this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
37 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10177 readers
104 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree that these testimonies are very compelling and fascinating. However, I try to take a more measured approach when it comes to UAP. Here is a great interview with Avi Loeb who studies UAP at an academic level.
I like his approach of stating that these are big claims, but cannot be really evaluated in any meaningful way, as there is no useful public data to look at.
In my opinion this is the main crux of the whole topic. One party (the US government) has a boatload of various quality sensor data that could be studied, but it's classified. As a result nobody can believe anyone's statements as they aren't supported by anything.