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.

He hasn't had anything to do with the company for years. His departure coincided with the company updating the menu as well, as he blocked all efforts to expand it.

Once he was ousted, they started offering different crust options (stuffed, 'NY' style, etc.).

I was going to link to a recent comment of mine in which I actually state my argument, but lo and behold the post full of negative comments regarding Threads federation is gone!

That seems like some bullshit, so I'm going to share my comment here:

I see many people purporting that users blocking Threads on an individual basis as a solution, but it's not... Blocking Threads will not prevent Threads users' comments in federated instances from showing up.

Even if you block Threads, you will still see hateful, harassing, and extremist content and misinformation.

Furthermore, even if it did block Threads engagement entirely on an individual blocking basis, it is still a failure on the instance admins to adequately protect their users and cultivate a healthy community.

.world admins defederated with exploding heads due to hate, harassment, and extremism/misinformation. Why would they then federate with Threads which harbors the same toxic users?

It's a move to bring more users into the Fediverse, but it comes with costs and risks that do not justify the short-sighted gain of more users and inching towards becoming mainstream.

Threads has been subject to mass amounts of radicalizing, extremist content, and there have also been instances of users having personal information doxxed on Threads due to Meta's information-harvesting practices. [1]

Threads was marketed to be open to 'free speech' (read: hate speech and misinformation) and encouraged the Far-Right movement to join, who have spread extremism, hate, and harassment on Threads already. [2] Threads has been a hotbed of Israel-Palestine misinformation/propaganda. [3]

They fired fact-checkers just prior to Threads' launch [1], however they claim they will have 3rd party fact-checkers next year. [4]

Meta/FB/Instagram has a rampant history of illegal and unethical practices, including running experiments on their users which affected their moods and induced depression in many uninformed, non-consenting subjects. [5] Such unethical experiments could affect federated users as well.

(Edit: As @massive_bereavement reminded me, Meta also assisted in genocide! [6])

Meta/FB/Instagram also have a strong history of facilitating the spread of misinformation and extremism, which contributed to the January 6th insurrection attempt. [7]

If exploding heads was defederated with because of this sort of toxic extremism, why would they want to federate with a platform plagued by that same content? One known for shortcomings moderating it? And one which comes from a company with a long history of unethical and illegal practices regarding users?

Due to these issues and Meta's rampant history of unethical and illegal business practices, there should be no federation with Threads for the well-being of the users in this instance.

I have donated to the .world instance since my first week here, but should they continue with federating with Threads, I will be cancelling my donations and finding an instance that won't undermine the safety and well-being of their users for a boost of (largely toxic) new users and an inch towards being mainstream.

The gains are immediate but minimal, and come at great costs which do not warrant federating with Threads (IMO).

If you don't like it, disconnect.

I agree with your comment, but just have to point out this is where I'm at. I have no interest interacting with Threads and blocking the instance on Lemmy only blocks posts (not Threads users' ability to comment throughout federated instances).

I was about to resume working on growing a community I created and planned on making a few more, but I have zero interest in my communities interacting with Threads.

I thought I found a great new home in lemmy.world, but I'm getting ready to strip my community of all my content and stop my donations to .world. If I wanted to deal with Meta users, I'd use one of their privacy/rights infringing platforms...

I know this is a divisive topic and I'm not interested in debating it here.

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?

I Am The Highway by Audioslave.

RHCP has a lot of great cruising songs too. Some great ones by Stone Temple Pilots as well. Really, I've got cruising playlists, but if I have to choose just one track, it's definitely I Am The Highway.

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.

That's good to know. Thanks.

Hopefully soon. The defense appealed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, so the next step is the US Supreme Court.

It's worth noting that special council Jack Smith has requested an expedited appeal for his case against trump to skip straight to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has agreed to see their arguments in consideration, and there is precedence for this from the Bush vs Gore election.

Be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court rules in both cases. There is clear corruption/bias in some of the Republican members, but with that so brazenly in the open right now, I wonder if they'll feel compelled to rule reasonably to try to reestablish their legitimacy?

Guess we'll see soon enough...

I totally get where you're coming from in regard to the importance of critical thinking and media bias/government influence.

As for my blog, the references section is how how I affirm it's valid information. I used scholarly sources or reputable publications, like Psychology today, and only linked to media sources when it was pertaining to the current radicalism in our politics over here in the US.

But even then, I personally use independent media fact checkers on the media institutions I cited. Cross-checking what those articles state is pretty easy, and having multiple unbiased/less biased sources corroborating reporting is a decent indication it is accurate.

But as you said, recognizing the validity of citations is a learned skill. Speaking personally, this was a skill I developed academically. I often encourage people to take a critical thinking course at a local community college and I believe that should be mandatory curriculum in high school/secondary school.

That certainly provided me with a buffer to the misinformation and radicalism that I've seen grip and corrupt so many people I know/knew.

I so hope the Supreme Court upholds Colorado's ruling.. It would be so amazing if this became a trend across the states.