I am glad that you agree with me now. After all, it seems far more likely that politicians will be politicking, compared to the alternative, that there is big, cross-party conspiracy to hide first contact with alien intelligences.
I want to make sure that you think there’s a political voting block that will be swayed by this, is aware of the legislation, and that this is the only reason?
Ok, so the most logical explanation for this is a career politician at the apex of his career did this despite the fact that the vast majority of people and his colleagues hearing about it would think he was a nut job. And he did this, risking appearing mentally incompetent to his financial backers, the party members who made him majority leader of the Senate, and his constituents to secure the votes of a fringe ufo motivated voting block.
Edit - actually your thesis is he did this without necessarily even wanting those fringe votes. Sounds like he is not making very good decisions.
I repeat, I really have no idea what his motives are, people do all sorts of irrational things, and politicians are not immune to that. I find it much easier to believe that this is someone being irrational, rather than we are being visited by aliens for which there is no proven evidence.
Have you had an opportunity to review classified information on this that might be available to people like Chuck Schumer?
If not, what you are saying is there is no public evidence that you consider credible.
If you have been privy to the same information, I’m impressed. I have not so I try to consider motivations under the assumption that we’re dealing with rational human beings. Not that every ufo nut is rational,I assure you they are not, but that the people writing legislation, sitting on committees, running the inspector generals offices looking into this, the director of NASA , etc. are rational.
They are not publically announcing anything definitive but there are far, far too many resources being devoted to this up simply handwave it away.
I remain skeptical until I see proof, I respectfully ask you to do the same. I’m using the word skeptical as its actual meaning: I have imperfect knowledge so I have not made a decision.
“I remain skeptical until I see proof, I respectfully ask you to do the same. I’m using the word skeptical as its actual meaning: I have imperfect knowledge so I have not made a decision.”
I totally agree with that. Until there is generally accepted scientific evidence of alien artifacts on Earth, I think it is irrational to believe otherwise. The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not the other way round, so my default position is not to believe without evidence, anything else is not rational.
I strongly suspect, however, that such evidence will not be forthcoming in the near future. There appears to be a lot of political pressure and motivations behind the current investigations, which does not bode well for objective scientific enquiry.
I am glad that you agree with me now. After all, it seems far more likely that politicians will be politicking, compared to the alternative, that there is big, cross-party conspiracy to hide first contact with alien intelligences.
I want to make sure that you think there’s a political voting block that will be swayed by this, is aware of the legislation, and that this is the only reason?
Could you just say yes or no on that?
I really have no idea. Politicians can be political without there having to be a voting block as their target.
Ok, so the most logical explanation for this is a career politician at the apex of his career did this despite the fact that the vast majority of people and his colleagues hearing about it would think he was a nut job. And he did this, risking appearing mentally incompetent to his financial backers, the party members who made him majority leader of the Senate, and his constituents to secure the votes of a fringe ufo motivated voting block.
Edit - actually your thesis is he did this without necessarily even wanting those fringe votes. Sounds like he is not making very good decisions.
I repeat, I really have no idea what his motives are, people do all sorts of irrational things, and politicians are not immune to that. I find it much easier to believe that this is someone being irrational, rather than we are being visited by aliens for which there is no proven evidence.
Last question and I’ll stop.
Have you had an opportunity to review classified information on this that might be available to people like Chuck Schumer?
If not, what you are saying is there is no public evidence that you consider credible.
If you have been privy to the same information, I’m impressed. I have not so I try to consider motivations under the assumption that we’re dealing with rational human beings. Not that every ufo nut is rational,I assure you they are not, but that the people writing legislation, sitting on committees, running the inspector generals offices looking into this, the director of NASA , etc. are rational.
They are not publically announcing anything definitive but there are far, far too many resources being devoted to this up simply handwave it away.
I remain skeptical until I see proof, I respectfully ask you to do the same. I’m using the word skeptical as its actual meaning: I have imperfect knowledge so I have not made a decision.
“I remain skeptical until I see proof, I respectfully ask you to do the same. I’m using the word skeptical as its actual meaning: I have imperfect knowledge so I have not made a decision.”
I totally agree with that. Until there is generally accepted scientific evidence of alien artifacts on Earth, I think it is irrational to believe otherwise. The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not the other way round, so my default position is not to believe without evidence, anything else is not rational.
I strongly suspect, however, that such evidence will not be forthcoming in the near future. There appears to be a lot of political pressure and motivations behind the current investigations, which does not bode well for objective scientific enquiry.