18 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

This is a crude analogy,   

    ....................

 unless you're making a living from it.

It is indeed an inadequate analogy but perfectly aligned with the rest of this 'taking us round the houses, beating around the bush' strategy that the Australian used car salesman behind this latest guff is giving us. 

Which brings us straight to your last sentence and the obvious conclusion "there's gold in that there paranoia!"

Quote

Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'

I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

― Lewis Carroll

I know Non-Human Intelligences exist. I live with four: three cats and a dog. I'm pretty sure my wife is human as we've produced offspring together, but I'm not as sure about some of her relatives.

Believing six impossible things before breakfast isn't really all that hard. I believe all sorts of "impossible" things, but I don't talk about them and I certainly don't try to convince other people they're true.

Concerning Little Green Men from Arcturus IV: they probably aren't little, or green, or even men, and they probably don't come from the Arcturus star system. It seems likely that they exist now, or did in the past or will in the future, but it's much less likely that a million or more have visited us in the last hundred years or so.

A million? Well, some time in the 60's it was reported in some magazine like Popular Science that one million reports of UFOs had accumulated by that date. That number seems unlikely, but at some point there will be one million sightings. The trouble is, that does not constitute proof.

I've been looking for aliens since I was about 8 years old. I used to read everything I could about them. I read a lot of reports that were subsequently debunked. I read many that seemed to be believable, but I have yet to see anything resembling proof. There is a marked shortage of Martin's Imperial Star Destroyers.

I want to believe, but we've been lied to far too many times, and people have been mistaken even more times. I'm still waiting.

Hook

I just watched one of the videos on NewsNation and I'm sorry to report that I believe it even less than I did the first time. Many of the comments on the video were less than complementary.

For example, did anyone notice that the video of the "egg" was not taken by Barber, but obtained from another source? This was mentioned in the video and was also pointed out in the comments.

I'm not real happy with the interviewer. Someone in the comments mentioned that his background was in tabloids. He's sure pushing this narrative hard.

Who knows, maybe something useful will come out of this, but I'm not optimistic. "Curiouser and curiouser," said Alice. Sorry, guys.

Hook

20 hours ago, LHookins said:

For example, did anyone notice that the video of the "egg" was not taken by Barber, but obtained from another source? This was mentioned in the video and was also pointed out in the comments.

Correct. I recommend watching the extended full-length interview with Jake Barber. It is far more comprehensive and detailed than the initial News Nation report, which was (IMO) poorly edited.

 

20 hours ago, LHookins said:

I'm not real happy with the interviewer. Someone in the comments mentioned that his background was in tabloids. He's sure pushing this narrative hard.

The interviewer is an award winning investigative journalist who had a lengthy career before taking a look in the direction of this subject. NewsNation picked up the David Grush story in 2023 just ahead of the first big congressional hearing, and Ross has been affiliated with them ever since. All of this information is in the public record. Again, I suggest you look into these things for yourself. 

Either way, this entire process appears to be picking up steam, both in the public discourse as well as in Congress, so we'll find out one way or another soon enough. 

There are many, many aspects to this subject that range from the grounded, to things that sound (and possibly are) ridiculous. Lately, many of these aspects have started to converge in odd places, with previously unrelated testimony, concepts, evidence, and data showing up together in a more coherent way. 

Alot of it sounds silly unless you bother to dig into it properly and find that many of these things have shown up repeatedly, from independent researchers, and thousands of people with nothing to gain, for the last 60+ years. 

I'm not sure what these recent developments / convergences mean, but it is a radical break from what's happened before. That's why my ears are perked up. 

 

DB

4 hours ago, DaviiB said:

The interviewer is an award winning investigative journalist who had a lengthy career before taking a look in the direction of this subject. 

I believe the last award he won was this;

The Bent Spoon Award.

It's an impressive trophy comprising a spoon used at the Last Supper, bent by energies unknown to science and mounted on a piece of Gopher wood from Noah's ark.

It's been awarded annually in Australia since 1982 to "the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or psuedo-scientific piffle" of the year.

Ross Coulthard carried the trophy off in 2023. Or rather he didn't. To receive the trophy the winner must remove it from the competition organisers premises by "paranormal means".

Strangely, in the forty-two year history of the Bent Spoon awards no one has managed this feat.

 

Edited January 28, 20251 yr by DD_Arthur

43 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

It's been awarded annually in Australia since 1982 to "the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or psuedo-scientific piffle" of the year.

👏🏽 👏🏽 👏🏽

 

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

I believe the last award he won was this;

The Bent Spoon Award.

It's an impressive trophy comprising a spoon used at the Last Supper, bent by energies unknown to science and mounted on a piece of Gopher wood from Noah's ark.

It's been awarded annually in Australia since 1982 to "the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or psuedo-scientific piffle" of the year.

Ross Coulthard carried the trophy off in 2023. Or rather he didn't. To receive the trophy the winner must remove it from the competition organisers premises by "paranormal means".

Strangely, in the forty-two year history of the Bent Spoon awards no one has managed this feat.

 

So should all investigative journalists who have seriously examined the topic be dismissed in the same way? What about the scientists now publishing data on it—should they be awarded the scientific equivalent of a 'bent spoon' as well? And how about the high-ranking military and intelligence officials who have come forward to acknowledge the legitimacy of the subject—should we start revoking their stars and commendations?

Your comment perfectly illustrates the stigma surrounding this topic. Rather than addressing it directly, the response is ridicule. 

Dismissing a journalist’s work because they were mocked, rather than engaging with their findings, is just another example of why this topic has been buried for so long. 

Thanks for proving the point!

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

Ross Coulthard carried the trophy off in 2023.

Hm. Looks like a lot of us at Avsim aren't the only ones who think Coulthard is something of a woo-woo merchant. I think it might be telling that it wasn't a whistleblower who got the award, but Coulthard himself.

Sorry, some of us just aren't that trusting, no matter what credentials get trotted out. He's beginning to remind me of that character from the "History" channel: "I'm not saying it's aliens, but... it's aliens." People like that are doing more to push people away from the idea of alien visitation than all the skeptics in the world.

Hook

57 minutes ago, DaviiB said:

So should all investigative journalists who have seriously examined the topic be dismissed in the same way? 

Certainly not but this guy stopped being any sort of a journalist a while back.

He’s a salesman now….

New video. 100% less Coulthart.

 

Hook

Edited January 30, 20251 yr by LHookins

On 1/29/2025 at 1:30 AM, LHookins said:

Hm. Looks like a lot of us at Avsim aren't the only ones who think Coulthard is something of a woo-woo merchant.

 

He does do "some" decent UFO reporting, but he seems far too biased in favour of the "alien visitation" hypothesis. Nowhere near skeptical enough.

I'm curious as to why we're now attacking the messenger?

 

11 hours ago, martin-w said:

He does do "some" decent UFO reporting, but he seems far too biased in favour of the "alien visitation" hypothesis. Nowhere near skeptical enough.

What's the difference between reporting on what he's being told vs bias? Where is that line exactly?

If the witness, their credentials and all other information available (to a journalist) withstands years of scrutiny and cross checking, why should the journalist not release the info?

Ross often takes the time to explain the amount of effort that goes into vetting the people he brings forward. It is sometimes a matter of years between first contact with a witness / whistleblower and when the information is finally released.

 

After all efforts to invalidate a story are exhausted, shouldn't a reporter report on their findings? That's the job no?

Or should the fact that the story sounds 'crazy' cause a journalist to sit on it and remain skeptical, regardless of the validity of the sources?

 

Remember, bringing these people and their stories into the spotlight is a good way to further increase scrutiny and find any cracks in their stories. It does Jake Barber no favors to be known publicly, but now we get to see if anyone can find anything wrong with his credentials, background, story etc. So, we'll find out one way or another.

Also, we'll see if Skywatcher produces anything tangible. Someone has put their money where their mouth is.

 

DB

Edited January 30, 20251 yr by DaviiB
typo

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

I'm curious as to why we're now attacking the messenger?

Because the messenger has proven himself to be unreliable.

13 hours ago, martin-w said:

he seems far too biased in favour of the "alien visitation" hypothesis.

A little TOO biased. He obviously wants to believe. He's not looking for the truth. We aren't the only ones seeing this. Heck, read the comments on the various videos.

He comes across as saying, "Look how impeccable my sources' credentials are! Now you HAVE to believe!" Um... no I don't. You haven't shown me anything I can believe in.

You obviously want to believe, and there's nothing wrong with that. But our brains aren't defective because we're not convinced. 

I've already said I thought that the alien autopsy video was pretty good. One thing that makes it good is that they weren't trying to sell us anything. Basically, take it or leave it.

I'm even more interesting in the JFK assassination than I am in UFOs, but I have no intention of even looking at Coulthart's book on it after seeing his methods.

As for Skywatcher sans Coulthart, I've got a few questions about that too.

Hook

On 1/25/2025 at 5:46 AM, TrafficPilot said:

"REALITY CHECK"?

That combination of words on an internet site sets warning bells off in my head.

Is that man a Vet? Or a Veteran? I'm assuming the latter. If the former then I'll definitely watch it.

I'd quite like to see a Veterinary Doctor tell us about his UFO encounters whilst birthing cows.

 

 

 

Tristan Farnon did that on All Creatures Great and Small. But he was trying to impress a young milk maid who was living way out in the Dales.

 

14 hours ago, DaviiB said:

What's the difference between reporting on what he's being told vs bias?

 

That's not what I'm referring to, I'm not referring to just reporting what he's been told. I've seen most of what he's put on the internet, and I detect a general positive leaning.