely recommend giving it a shot if you haven’t.

I agree with this, and it contributed to my losing interest. I also found the gameplay way too stale and stopped playing when I was almost done with the 3rd world.

I didn’t feel invested in or care about any of the companions or their story arcs either. They didn’t feel relatable or like real people.

I had high hopes for the Outer Worlds, but it just felt generic and boring to me. It felt like a cross between Fallout New Vegas and Borderlands, but without the charm of either franchise.

This is entertaining, but I seriously don’t understand how it’s appropriate for the World News community.

He says: “Yesterday Sam flew the plane and said that just 8 people were sitting in the trench, just 8 khohols [Ukrainains], f*ck! And our men go there by the hundreds, and they are not even capable of taking a f**king thing!”

Ukrainians are a force to be reckoned with when they dig in… I will never forget how long the Cyborgs lasted at Donetsk Airport. The Cyborgs’ nickname was coined by russians trying to cope with how disproportionate their losses were against dug-in Ukrainains with small arms.

Ukrainains are tough as hell.

This is all I can imagine happening if that was used. Eventually pop like a balloon.

Don’t think he needs that domain when he’s already got:

FigurativelyHumongousButLiterallyTinyDick.com