On 1/30/2025 at 5:56 PM, LHookins said:

A little TOO biased. He obviously wants to believe. He's not looking for the truth.

 

15 hours ago, martin-w said:

I detect a general positive leaning. 

He admits to being convinced of the reality of the phenomenon from the research he's done, evidence he's been exposed to, as well as a multitude of sources, confidential and public. 

That is a bit different to you or me, who have to decide if we're convinced by the information he puts out (or from our own research). 

If a reporter is satisfied by the weight of the evidence they're privy to, why shouldn't they be able to express belief that the story they're reporting on is true? He's not a news anchor reading from a script. 

 

On 1/30/2025 at 5:56 PM, LHookins said:

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 stated my position more than a few times - that multiple, previously unrelated aspects seem to be converging, appearing to corroborate stories from the distant and recent past..... and that fact is somewhere between interesting and insane because of the potential implications if certain aspects are true. 

One story isn't enough to convince anyone of anything (or at least or shouldn't be). You're not wrong for doubting. I'm not wrong for connecting some dots on my own and finding the results fascinating. 

 

DB 

7 hours ago, DaviiB said:

He admits to being convinced of the reality of the phenomenon from the research he's done, evidence he's been exposed to, as well as a multitude of sources, confidential and public. 

 

Yes, he claims that. 

As I've said... I would say a mysterious phenomenon has been present for a very long time. However, we don't know what it represents. We MUST be scientific about this because human beings are fallible and easily fooled. Thus, empirical evidence is vital. That means "physical evidence" not just "what people claim". Not just "there's radar data but hidden away" Not just "a person claiming physics defying manoeuvres" 

 

10 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Yes, he claims that. 

As I've said... I would say a mysterious phenomenon has been present for a very long time. However, we don't know what it represents. We MUST be scientific about this because human beings are fallible and easily fooled. Thus, empirical evidence is vital. That means "physical evidence" not just "what people claim". Not just "there's radar data but hidden away" Not just "a person claiming physics defying manoeuvres" 

 

What you're waiting for is scientific consensus (the end-state of irrefutable evidence). That will likely lag behind everything else due to the nature and (lack-of) speed of the scientific process. i.e. scientific concensus will be last to the party. 

The potential gravity of these revelations means that science should be especially methodical, take its time and demand repeatable phenomena and irrefutable physical evidence. 

Unfortunately, if the phenomenon represents an intelligence that's at a similar or higher level than we are..... and it's not willing to submit itself for study (show up in person, get prodded, leave a craft in a mall parking lot on live TV etc)..... the civilian scientific method will fail. There won't be enough physical evidence to reach consensus. Also, whatever physical evidence exists likely won't have a solid chain of custody (as you said, people can lie). 

It also doesn't help that the best sensor systems on the planet are in the hands of groups who are incentivized to NOT turn over any evidence they have to civilian scientists.....and they can lie. 

So, it might take a while. Until then, we've gone from random civilian experiencers telling stories, to former military personnel telling stories, to former UAP program officials telling stories, to high ranking military officials telling stories, to (now), first-hand military experiencers telling stories and promising better evidence. 

Let's see where it goes. 

 

18 hours ago, DaviiB said:

What you're waiting for is scientific consensus

 

I didn't say anything about consensus. I said physical evidence. There is claimed physical evidence, that's all, CLAIMED. If that physical evidence is actually manifest in the public domain and goes to several universities and laboratories and is verified and a consensus forms... all the better. But at the moment, we haven't even got VERIFED physical evidence, only claimed physical evidence. 

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

I didn't say anything about consensus. I said physical evidence. There is claimed physical evidence, that's all, CLAIMED. If that physical evidence is actually manifest in the public domain and goes to several universities and laboratories and is verified and a consensus forms... all the better. But at the moment, we haven't even got VERIFED physical evidence, only claimed physical evidence. 

In order to get verified physical evidence, that evidence must be collected by the scientists while documenting the process (so the chain of custody is unbroken).

For the process to be documented, the scientists would have to already be trying to collect physical evidence for the purposes of study (which hasn't started in-earnest until recently). Remember, if the scientists weren't there when the evidence appeared, the chain of custody is broken, so you can't prove provenance. 

Once they have physical evidence that they can prove came from a UAP (and they'll also have to prove the UAP is actually an anomalous object), they can then proceed to study it and report their findings. 

If truly anomalous findings are reported, other independent analysis will be demanded to ensure the results are repeatable. 

Those findings, and the methodologies that produced them will have to be definitive enough to pass peer review, or they will be thrown out. 

In order to be "verified", all of the above needs to happen, otherwise it will be thrown out as inconclusive (at best).

The end result is scientific consensus. It also takes a relatively long time.

Nothing wrong with the scientific method. It's just difficult to pull off with a phenomenon that doesn't want to sit still. 

 

DB

Edited February 2, 20251 yr by DaviiB
Typo

19 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

I didn't say anything about consensus. I said physical evidence. There is claimed physical evidence, that's all, CLAIMED. If that physical evidence is actually manifest in the public domain and goes to several universities and laboratories and is verified and a consensus forms... all the better. But at the moment, we haven't even got VERIFED physical evidence, only claimed physical evidence. 

Exactly!  It's always claimed that there is physical evidence, yet that evidence never materializes.  In order for me to believe these claims, the concept of habeas corpus needs to be invoked. 

I don’t know if I buy it yet, but the Senate angle makes it more interesting than the usual Reddit-tier whistleblower. If he really has evidence, I hope he’s not going public without a serious law firm backing him, someone like Oberheiden who knows how to deal with fed-level heat.

Some interesting rumblings as-of late. 

The author of the "Immaculate Constellation" document did a 3-part interview with Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp. Some new allegations in there. Again...the implications are bananas if true. 

Good content coming out of the "Contact in the Desert" event (and its periphery) as well. Ross Coulthart did some digging into weird stuff around Sedona, and a deep-dive interview/podcast with Jesse Michaels. Might be worth a look.

DB