I typed this up as a comment on a c/WorldNews post, but the OP deleted it before I could submit… I’m assuming because the comments were almost all blanket denial and criticism without actually considering the information available, and were just anti-intellectual rejection from an uneducated perspective on the subject.

That got me thinking about sharing what I wrote here for you all to critique and add supporting information, in order to dispell the myth that there is no legitimacy or rational, logical basis for believing UAP exist.

What I’m interested in is declassified/leaked government docs, professional scientific perspectives, legitimate credible witnesses (e.g., former government/airforce). A way to illustrate the distinction I have in mind is between comparing the National Geographic fact-based approach vs History Channel’s ‘let’s ask random people to speculate’ approach… I’m not interested in conjecture from Joe Blow. I am interested in expert testimony and evidence; not hearsay.

Anyway… Because everyone seems to be dismissing everything outright because “Grusch’s claims don’t have evidence,” my approach is to ignore Grusch’s claims entirely and focus on the abundance of evidence supporting the existence of UAP. Here is what I’ve written so far:

Putting all the focus on Grusch is a mistake when there was verifiable video footage and radar to match multiple eyewitness accounts for the Nimitz/Tic Tac event. There was a good foundation established for the need to address the near-misses between the UAP and airforce as well as commercial aircraft. People can just pocket or dismiss Grusch’s claims, but that’s not all there is to this subject…

What do you make of Comander Fravor’s testimony on the Nimitz/Tic Tac event, in which there were multiple eyes on the object, video footage, and radar that was all in line with the reported event? (The radar data was seized by high-ranking Navy officials, if you believe the words of the Cheif Radar Operator on the Nimitz that day)

Seems unreasonable to totally dismiss the possibility of non-human intelligent life, especially when scientists/organizations like UAPx are taking it seriously and have been analyzing the Nimitz videos. There’s also the Galileo Project at Harvard, which believes they have recovered manufactured material from an interstellar object (believed to have been aided by propulsion) from the ocean floor off Papua New Guinea. Scientists and physicists are starting to give this subject credence (not necessarily Grusch’s claims, but all of the other information and evidence) and I disagree with the literal anti-intellectual rejection of all information because of one man’s claims.

This National Geographic docuseries on Hulu really made me confront the notion that there may be some truth to the idea that there are more advanced non-humans out there. This documentary isn’t like the big-haired History Channel nonsense… It is based off of declassified reports, credible former government officials, military, airforce, etc. Highly recommend at least just giving that first episode free on YouTube a shot.

Here is The Falcon Lake incident, in which there was physical evidence corroborating the eyewitness report. Included in the physical evidence was irradiated scrap metal melted into a rock at the claimed landing site, and an irradiated coin.

Unless you think we had a nuclear-powered aircraft like that in 1967, a simpler explanation really might be that hyper-advanced nonhuman entities may exist. Now, that doesn’t mean all of Grusch’s claims are true. I’m not even touching on that when there is already so much compelling information out there.

I’m not going to pretend we’re anywhere close to having all the answers as a species. We’re just hairless apes that are too smart for are own good, but not as smart as we think we are. Healthy criticism is a good thing, but dismissing everything outright is not. I consider myself a very skeptical person. But it’s not up for debate whether or not our government had a UAP monitoring program. That has been established, having been created by Harry Reid. That’s been established fact since 2017.

Whether or not they are of human-origin, UAP do exist and therefore should be studied. Here is some declassified UAP footage other than the widely covered Nimitz encounter.

Here is a very compelling photograph that a National Geographic mapping plane captured in 1971, during a project funded by the Costa Rican Electricity Institute. They believed they captured a flying disc at the moment of entry or exit of the water, as the camera captured a photo about every 13 seconds. It was estimated to be about 160ft in diameter.

These metalic orbs have been observed all over the world, they have no obvious signs of propulsion, and our government has admitted this is not our tech, and that it’s beyond our capabilities.

There is a YouTube channel with years worth of apparent footage of these orbs tagging and being pursued by aircraft (from the Navy to the Sherrif’s department choppers equipped with infrared cameras). I don’t agree with all of this individual’s views, but his footage is in line with the accounts of pilots and some of the declassified footage. It’s definitely not verified, but it’s there for the people who ask “Why isn’t anyone capturing these things on film?” This guy has been allegedly recording these around Marina Del Rey since 2017.

Let’s not forget project Blue Book, General John Samford’s address, the Congressional UFO hearings 50+ years ago, and the information available in the national archivesHere is a French government/military/civilian scientific collaborative study on the subject from 1978 (PDF warning), which determined the most reasonable explanation for the objects was the E.T. hypothesis (their conclusion). Not to mention this tidbit from Canada recently:

“A Manitoba member of Parliament wrote Canada’s minister of defence this spring suggesting the country has participated in a secret multi-nation program devoted to “the recovery and exploitation” of material from unidentified aerial phenomenon, more commonly known as unidentified flying objects or UFOs.”

In the face of all this information, I now am at this impasse in which I’m forced to consider that it’s actually more reasonable to believe there are other, more intelligent species in the universe. It’s one thing to argue this is secret human tech we’re seeing right now, but it’s outlandish to me to consider the notion that we had tech like this going back to the 40s… or even just dating back to the Falcon Lake incident.

There were mass sightings across the US to the point that our Airforce openly acknowledged their existence and initiated Project Blue Book. There’s just no way that was our tech back then, right around the time in which we first discovered the power of the atom. There’s no way we had atomic flying aircraft without any obvious signs of propulsion, rapid acceleration, and moving at enormous speeds without breaking the sound barrier dating back earlier than the 50s…

I personally reached the tipping point in which I genuinely believe it’s less reasonable to deny the existence of UAP. Characteristics of these UAP have remained consistent across decades, our government has admitted they exist, secret black projects have been uncovered, many documents have been declassified and leaked… I find it much harder to believe that all of this consistency across decades is merely coincidence.

If anyone reading this truly considers themselves a rational skeptic, please at least watch the first episode of the documentary I linked and read the information from my comment before responding to me.

  • SignullGone@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Firstly, thank you for your thoughtfully crafted post. I must confess, I hadn’t heard of the Falcon Lake incident prior to this. Like you, I believe I have embarked on a similar journey, leading me to a comparable conclusion: there is definitely something unusual happening, whatever that may be.

    I don’t believe in any gods or afterlife, and consider myself a very skeptical person.

    Although I agree with the basic premise of your post, I have some comments on this particular line. While it feels natural to include personal beliefs to demonstrate that we don’t accept every claim uncritically (I am certainly guilty of this myself), I believe that any argument should be able to stand on its own, based on the evidence presented, without the need to incorporate one’s beliefs to persuade the reader or listener.

    It seems I have some reading and watching ahead of me. I understand that this post is primarily directed at the most ardent skeptics, so I will try not to divert attention from those who wish to respond.

    • GONADS125@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reason for that is the talking points against this topic on reddit and here. Almost also pointed out that I’m left-leaning because I have also seen people criticize this issue as being “republican idiots.” I was wanting to counter the baseless claims I see people use to try to undermine the legitimacy of the topic.

      I do not believe that being republican or religious means one is irrational, but that is what these disingenuous people have been saying to try to undermine the legitimacy of the topic.

      I’ll edit that out because it should be irrelevant. That was the product of my frustration with the baseless, toxic criticism I keep seeing…

      • SignullGone@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I completely understand your perspective. I’ve been quite fortunate not to encounter much of the left-versus-right politics when discussing this topic with friends, family, and colleagues. I usually emphasize how unusually bipartisan this issue is when I bring it up.

        I hope this post garners attention and sparks constructive discussions from both sides of the argument.

        • GONADS125@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I have only seen that political polarization leading up to/after this latest hearing… I agreed that in actuality, it is an extremely bipartisan issue, which has been a pleasant surprise to me. That in itself lends credence to the seriousness of the matter IMO.