Pentagon UFO chief tells Senate 'very anomalous objects' need careful study (video)

[Admin]

In new testimony, the head of the Pentagon's UFO office told the US senate that it "has not discovered any verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity or technology."

Pentagon UFO chief tells Senate 'very anomalous objects' need careful study (video) : Read more

 

[fj.torres]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Given the government's proven inability to keep secrets these days, claims of decades old conspiracies sound a tad...fanciful.

Besides, the "aliens" behind these UFOs (or whatever) sound pretty incompetent for folks reportedly capable of interstellar travel. Letting themselves be seen and even shot down for 70+ years?

I'd sooner believe they're time travelers from a future IDIOCRACY.

 

[GalileoMoment]

Mr. Tingley,

As a journalist, you should really try not to take everything at face value. The first AARO report was a joke, and anyone with any sort of scientific background would tell you the same...if they actually read it.

Here's an article by Chris Mellon (very credible), which dissects the first report in its entirety. Frankly, it's embarrassing that the journalist community just parrots whatever AARO says...when they need to be doing what Chris is doing.

The Pentagon's New UAP Report is Seriously Flawed - The Debrief

In an exhaustive analysis, Christopher Mellon breaks down why the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office's new UAP report is seriously flawed.

thedebrief.org

AARO has clearly been a honeypot for UAP witnesses since its creation. It's basically BlueBook 2.0. Meaning that it was created to be a UAP "clearing house", meant to mostly debunk the subject and pump the brakes of any disclosure risk.

Whether or not the new head of AARO is going to take this seriously is beside the point. The organization is naturally compromised, and the first report from March proves it without a doubt. We need a new org, not a new leader for a failed org.

 

[GalileoMoment]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Given the government's proven inability to keep secrets these days, claims of decades old conspiracies sound a tad...fanciful.

Besides, the "aliens" behind these UFOs (or whatever) sound pretty incompetent for folks reportedly capable of interstellar travel. Letting themselves be seen and even shot down for 70+ years?

I'd sooner believe they're time travelers from a future IDIOCRACY.

Lol. Wake up.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

That link is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long and verbose to bother wading through to see if it includes ANY actual information about UFO/UAP that is convincingly a real physical craft defying known physics.

Constantly calling government personnel liars and insisting that there is a secret "truth out there" is wearing very thin.

It is time for the proponents to put forward HERE, the evidence that they say they have ABOUT THE CRAFT, not their repetitive allegations of a "coverup". Don't bother trying to tell me again that somebody else has it but won't show it to us.

Frankly. my opinion is that this sort of behavior impedes actual scientific study. Even if it doesn't cause observers of the phenomena to choose not to come forward, it wastes the time of people assigned to actually look into these matters at a technical level.

And I am confident that the military will pay attention to anything they do not understand going on around military bases. But, I also don't think it is wise for them to tell the public exactly what capabilities they have, both to detect things around our own bases, and perhaps to create the appearance of things around our adversaries' bases.

 

[GalileoMoment]

That link is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too long and verbose to bother wading through to see if it includes ANY actual information about UFO/UAP that is convincingly a real physical craft defying known physics.

Constantly calling government personnel liars and insisting that there is a secret "truth out there" is wearing very thin.

It is time for the proponents to put forward HERE, the evidence that they say they have ABOUT THE CRAFT, not their repetitive allegations of a "coverup". Don't bother trying to tell me again that somebody else has it but won't show it to us.

Frankly. my opinion is that this sort of behavior impedes actual scientific study. Even if it doesn't cause observers of the phenomena to choose not to come forward, it wastes the time of people assigned to actually look into these matters at a technical level.

And I am confident that the military will pay attention to anything they do not understand going on around military bases. But, I also don't think it is wise for them to tell the public exactly what capabilities they have, both to detect things around our own bases, and perhaps to create the appearance of things around our adversaries' bases.

The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence writes a thorough article to specifically address a lack of transparency and scientific rigor, and it's "way too long and verbose to bother wading through". That right there sums up the problem. People don't care, or bots / disinfo agents are telling us not to care. Either way, it sucks.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Others can look at the report and start reading and see if they want to wade through all of the innuendo, or if they start scanning for actual info, like I did, after reading far too many pages of accusations.

Anyway, just about at the end of that long report, it gets to repeating an UAP occurrence that I have already seen described multiple times before:

"Multiple accounts by all three pilots and their weapons systems operators, and multiple radar operators and technicians agree that craft they observed demonstrated almost-instantaneous high g acceleration; achieved hypersonic speed without a sonic boom; showed no evidence of friction or plasma or obvious propulsion, despite the extreme velocities it achieved (estimated peak 90,000 mph in 12 miles going from 0 to 90,000 mph to 0, all in 0.78 seconds, at 5,000 g’s acceleration). The estimated 47-foot wingless white “Tic Tac” shaped craft also thus seemed to survive g forces far greater than any aircraft, rocket, or missile of that size built by man."

The problem I have with this report, which has been posted many times, already, is that it comes here from an obviously biased source and does not provide the details of how the speeds and distances are estimated. What specific systems were used, and how were each of the parameters of the target determined? These stupendous acceleration readings are all within less than a second of observation? In addition, the lack of sonic boom or evidence of heating, and the appearance of extreme acceleration, seem to imply a high probability of misleading assumptions about what is actually being seen/detected, with respect things like distance and direction. Having watched radar images that were from multiple reflections off real objects in different places, I have seen things appear to move faster than anything was actually moving, and, in fact appeared to be in a place where there was actually nothing.

But, the military should be proficient at deciphering such things - unless there is intentional spoofing going on. I would not expect the military to provide the details about their detection capabilities and any known vulnerabilities. And, if our military is testing ways to decoy adversaries' weapons systems by trying them on our own military assets, I would not expect them to reveal that, either.

So, the problem is, yes, we should expect some secrecy. But, it is a less improbable jump of the imagination that we are doing this to ourselves, intentionally or unintentionally, than to jump to the conclusion that it must be something from outer space if the military won't tell us all about it.

Some of the basic training for people who are given clearances for secret information is this: The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anybody that you are keeping a secret.

Which is the exact opposite of telling politicians what your secrets are.

But, some people just cannot follow that guidance, and secrets tend to come out over time, sometimes over too short a time. Which makes me seriously doubt that any government has been able to suppress sure knowledge of extraterrestrials on Earth, much less every government in the developed world succeeding in doing that for about 75 years, now.

So, if you want real answers, I suggest that you try supporting the people who are best able to produce them, rather than continuing to attack them.

 

[COLGeek]

Like it, or not, Mr. Mellon is hardly a disinterested/objective 3rd party. His agenda (not relevant) clouds reality. To date, there has been absolutely nothing "other worldly" that would pass any reasonable level of scrutiny and analysis. None.

This is true no matter how badly anyone wants it to be otherwise. That is factually where we are.

Pouring resources into a wild goose chase does not serve anyone, but those on the receiving end. Please consider that in light of the reality we understand.

Folks keep assuming a nefarious plot/conspiracy is in play. Do you think, for one minute, with all these players (including their past history) that something real could be kept a secret?

 

[GalileoMoment]

Others can look at the report and start reading and see if they want to wade through all of the innuendo, or if they start scanning for actual info, like I did, after reading far too many pages of accusations.

Anyway, just about at the end of that long report, it gets to repeating an UAP occurrence that I have already seen described multiple times before:

"Multiple accounts by all three pilots and their weapons systems operators, and multiple radar operators and technicians agree that craft they observed demonstrated almost-instantaneous high g acceleration; achieved hypersonic speed without a sonic boom; showed no evidence of friction or plasma or obvious propulsion, despite the extreme velocities it achieved (estimated peak 90,000 mph in 12 miles going from 0 to 90,000 mph to 0, all in 0.78 seconds, at 5,000 g’s acceleration). The estimated 47-foot wingless white “Tic Tac” shaped craft also thus seemed to survive g forces far greater than any aircraft, rocket, or missile of that size built by man."

The problem I have with this report, which has been posted many times, already, is that it comes here from an obviously biased source and does not provide the details of how the speeds and distances are estimated. What specific systems were used, and how were each of the parameters of the target determined? These stupendous acceleration readings are all within less than a second of observation? In addition, the lack of sonic boom or evidence of heating, and the appearance of extreme acceleration, seem to imply a high probability of misleading assumptions about what is actually being seen/detected, with respect things like distance and direction. Having watched radar images that were from multiple reflections off real objects in different places, I have seen things appear to move faster than anything was actually moving, and, in fact appeared to be in a place where there was actually nothing.

But, the military should be proficient at deciphering such things - unless there is intentional spoofing going on. I would not expect the military to provide the details about their detection capabilities and any known vulnerabilities. And, if our military is testing ways to decoy adversaries' weapons systems by trying them on our own military assets, I would not expect them to reveal that, either.

So, the problem is, yes, we should expect some secrecy. But, it is a less improbable jump of the imagination that we are doing this to ourselves, intentionally or unintentionally, than to jump to the conclusion that it must be something from outer space if the military won't tell us all about it.

Some of the basic training for people who are given clearances for secret information is this: The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anybody that you are keeping a secret.

Which is the exact opposite of telling politicians what your secrets are.

But, some people just cannot follow that guidance, and secrets tend to come out over time, sometimes over too short a time. Which makes me seriously doubt that any government has been able to suppress sure knowledge of extraterrestrials on Earth, much less every government in the developed world succeeding in doing that for about 75 years, now.

So, if you want real answers, I suggest that you try supporting the people who are best able to produce them, rather than continuing to attack them.

The data for the Nimitz incident was multi spectral. Here is the shortened version of the report done by Jay Stratton of the UAP Task Force. There is a longer version, but it is still classified. Why you might ask?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/TIC_TAC_UFO_EXECUTIVE_REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

Here's another nice paper on multiple events over many decades, including the 2004 Nimitz Tic Tac event:

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles - PMC

Several Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) encountered by military, commercial, and civilian aircraft have been reported to be structured craft that exhibit ‘impossible’ flight characteristics. We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Knuth had a great talk at the Sol conference at Stanford, which is a nice accompaniment to this paper:

View: https://youtu.be/HlYwktOj75A


And here is a similar paper focusing on the Nimitz incident only. Very thorough.

https://1ad59488-e74b-484c-a673-93655740754d.usrfiles.com/ugd/1ad594_bdf33403d1044939845a00a5bbf6d844.pdf

The fact is, there has been a coverup for 70+ years and the government has already admitted (to itself) that's the case. The Schumer amendment wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case. The issue is that the Gang of Eight - although they've been read in - does not have unilateral ability to disclose. They can only legislate adjacently. That's how it has to work. If it didn't there would be way fewer secrets.:

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf

People who say the government wouldn't be able to keep a secret for that long are actually 100% right. They haven't kept it under wraps. Which is why we've been hearing whistleblowers and personal accounts and leaked documents for 70+ years. They don't even deserve the credit YOU'RE giving them.

Finally, here's Karl Nell outlining the whole controlled disclosure process at Stanford as well. We're already there, my man. You just need to read more and listen more.

View: https://youtu.be/-1QCFtod6i8

 

[GalileoMoment]

Like it, or not, Mr. Mellon is hardly a disinterested/objective 3rd party. His agenda (not relevant) clouds reality. To date, there has been absolutely nothing "other worldly" that would pass any reasonable level of scrutiny and analysis. None.

This is true no matter how badly anyone wants it to be otherwise. That is factually where we are.

Pouring resources into a wild goose chase does not serve anyone, but those on the receiving end. Please consider that in light of the reality we understand.

Folks keep assuming a nefarious plot/conspiracy is in play. Do you think, for one minute, with all these players (including their past history) that something real could be kept a secret?

"Pouring resources into a wild goose chase does not serve anyone, but those on the receiving end. Please consider that in light of the reality we understand."

Very scientific of you!

 

[Classical Motion]

When one observes motion, one needs to know the relative distance from observer to target, and target to background.

Parallax determines what you see, not your guess. And if your instrument doesn’t know those distances, one could get space invaders.

 

[GalileoMoment]

When one observes motion, one needs to know the relative distance from observer to target, and target to background.

Parallax determines what you see, not your guess. And if your instrument doesn’t know those distances, one could get space invaders.

Many of these cases have multi-spectral data - all showing one or multiple "observables" of :

i) instantaneous acceleration absent inertia
ii) hypersonic velocity absent thermal sig or shockwave,
iii) multi-spectral control (low observability),
iv) transmedium travel,
v) positive lift, and
vi) physical or invasive biological effects on the observer

That's why they continue to be UAP.

But don't confuse UAP with TNOs - temporarily non-attributed objects.

Although some unidentified anomalous phenomena may at first be interpreted as temporarily non-attributed objects, they are not temporarily non-attributed objects, and the two categories are mutually exclusive. The term ‘‘temporarily non-attributed objects’’ includes:

(i) natural celestial, meteorological, and undersea weather phenomena;
(ii) mundane human-made airborne objects, clutter, and marine debris;
(iii) Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector aerospace platforms;
(iv) Federal, State, and local government, commercial industry, academic, and private sector ocean-surface and undersea vehicles; and
(v) known foreign systems.

It's all in the Schumer Amendment. Read away!

https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf

 

[ChrisA]

But my logic is completely infallible, I say, "I do not know what that object is, therefore I am confident I know it is an alien spaceship."

You would be surprised how many people don't see anything at all wrong with the above reasoning.

 

[Classical Motion]

I observe instant accelerations every day. A reflection is an instant acceleration. When you see one, look for a reflection.

We use propagated EM sensors. A change in angle can appear as an instant acceleration. Not to mention all the echos and reflections.

These are operational and computational errors.

There is no intelligent motives behind them. It’s the lack of intelligence that causes them.

A technology gremlin. Murphy with a PhD.

 

[GalileoMoment]

I observe instant accelerations every day. A reflection is an instant acceleration. When you see one, look for a reflection.

We use propagated EM sensors. A change in angle can appear as an instant acceleration. Not to mention all the echos and reflections.

These are operational and computational errors.

There is no intelligent motives behind them. It’s the lack of intelligence that causes them.

A technology gremlin. Murphy with a PhD.

Lol. Read the Nimitz incident report.

They were using the AN/APS 145 + 2 F18s have 8 of the most experienced eyes on the object - which was jamming their ability to get a lock on it.

At one point the Princeton radioed Cmdr. Fravor to inform him that the Tic Tac shaped object had flown directly to the location the fighter squadron had chosen as a rendezvous (CAP) point for their training exercises. The white UAP was either reading the fleets encrypted communications or it had observed them at that location earlier in the day.

More than intelligent, I'd say. The thing was toying with our most highly trained pilots (Black Aces). Gimme a break dude. Do your research.

 

[GalileoMoment]

But my logic is completely infallible, I say, "I do not know what that object is, therefore I am confident I know it is an alien spaceship."

You would be surprised how many people don't see anything at all wrong with the above reasoning.

The problem isn't "I do not know what that object is, therefore I am confident I know it is an alien spaceship"...it's just the first part: "I do not know what that object is". For the vast majority of the scientific community, it stops there. Zero curiosity. It COULDN'T be something we don't understand! Meanwhile Clauser wins the Nobel prize for entanglement. LOL.

If you don't know what it is, try and figure it out. That's not even happening here. The stigma and group think are preventing it. Meanwhile, the MCCA is already disseminating a reference guide for major city police chiefs to get smart on the subject. It might be time for you and all the other scientific-minded skeptics to read something before you start acting like you've been following the incredible developments in the past 7 years.

Come on in, the water's fine.

https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/MCCA-UAP_Reference-Guide-June-2024-.pdf

 

[COLGeek]

The problem isn't "I do not know what that object is, therefore I am confident I know it is an alien spaceship"...it's just the first part: "I do not know what that object is". For the vast majority of the scientific community, it stops there. Zero curiosity.

Curiosity isn't the problem. Even when something is studied and analyzed to conclusion (yes, that happens often), many assume the worst, i.e., a cover-up, conspiracy, lie, etc.

How do you propose people deal with that?

 

[GalileoMoment]

Curiosity isn't the problem. Even when something is studied and analyzed to conclusion (yes, that happens often), many assume the worst, i.e., a cover-up, conspiracy, lie, etc.

How do you propose people deal with that?

Not true, actually.

Even NASA agrees that deeper study of the subject by the scientific community has been stifled by stigma. Stigma is repeated in their report over and over again.

https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uap-independent-study-team-final-report.pdf

They also sight a lack of data...and meanwhile when we ask for that data...like data related to the events like the 2004 Nimitz incident...we're told it's CLASSIFIED. Which scientifically begs the question: why?

So there you go. Back to curiosity.

Personally, I think we need to put the power of UAP detection into the public's hands, which seems to be happening with the help of people like Mitch Randall. Yes, the same Mitch Randall who developed mobile doppler systems for tornado tracking.

The use of a new combination of radars could enhance UAP detection

Considered to be one of the best possible scientific evidence of the presence of UAPs in the atmosphere, radar traces are nevertheless rarely available to the public.

sentinelnews.substack.com

Or it might come from people like Avi Loeb, who are using similar multi spectral systems to "take the sky back".

The Galileo Project

The Galileo Project for the Systematic Scientific Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Technological Artifacts: Daring to Look Through New Telescopes

projects.iq.harvard.edu

We'll see. But we need more people like this. Not people like NDT, who chuckle at the subject and then never dig into anything themselves.

 

[COLGeek]

Not true, actually.

Even NASA agrees that deeper study of the subject by the scientific community has been stifled by stigma. Stigma is repeated in their report over and over again.

https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/uap-independent-study-team-final-report.pdf

They also sight a lack of data...and meanwhile when we ask for that data...like data related to the events like the 2004 Nimitz incident...we're told it's CLASSIFIED. Which scientifically begs the question: why?

So there you go. Back to curiosity.

Personally, I think we need to put the power of UAP detection into the public's hands, which seems to be happening with the help of people like Mitch Randall. Yes, the same Mitch Randall who developed mobile doppler systems for tornado tracking.

The use of a new combination of radars could enhance UAP detection

Considered to be one of the best possible scientific evidence of the presence of UAPs in the atmosphere, radar traces are nevertheless rarely available to the public.

sentinelnews.substack.com

Or it might come from people like Avi Loeb, who are using similar multi spectral systems to "take the sky back".

The Galileo Project

The Galileo Project for the Systematic Scientific Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Technological Artifacts: Daring to Look Through New Telescopes

projects.iq.harvard.edu

We'll see. But we need more people like this. Not people like NDT, who chuckle at the subject and then never dig into anything themselves.

You really didn't answer the question of dealing with those who don't want to believe something other than what they choose to believe. Seems the public is already involved. We have a planet covered with cameras and a variety of sensors. There are means to report sightings.

What more would you propose (other than linking a bunch of articles of others' thoughts)?

 

[fj.torres]

Lol. Wake up.

Shouldn't that apply to the Saucer pilot at Rowell?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The problem with this discussion is that it is definitely affected by "stigma", plus real secrecy surrounding actual military assets.

The stigma comes in where I read about fantastic accelerations supposedly witnessed by multiple observers, but do not know exactly what was observed by what means at exactly what parts of the event, and I have already seen so much biased misuse of information to over-state the certainty of the parameter evaluations that I just don't give them much credibility. And, I am hampered from getting my own interpretation because of the military secrecy.

So, what I want to see is some competent scientific investigation by people who have the necessary security clearances. Hopefully, that is really happening. I would be surprised if it isn't, because of the national security implications of pretty much any potential causes for the observations reported.

What dismays me is the political circus that has developed and continues to be amplified by the media and escalated by the conspiracy proponents and the politicians catering to them.

And, I am not going to keep reading long, clearly biased links in the hope that they just might contain info that I would like to see. Instead, I will simply ask the folks who say they know what is in those links to provide extracts and page numbers that have the data I want.

For example, in the event being discussed in this thread, I would like to know who actually saw the physical object directly with their own eyes, and what it looked like and what it did while they were actually watching. I do not want to get answers that turn out to be "sightings" though instruments, including targeting cameras or even "heads-up" displays on helmet visors or cockpit canopies. I want to get a better understanding of how much of this "sighting" information is subject to electronic intervention in the sighting processes and what is not.

So, can anybody here actually do that for me?

 

[Dave]

At an 800 billion dollar budget the Pentagon has a lot of leeway and a free hand to spend tax payers dollars. This is the second congressional meeting and now a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee to get to the truth concerning UAP disclosure. Expect disclosure to happen soon as continuous action and mounting pressure continues to bring about the truth. it is an absolute joke to watch these low resolution slash grainy videos while the DOD and the Pentagon (which includes AARO) sit on classified high resolution evidence of intelligent lifeforms observing the earth. Ryan Graves has already commented on the high resolution videos presently classified by the government.

You cannot rely solely on science when your science is the more primitive science. Credible witnesses and common sense tells all. Intelligent lifeforms do not wish to contact us. They do not wish to be discovered. Non human spacecraft are a problem to flight safety and are increasingly being seen around military installations. They move at speeds that defy the laws of physics. The disappearance of evidence needs to stop now. The truth must prevail.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Expect disclosure to happen soon as continuous action and mounting pressure continues to bring about the truth.

Well, finally a testable prediction by a conspiracy "theory". You are "on" - prediction recorded for testing.

Non human spacecraft are a problem to flight safety and are increasingly being seen around military installations. They move at speeds that defy the laws of physics.

Seems very inconsistent to say that these non-humans with superior intelligence and space craft that can defy the laws of physics would be a collision hazard for our poor mundane aircraft that are hampered by those physical laws. Seems rather obvious that they can avoid us.

Maybe they forgot to tell Dave that they can fly right through us and our aircraft without leaving a trace? Hasn't he heard about the Neutrino People?

 

[Dave]

History tells us that the earth is the center of the universe. In this vast cosmos there is only humanity in existence. We are the sole oasis, is this seemingly endless desert. There can not possibly be more advanced creatures out there. It is absurdity to even think it. All these credible witness it must be mass hysteria. They all seeing things. The military are telling the truth about everything and we are alone in the universe.

Some do not believe there are intelligent lifeforms beyond earth. Join us they say, as we all live in the lie. Embrace it in its entirety and relish its reality.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Dave,

Most people do not think that Earth is the center of the universe. Most people would accept that there could well be other forms of life on other planets in our own galaxy as well as in other galaxies that we can observe. We are spending money to look for possibilities of life and even civilizations on other planets.

So, the beginning of your latest rant is clearly false.

What most people do not believe is that the "evidence" that you and other UFO/UAP activists keep posting is anywhere close to convincing proof that extraterrestrial life forms are currently here on (or closely around) Earth, secretly observing us and occasionally creating phenomena that we are not able to explain.

Your insistence that everybody else is stupid is undermining your own credibility.

And I am still waiting for you to provide the information I suggested in post #21 to this thread.