You start your complaint about opinion articles. Most major news outlets have opinion pieces with disclaimers like that. That doesn’t change the content. This article is cited throughout, with links to back the claims of the author.
And, while I agree about Matt Gaetz, Eglin AFB is in his district and he did serve on the House Armed Services Committee and had the access to view the classified details of the event. Other reps showed to Eglin AFB to review the incident but were denied clearance.
Do you have anything relevant that you would like to discuss about the event and the DOD’s account?
And, responding to your edit, I preface most of my links with the source. If you look at the author’s history he is a regular at the Hill. Just because they put a disclaimer that it’s an opinion not supported by the Hill doesn’t invalidate the content or their trust in the author. Have some respect for the capability of Lemmy users to read the beginning of an article. And, if you have fault with the article please discuss the actual content instead of getting wrapped up in a disclaimer.
Nothing in the article or nothing in my statements has anything been about aliens. Do you make it a habit of bringing up irrelevant statements to make and win your own arguments?
Gaetz said from the images he saw of the object, he was “not able to attach to any human capability, either from the United States or from any of our adversaries.”
I’m well aware of his claims. Just because you can’t attach it to any human capability doesn’t mean it’s extraterrestrial or isn’t human, just that it warrants further investigation. Would you feel any new technology that doesn’t lend to what people think is humanly possible is alien? If an adversary had technology that we weren’t aware of and defied our current expectations would that not be vital to understand?
I try to keep an open mind, but the goal isn’t to connect the dots to our expectations of what things are. It’s to learn what they are. And, regardless of reason, the DOD has purposely hindered efforts to investigate these events. Thank you for at least engaging the article.
You start your complaint about opinion articles. Most major news outlets have opinion pieces with disclaimers like that. That doesn’t change the content. This article is cited throughout, with links to back the claims of the author.
And, while I agree about Matt Gaetz, Eglin AFB is in his district and he did serve on the House Armed Services Committee and had the access to view the classified details of the event. Other reps showed to Eglin AFB to review the incident but were denied clearance.
Do you have anything relevant that you would like to discuss about the event and the DOD’s account?
Nope. Just putting a note for others who see this from /all so they know it doesn’t meet the requirements to be considered factual reporting.
Especially since you made the title start with “The Hill” to lend the opinion piece legitimacy.
Do you do that with all opinion posts? It’s labeled at the top of the article. Do you really think people are incapable of reading that?
deleted by creator
And, responding to your edit, I preface most of my links with the source. If you look at the author’s history he is a regular at the Hill. Just because they put a disclaimer that it’s an opinion not supported by the Hill doesn’t invalidate the content or their trust in the author. Have some respect for the capability of Lemmy users to read the beginning of an article. And, if you have fault with the article please discuss the actual content instead of getting wrapped up in a disclaimer.
Thinking people will read the article and not just the headline is more naive than thinking aliens are visiting Earth…
Nothing in the article or nothing in my statements has anything been about aliens. Do you make it a habit of bringing up irrelevant statements to make and win your own arguments?
https://www.pnj.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/26/matt-gaetz-investigated-ufo-incident-near-eglin-air-force-base/70470761007/
Gartz believes (or at least says he believes) they are alien.
For someone putting so much stock into what he says on this topic…
I’d have thought you were aware what he’s said on this topic
I’m well aware of his claims. Just because you can’t attach it to any human capability doesn’t mean it’s extraterrestrial or isn’t human, just that it warrants further investigation. Would you feel any new technology that doesn’t lend to what people think is humanly possible is alien? If an adversary had technology that we weren’t aware of and defied our current expectations would that not be vital to understand?
I try to keep an open mind, but the goal isn’t to connect the dots to our expectations of what things are. It’s to learn what they are. And, regardless of reason, the DOD has purposely hindered efforts to investigate these events. Thank you for at least engaging the article.