The best way to stop conspiracies would be publicly releasing the radar and video data they do have of anomalous objects, whatever they might be. Anything else is patronizing and feeds distrust, deservedly or not.
If this was in fact a coverup, the only reason it's worked so long (despite humans being unable to keep secrets) is due to two things:
1) the implausibility of the premise
2) the ridicule of the claimants
3) the compartmentalization of the information, and possibly
4) the threat of unknown agents
The thing is, the truth eventually always comes out. How do you think this is going to look, once it does?
In between there's a lot of material and references that won't be obvious to other people.
So I'm confused.
But I'm pretty sure they'll be just fine, as long as the reptilians continue suppressing the truth.*
* my understanding of why people get drawn into these nothing-burgers is you see new info, you think somethings around the corner where all those skeptics are proven wrong. years pass, and people either acknowledge it was a nothing burger or escalate claims to explain away why there's all these aliens bouncing around, everyone would want to hear that, Congress is demanding anyone who claims such be given a wide bearth and credence and yet....still nothing.
If you can't resist ridiculing people who are trying to maintain a respectful friendly conversation with you online, you are reinforcing their conviction that stigma and ridicule are preventing the subject from being studied earnestly.
Are you in the habit of sneering at people in other subjects as well?
I'm on the fence on this subject, finding both some merits and demerits to the arguments of both detractors and supporters of the NHI hypothesis. Until we have publicly available concrete data to analyze, all we are doing is speculating and slinging mud at each other.
The difference being that the proponents of the NHI hypothesis are all for obtaining and releasing such data, while the critics appear to be very comfortable with the status quo of secrecy.
Some of these individuals are connected to Lue Elizondo. Elizondo and the elders of the UFO Core Story team create “secret” groups and have been trying for 40-years to get their own UFO program. They intimidate anyone who challenges their narrative.
They first described it as the Secret Onion around 1988 in Jacques Vallee’s diaries. These are intelligence affiliated people and former “psychic spies” who are pawns of counterintelligence and victims of their own delusions and greed.
You can read below how Elizondo claimed to be a 33rd degree Freemason. They have groups like the Invisibles, the Cosmic Club and all these other fake elite scientist groups where they network.
There’s a Stanford professor who lies about “working with the CIA” when in reality, none of these people have security clearances. The professor works with an ex-CIA employee from 40-years ago on privately funded cases. They repeat rumors that ex-CIA or ex-DoD people repeat. These rumors, lies and sophisticated hoaxes originate from multiple unrelated sources.
There is definitely an illegal aspect and unknown actors involved in sophisticated hoaxes for decades. All of this related to war and geopolitical tactics but it is impossible to uncover because it is outside the government and obfuscated behind legitimate counterintelligence and the real national security risk of advance UAS.
Lue Elizondo claims to be 33rd degree Freemason- https://medium.com/@osirisuap/my-search-for-the-truth-about-...
Anything else is speculation, one way or another, and that won't lead to a broad consensus.
It just won't do anything. And it's really obvious that it won't do anything.
Could they be covering something up? I can't say it's impossible.
I'm just saying that between the tendency towards overclassification, the UFO stigma, and seemingly legimitate counterintel concerns, it doesn't seem like this refusal is evidence of a cover-up in and of itself.
They have always "admitted to the existence of" things they can't identify in some videos, blurry photographs, radar tracks, etc. UAP doesn't mean aliens, it just means "I can't tell what this is." Most of these UAPs turn out to be shit like commercial airliners far away on the horizon, and they remain "unidentified" because nobody cares enough to actually figure out what they are.
And you take this to be suggestive of aliens? Please!
It becomes far too trivial for someone to ignore a thousand points against and obsess over three points for, because it validates that pattern-seeking behaviour.
It’s why I don’t really hold any disdain for the conspiracy theorists: they’re functioning as nature intended.
The one conspiratorial belief I hold is that all animals are my friend and someone is trying to keep them away from me.
It loved her and came right up to her.
Possibly the Pet Set but I couldn't find the video all I could find was her feeding an alligator in Lake Placid (which I don't remember ever having watched).
Maybe I'm remembering everything wrong, but if not maybe someone else has that video or show in their back pocket and can help out.
and here is the best hippo video on the internet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SSnQBtaq4
Trusting in evidence and objective reasoning mark us as old people. Today the only 'facts' are social media posts.
A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
In this case, you might say you were provoked. But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier. It’s just a mess, and it’s not working out for you.
The vast majority of the comments in this post disagree with me and yet we are able to maintain a friendly curious conversation in the spirit of the HN guidelines.
A handful of people were actively derisive or insulting and I respectfully called them out for it.
> But the preceding comment is itself reacting to personal arguments you made earlier
Please elaborate. I have made a conscious effort to remain civil and respectful, even when faced with direct insults.
In this particular instance, this is is what I said, and this is the reply I got:
>>> [Me] A little respect goes a long way towards having constructive conversations with people. A good place to start is accepting that perhaps the people we are talking to are not crackpots, and that that what they want is not all that different from what we want.
>> [Reply] I hate to break it to you man, but in this dichotomy you're one of the crackpots.
> [Me] Thank you for supporting my thesis that in this conversation there are those who treat each other with respect, regardless of which hypothesis they support, and those who don't.
If you have any specific suggestions of how I should have worded my replies I will be happy to read them.
If you feel any of my comments violate HN commenting guidelines [0] feel free to quote them and/or reach out to dang.
Here are some examples; I wasn't able to find any references to "performative politeness":
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
Have you considered that when you feel neutral about a subject your arguments will naturally align against both extremes of the discourse?
In HN where the majority of the sentiment is ridicule against the NHI hypothesis you will find me offering arguments in favor of releasing data and investigating the claims made by high-ranking officials.
In other websites when somebody defends that a blurry dot in the sky cannot possibly have mundane explanations you will find me defending a more prosaic interpretation.
My viewpoint is the same in both cases, but in one of them you will label me as a "crackpot" and in the other one you may see me as the voice of reason.
I hope this helps you understand the more nuanced takes on the UAP issue.
It will never be explained because it is both fake and necessary. The government can’t stop its employees from believing in pseudoscience and the supernatural thus making them targets of foreign spies.
Overall, some people involved in this do seem to want it to end. Even if you’re an influential actor within the Intelligence Community, you are up against say 20 other agencies/departments that benefit from the UFO enigma.
Check out this article from 2012 about “Spherical Aircraft” from Aerospherical Systems. Whatever the real UAP are, they are definitely not intergalactic. It would be impossible to keep it a secret.
https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2012/05/aerospheri...
The worst and best conspiracy theory I have heard about this is that there has been a plan to stage an alien invasion. 100% fake invasion with real explosions. You just need to get the population into the right mindset such that they will suspend their disbelief when the bombs drop and the media is showing fake aliens. Add a sprinkle of NASA magic and their new satellites will 'confirm' everything. Once you believe aliens are real, the theory states you will abandon all religion and either worship the new overlords or trust your government.
The theory sounded ridiculous to me until we had all these government sponsored psyops pushing us closer towards it.
Aliens are not real.
And meanwhile we need to try to not jump to conclusions, even though it is so very tempting for believers and sceptics alike.
But interesting is the field or subject of ufology (though I hate that word). It is so mixed with crazy people, very reasonable people, grifters, those who are maybe grifters, disinformation (maybe or just the crazy people or grifters again?) and maybe some real interesting stuff among it all.