gadf

I like the liminal theory but this isn't the same thing.

I hear that the crashes were shoot-downs or Trojan horse style gifts designed to lure us into co-operation with ETs who sly gave us tech far too advanced for us to figure out, then promised to slowly teach us how some of it works in exchange for whatever cooperation. There's lots of narrative and can be argued both ways, but without people seeing some hard data they believe, probably we'll have zero consensus.

Also I agree with you on the journal. Probably not the best example. I'd just rather people try to analyze than dismiss it irrationally so even a dodgy journal, with a comprehensive analysis is better. I don't think we should "default to trust" something just because it's in a journal. Likewise no default to distrust.

None of the radar data released recently about Omaha shows extraordinary speeds or Gs. So maybe nothing in the hard data shows any smoking gun evidence of super speeds. That might be deliberate by the Navy but such speculation doesn't change facts we have.

I dislike the "smearing of witnesses" and default to "explained" attitude brought to this, which is interesting and justifies curiosity. Witnesses are unreliable but Navy aviators are trained witnesses, experts in the domain of estimating speed, distance, aircraft type, maneuvering - and you have a handful of them who have come forward saying they saw dozens of these things over days. And people want to just pretend the Navy doesn't know the difference between a plane and a bird, or doesn't know how to read their sensors or calibrate them to remove artefacts.

I'm not saying you're disputing there is a real object detected, but some people say it's a fly on the glass or something ridiculous. I dislike these contemptuous dismissals of trained observers and supposedly best-in-class top-secret sensors. So I want to see more analysis and curious discussion ... less arrogant dismissal.

Even the points that are not in contention are extraordinary: no control surface, no heat signature, no propulsion signature, extended time-on-station, active jamming, foreknowledge of CAP point, apparent thermoptic/radar cloaking (or superspeed) re it can vanish and appear almost instantly.

They say the things dropped from space to sea-level in a second. That's amazing. I think a valid alternative is that they were able to hack/delude the radar into thinking they just appeared. Just like how they disappeared. It's seems possible a smooth white object could be covered in some sort of optical/thermal/radar distorting materials, that could make it vanish to sensors even if it was still there. That's not the explanation I believe, but I think it's a valid alternative in light of a lack of discriminating evidence.

I don't have any explanations for the violation of aerodynamics, lack of heat, wake, or extended "battery life". I would sure love to know how it did that. That's extraordinary. Until proven otherwise. I think you can question the data a bit, and the witnesses a lot, but when you start reaching hard to twist everything into an "explained away" narrative, you're missing the signal that's there. And it seems crazy, to do mental gymnastics that requires a coincidence of all the failures, repeated, over time: the Pentagon is lying or doesn't know it's a bird, or a stick of gum on the sensor, the aviators are hallucination, the sensors (across the entire battle group) are malfunctioning at the same time and erroneously reporting internally-consistent tracks, that then coincide with positions seen by aviators visually, this didn't just happen as a glitch in one moment, but consistently, over days, and months (according to some people). As these strange skythings have also happened to thousands of civilians and other servicepeople around the world over decades. It's crazy to paint it as "a coincidence of errors and hallucinations". I'm not saying anyone who says that is crazy, just the idea itself, because I guess to them it seems crazy to say it's aliens.

Maybe this thing is all a weird and elaborate way for the US govt to do a big reveal of some new exotic drone tech it has and make sure everyone in the world is watching. Could be truth of it, but I think the mileage attainable from running with the "we don't know / mystery" narrative is probably higher than tying it all up in a neat little bow right now. I don't think any of this will answer the question of aliens/not - it's entirely possible to be having a dealing with aliens in secret, and then do this "semi-public" reveal in parallel and keep the two things isolated, maybe deliberately, maybe to plunge the secret alien connection further into the depths of secrecy. I think the key thing is the big reveal is about control. Seems various factions have been coming forward over time to leak things out, now someone needs to get out in front of this, unified front, unified messaging, and recapture control of the narrative.

ESTIMATING FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS OF ANOMALOUS UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL VEHICLES[0]

More like that: https://www.explorescu.org/publications

[0]: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939

I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy.

-- John Henry, Moneyball

What’s most frustrating about the U.F.O.s story is that it obscures the fact that scientists like me and my colleagues are on the threshold of gathering data that may be relevant to the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

-- This dude, real life

Translation: PWEASE don't take mah funding because ahm noloonger sexy enough

I think his fear is overblown. There's room for both. RT arrays are another form of sensor. Money will not dry up. Surprises me tho that if objects are ETs no RT array data has leaked. Super coverup? No data?

Common-sense objections arguable from both sides. Why no White House Lawn big reveal? Maybe they big-revealed in People's Park in Shanghai...or Red Square in Moscow, or Phoenix, AZ. Or Prime Directive. Why anyhow would they go through our government, when we're, as "Joe Rogan" says, "chimps with nukes", why would "elected officials" mean anything to them?

The woo-fringe likes to say the "benevolent ETs" are "seeding out consciousness" for eventual "mass disclosure" and "human evolution". What if it's more like there's no open contact because that's not their point, they get seen sometimes because it's not that important (we can't do shit anyway), and we're actually an agricultural product or a science experiment (to them, at least)? What if the government "knew" that. They'd never fucking say it. What a big fucking let down and popping the bubble of our "great civilization" and our "fantastic fucking egos". No one in power is going to "spill the beans" on the "real inside track" of people with more power than them. The only chance they got is to cling to the mystery, like the priest caste of old (that Jesus beat the shit out of in the temple, and accused of hypocrisy), and get power by being the "mediators" to real power.

Or what if it all happened like the SSP-whistleblowers want you to believe. Vatican had contact in the past. Nazi Germany built a craft through ET telepathic instructions to the Vrill society. Co-opted by Hitler. Secret Antarctic base. Operation Highjump. Operation Paperclip. Breakaway civilizations. Mars Germans. CIA Dark Fleet. Secret space program. We have anti-gravity craft and age-regression and time-travel tech hewn from the reversed-engineered carcasses of ET trojan horses, developed in collusion with aliens in exchange for "treaties" for them to continue their "shady dealings" on Earth. A massive secret society. We've already colonized the solar system. Earth is a backwater of humanity that has already reached the stars. Why not clue us in?

Aliens, Burke: Okay, look. What if that ship didn't even exist, huh? Did you ever think about that? I didn't know! So now, if I went in and made a major security issue out of it, everybody steps in. Administration steps in, and there are no exclusive rights for anybody; nobody wins. So I made a decision and it was... wrong. It was a bad call, Ripley. It was a bad call.

Why not clue us in? Why keep Earth in the dark? It's easier to control. Why surrender your corporate monopoly on interstellar trade? Why does the CIA have security clearances? Why does DoD (etc) keep information in siloed SAPs? Protects their secrets. Protects their advantage. Why read in the whole of the Earth population? No fucking way. No way would we risk out bottom line. Simple corporate economics. Fuck you, Earth. We don't care about telling you the truth. We only care how we can squeeze every goddamned dollar out of every goddamned opportunity. Fuck humanity. It's all about the Benjamins.

Why not like that? So many other things are. Even if "chimps with nukes" got anti-grav tech and codes for the cosmic intergalactic portals so we can jump to other stars, why would you assume we'd be operating in a way that was more advanced, more enlightened, less corrupt, less greedy, than we do in a place like Burma? in HK? In anyway there's a buck to be made, and laws not yet made.

The truth is a sad reflection of our worst characteristics. And the finger of blame can be pointed squarely back at the government and the big corporates in secret advanced tech who collude with them. That truth is never coming out. Because there's "too much to lose". Fuck the public. The only thing that matters is the "people who matter."

This is all a controlled narrative. You'll never get the truth.

The best we're gonna get a rained-down, rosey-glassed, disinformed, fantasy. And that's all we'll ever be trusted with. Sad, sad, sad, sad sad. But what can you expect from humanity? Not a fucking iota more, that's for sure.

Sorry for the defeatist cynicism: hope you take it as a motivator: don't accept the story you get fed. Find a way to work it out for yourself. Whatever it takes. It's worth it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_(water_navigation)

No jumping required

"diverting attention away from how countries might want to join together because they see China's growing influence within their borders (both economic and political) as a threat to their sovereignty and independence."

... being another narrative about consequences of China's rise that is a possible lens to view the situation through, and there are certainly people pushing that.

I think the "how it tries to frame the conversation" is missing the other side of the coin: as both US and China "try to frame" the conversation in this way. Pre-2016 we didn't have the same "us vs them" West-China narrative being pushed, but now the narrative of countries relations to China are often framed in this way of "where in the binary division of West/US-v-China does such-and-such a country's actions land".

So I think it's hardly that "China is trying so hard to frame it like this" but rather this is already a dominant strand of the narrative about China in the global media/geopolitical discourse that China is responding to here, not initiating. Which I think is very fair.

If you read more articles on Globaltimes, you'll see them reference the very fears of China being a "threat to their sovereignty and independence", in coverage of various China-related issues that occur in other countries: for example, the crackdown on "foreign influence" in Australia. IMO, China does not try to "whitewash" other country's fears of its rise, and actively reports on those things, tries to relate to how and why a country might have that view, and pushes back against some of the claims.

Also, as an aside, I find the leveling of an accusation of being a threat to "sovereignty and independence" at China, within a discussion of China-US/West relations as quite hilarious, ironical and hypocritical given how many country's seem to pay obeaisance to US' China policy, and even "open up their sovereign lands" to US military bases, etc. Not that I'm judging that, just saying that such an "accusation" definitely can be thrown both ways, and in the US-case the influence is a lot more crystallized and real and with consequences for dissent, than the sort-of "feared" and hypothesized influence threat that China is said to have.

To be clear, I think all countries are vying for influence and will seek to encroach upon the independence and even sovereignty of others to the extent it benefits their interests (Australia with PNG/East Timor/Nauru, for example). So the judgements often come down to assessments about "values compatibility", which is one reason I think it's really important to have your head screwed on straight when trying to view these narratives/views. And one reason it's important to be open to hearing the China side, lest you get the wrong idea otherwise. With all the "othering" of China going on, I bet a lot of people are missing the points where their values, their government's values, and the values of Chinese people, and their central government, actually intersect. Surely not in every place, but I think much more than the "othering narratives" help compel people to see, nowadays.

I think if you're going to talk about the ways that the narrative is being shaped/distorted/framed, then it's important to at least have your head screwed on straight about it. I think you made a good first attempt here, but not entirely accurate.

The problem is how the information is utilized and whether the staff and bureaucracy are professionals or pro-liars.

Professionals have integrity, operate in a facts- and data-based manner, possess a moral code guided by people's benefit, are fully accountable for their actions to an internally transparent independent oversight mechanism with legal repercussions.

Pro-liars are fabricators, blackmailers and betrayers, with zero integrity, adopting sloppy collection techniques, coercing cooperation, reacting on opinions that confirm their biases, abusers of the power they have, and of their targets, working in a constantly shifting amoral environment, guided by power and revenge, without oversight or accountability, and inoculate themselves to legal repercussions by hiding within secrecy protections.

All this official "shock and horror" comes across as crocodile tears, and would be better channeled into internally reforming the bloated security/intelligence bureaucracy (globally, not specific to any one region) that, although peppered with pockets of professionals, is also poisoned by the snake-tongued cancer of pro-liars.

If you read this article, you will see that it's very rational. If you can separate your (media indoctrinated?) emotional resistance (amygdala processing), you will be able to comprehend China's view. Which (even (no, especially) if you choose to count yourself China's enemy,) is to your advantage.

         1   11111 2
  222222222 44444  4
   3 3333      555

There's a lot of these stories out there between 10% and 25% of people globally are affected by various kinds of this genealogical bewilderment even if they don't know it or they have an established it through genetic testing.

It's an interesting perspective I guess it comes from the idea that communities are sort of unstructured and it's not as important that they have ethical standards as high as science because science should be more objective and people need to be able to rely on it and trust it. I guess someone could adopt this perspective that seems to excuse community bad behavior while condemning researchers behavior because they just want to get out of any accountability in this particular case. but I'm assuming that you genuinely feel like this and have had this view from before this particular incident.

I simply disagree with this view, I think everyone should behave well or at least held the same standards.

It also seems that you're (or you were when you commented) very angry and hurt by the actions of the researchers and so I guess that you're probably involved in the Linux kind of in a way and felt betrayed by this action or I had some similar experience with scientific people in the past. I wonder how much the opposite of the community is a result that they were successfully deceived and if they had caught these patches and prevented them from being merged and their reaction may be entirely different even if the research is behavior was the same. But I suspect that would still be outrage because probably a lot of people share your view to some extent but the researchers behaviors should be held to a high standard than their own.

Just seems to me that you're not really open to hearing my point of view on this and that's got nothing to do with the merits of my view it's just where you're at. But because it seems like you're not able to hear my view on this or engage with that I just didn't really feel there was a point to continue the discussion. Have a good one

CA Gov Site Denies Making Deceptive Headline

Journalists Covering CA Gov's Headline Deception Deny Using Clickbait

HN Commentariat Denies Having Insubstantial Discussion About Title Clickbait