UFO whistleblower tells Congress the US government is hiding evidence of 'non-human intelligence'

[Admin]

During a congressional hearing on Wednesday (July 26), military witnesses and members of Congress demanded more transparency from the U.S. government when it comes to UFOs.

UFO whistleblower tells Congress the US government is hiding evidence of 'non-human intelligence' : Read more

 

[SRS]

Maybe Bob Lazar was telling the truth. Looks like things are stacking up in his favor. Maybe when full disclosure comes out the fabled, "island of stability" element 115 that he is suspected to have, will be revealed. As we know element 115, Moscovium, is artificial, extremely radioactive having a short half life of 0.65 seconds. But Lazar stated in 1989 that the extraterrestrials have produced this element in the "island of stability" where it does not go through radioactive decay. If this hearing goes further, maybe we will soon come to know the truth.

 

[ChrisA]

This "evidence" is always the same: "I do not know what this thing is, therefore I know it is an alien spaceship"

The logic flaw is obvious after pairing the argument down to its basics. It is that "What else could it be?" argument. It is like an ancient Greek saying "I don't know why the Sun moves so it must to pulled across the sky by the gods, how else could it move?"

In all cases, you can't simply make up an answer to explain what you don't know. Ignorance can never be a valid reason for knowing something.

The "What else could t be?" argument is nothing other than an admission of ignorance.

A final thought: There is FAR MORE evidence for mermaids than for space aliens. There have been centuries of eyewitness reports of mermaids. Mermaids have been reported to have been observed in many different locations and times continuously over a long period of history spanning multiple centuries.

 

[autumn]

For heaven's sake, why can't they just come out with the truth. Star Trek is a documentary! My favorite episodes are the ones that have Q in them ;-)

 

[ChrisA]

Maybe when full disclosure comes out the fabled, "island of stability" element 115 that he is suspected to have...

Even if he has material that is impossible to exit, that does not mean space aliens exist. It only means our understanding of physics is very wrong.

The only way to prove aliens exist is to produce an actual alien. Even if very advanced technology were found, it only proves that it was created in the past. The actual aliens could be long extinct.

The claim of non-human pilots would be very hard to prove.

 

[SRS]

This "evidence" is always the same: "I do not know what this thing is, therefore I know it is an alien spaceship"

The logic flaw is obvious after pairing the argument down to its basics. It is that "What else could it be?" argument. It is like an ancient Greek saying "I don't know why the Sun moves so it must to pulled across the sky by the gods, how else could it move?"

In all cases, you can't simply make up an answer to explain what you don't know. Ignorance can never be a valid reason for knowing something.

The "What else could t be?" argument is nothing other than an admission of ignorance.

A final thought: There is FAR MORE evidence for mermaids than for space aliens. There have been centuries of eyewitness reports of mermaids. Mermaids have been reported to have been observed in many different locations and times continuously over a long period of history spanning multiple centuries.

Ah... But in this case before congress, there are credible "witnesses" that have made very clear statements that such things do exist; even to state under oath that the US Government has artifacts; craft that are not from this world.. It is either true or it is not. You say "there is "FAR MORE evidence for mermaids".... Come on,. really, from the eyes of sailors of the centuries before? No comparison to the data, the veracity of witnesses today, military pilots, who know how to identify objects in the sky about them, but not these observed objects, that they chased got images of? And one who claims to be in the "know" states under oath that our government have actual crafts, and possibly non-human occupants as well. Perhaps we will eventually find the truth in all of this. But is is not going to be in the same vein as "evidence for mermaids."

 

[cfurry]

This "evidence" is always the same: "I do not know what this thing is, therefore I know it is an alien spaceship"

The logic flaw is obvious after pairing the argument down to its basics. It is that "What else could it be?" argument. It is like an ancient Greek saying "I don't know why the Sun moves so it must to pulled across the sky by the gods, how else could it move?"

In all cases, you can't simply make up an answer to explain what you don't know. Ignorance can never be a valid reason for knowing something.

The "What else could t be?" argument is nothing other than an admission of ignorance.

A final thought: There is FAR MORE evidence for mermaids than for space aliens. There have been centuries of eyewitness reports of mermaids. Mermaids have been reported to have been observed in many different locations and times continuously over a long period of history spanning multiple centuries.

There are some (relatively obvious) flaws in your argument. No one said they "know" anything. If "Unidentified" doesn't explain that sufficiently, I'm not sure I can do much better.

When an object that was obviously not created by humans, yet requires intelligence to create, then logically one might assume it is from some other intelligent species. Being there are no other tool-using species of sufficient intelligence and technology to create mechanical objects living in this planet, that we know of - I'll give you that a lack of definitive evidence that species like mermaids exist is not grounds for assuming they don't - we must then assume that the species is not of Earth. If that is, in fact, the case, then they are , by definition, space aliens. If that is not the case, we must ask what other explanation exists. Time-travelling humans? Interdimensional beings?

Your argument that it is illogical to assume something is not alien is as just as illogical, because you are positing that you don't know what a thing is but it CAN'T be aliens.

Scientific progress is based on the idea that we offer a made up answer to questions we don't know, then work to disprove it. If there are aerial vehicles that are not made by humans, the hypothesis must be they are made by some other race. we start there and then work to disprove that hypothesis, or eliminate all other possibilities until that is the last remaining.

 

[billslugg]

I do not accept that there are aerial vehicles that could not have been made by humans. I will agree there are film clips of dots moving around, there are lots of very credible people who believe they saw such craft. You can eliminate possible causes all you want and that does not prove ET. Only one thing will, repeated isotopic measurements, by independent groups indicating ET origin, peer eviewed and published in a reputable journal. You can bet it will be in Nature, when I see it there, I'll be a believer.

In science the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you say there are ETs here, it is your responsibility to meet a standard that someone else sets. That is the usual repeatability along with a lot of statistical numbers. Every single branch of science uses a similar method. If you came up with an ET sample, then at least two, preferably dozens, of laboratories will analyze it. Statisticians will look at the numbers and tell you what the chance is of a random fluke. They insist on "nine nines". That is a 99.999% chance it is real and not just a random hit. Come up with a fingernail clipping, they'll divvy it up and we'll have absolute proof one way or the other, at least to five nines.

If I say "There are no ET's here" then the burden of proof is on me. I cannot prove a negative so we have to take it one case at a time. When a claim is made of ET, my role is to see if it holds water. I have never seen a claim without holes.

 

[ChrisA]

There are some (relatively obvious) flaws in your argument. No one said they "know" anything. If "Unidentified" doesn't explain that sufficiently, I'm not sure I can do much better.

When an object that was obviously not created by humans, yet requires intelligence to create, then logically one might assume it is from some other intelligent species. Being there are no other tool-using species of sufficient intelligence and technology to create mechanical objects living in this planet, that we know of - I'll give you that a lack of definitive evidence that species like mermaids exist is not grounds for assuming they don't - we must then assume that the species is not of Earth. If that is, in fact, the case, then they are , by definition, space aliens. If that is not the case, we must ask what other explanation exists. Time-travelling humans? Interdimensional beings?

Your argument that it is illogical to assume something is not alien is as just as illogical, because you are positing that you don't know what a thing is but it CAN'T be aliens.

Scientific progress is based on the idea that we offer a made up answer to questions we don't know, then work to disprove it. If there are aerial vehicles that are not made by humans, the hypothesis must be they are made by some other race. we start there and then work to disprove that hypothesis, or eliminate all other possibilities until that is the last remaining.

He said "non-human pilot." That is very specific. The claim is completely bogus unless we see the pilot and can verify it is not human.

Saying "It does not fly like an airplane" is not enough. All that means is that it is not an airplane. Do you know how EW (Electronic warfare) systems work? They send fake signals to a sensor to fool the sensor. This was first done with radar. How do we not know there is no optical EW? non-hmans are VERY hard to prove untill you can point at the non-human and have it exampled by experts.

Again even the claim of having an alien artifact is not good enough. Because in the past the artifact has in fact human made, it is just unfamiliar to the person who found it. Again hs argument was "I don't know what this thing is, there for it is an alien artifact."

I know many people want this to be true so badly. But you have to be careful and defend actual science. Look for replicated and falsifiable evidence.

 

[billslugg]

Again even the claim of having an alien artifact is not good enough. Because in the past the artifact has in fact human made, it is just unfamiliar to the person who found it. Again hs argument was "I don't know what this thing is, there for it is an alien artifact."

If the artifact undergoes isotopic analysis we can tell where it came from.
If from Earth we can tell you which mine(s) the metals came out of.
If from elsewhere in the Solar System we can tell how far from the Sun it formed.
If from out side the Solar System we can tell which star it came from.

This analysis is absolute and irrefutable. It is dirt cheap to do. It takes but a few micrograms of your sample. Turnaround time a couple of minutes. Out of pocket cost about $100 in lab time. If truly ET, you can send it in and get a Nobel Prize. It is so easy to do, so monumental in impact, if ET was here, someone would have done it.

 

[orsobubu]

I do not accept that there are aerial vehicles that could not have been made by humans. I will agree there are film clips of dots moving around, there are lots of very credible people who believe they saw such craft. You can eliminate possible causes all you want and that does not prove ET. Only one thing will, repeated isotopic measurements, by independent groups indicating ET origin, peer eviewed and published in a reputable journal. You can bet it will be in Nature, when I see it there, I'll be a believer.

In science the person making the claim has the burden of proof. If you say there are ETs here, it is your responsibility to meet a standard that someone else sets. That is the usual repeatability along with a lot of statistical numbers. Every single branch of science uses a similar method. If you came up with an ET sample, then at least two, preferably dozens, of laboratories will analyze it. Statisticians will look at the numbers and tell you what the chance is of a random fluke. They insist on "nine nines". That is a 99.999% chance it is real and not just a random hit. Come up with a fingernail clipping, they'll divvy it up and we'll have absolute proof one way or the other, at least to five nines.

If I say "There are no ET's here" then the burden of proof is on me. I cannot prove a negative so we have to take it one case at a time. When a claim is made of ET, my role is to see if it holds water. I have never seen a claim without holes.

I don't accept nature or other flagship science journals as the truth, instead; it was demonstrated that up to 50% of published articles are fake; think only at covid virus official informations, for example. There is an astounding number of holes in academic scientific theories, mainly due to corruption in every field of capitalistic activities; feynman used to say that reality doesnt exist at all, only math exists, and this absurd idealism (ie in quantum mechanics, with its full load of crap virtual particles, actions at distance, entanglements, superpositions, etc, introduced ad hoc only to avoid the collapsing of scam equations) is enough for me to throw the official truth in the garbage. Read a common newspaper nowadays: you can understand them to the exact contrary, and you are surely nearer to the truth, i don't have sufficient elements to imagine that contemporary most advanced science is different. Anyway, at present i dont believe to aliens on earth, though.

 

[billslugg]

Nature published a story saying up to 50% of articles in journals were fake. Those are known as "disreputable journals". I said "reputable journals" and specified Nature, the very journal you are using as a source for your "50%" comment".

 

[Catastrophe]

Just for general information purposes:
Is it pair down or paring down?
QUOTE
Correct: You should pare down your speech if you want people to stay awake.
Incorrect: You should pair down your speech if you want people to stay awake.
Incorrect: You should pear down your speech if you want people to stay awake.
Correct: I would rather eat a pear than a banana.
QUOTE Source Google.

At least in English English. Is it different in American?

Cat

 

[crag]

Maybe Bob Lazar was telling the truth. Looks like things are stacking up in his favor. Maybe when full disclosure comes out the fabled, "island of stability" element 115 that he is suspected to have, will be revealed. As we know element 115, Moscovium, is artificial, extremely radioactive having a short half life of 0.65 seconds. But Lazar stated in 1989 that the extraterrestrials have produced this element in the "island of stability" where it does not go through radioactive decay. If this hearing goes further, maybe we will soon come to know the truth.

1. Bob Lazar's Claims and the UFO Hearings: At first glance, Bob Lazar's claims about Element 115 and his work with alien technology may not directly correlate with the recent UFO hearings. The hearings mainly focused on unidentified aerial phenomena witnessed by military personnel and potential cover-ups by the government.
2. Element 115 and Advanced Technologies: Lazar's claim of Element 115, also known as Moscovium, being part of alien technology raises questions about potential advanced propulsion systems used in UFOs. While the hearings did not specifically mention Element 115, some witnesses testified about advanced flight capabilities displayed by UAPs.
3. Government Cover-Up: Lazar's assertions of government secrecy regarding his work and knowledge of alien technology resonate with some aspects discussed in the hearings. The presence of whistleblowers and claims of retaliation were raised during the hearings, suggesting a possible link in terms of secrecy and government involvement.
4. Public Awareness and Disclosure: Lazar's claims have contributed to public awareness and discussions about UFOs and government secrecy. The recent UFO hearings themselves indicate a growing interest in the subject and a push for more transparency from the government.
5. Skepticism and Criticism: Lazar's claims have faced skepticism and criticism from various quarters, much like some witnesses and testimonies in the UFO hearings. Both topics generate passionate debates and require careful evaluation of evidence.

 

[Dave]

We who believe we are not alone welcome with open arms all the skepticism and evidence. We have been calling for it for decades. It has always been the point. We have not seen another kind of evidence. Anyone in the military refuting the statements, the whistleblowers have claimed. We are all to aware that thousands of credible witnesses are not enough evidence.

 

[billslugg]

We have made element 115, in fact, all the way up to 118. Their lifetimes are longer than expected, showing progress towards an island of stability at "doubly magic " element 126, which might have a half life in billions of years. Might be useful as a nuclear fuel. We are a very long way from reaching 126.

 

[Dave]

In the end, we can all agree to disagree on this topic.
Sightings mean little or nothing to the "we are alone' crowd.
They could not be more important to the rest of us. A sighting can be more than meets the eye. Ships in the shape of geometric patterns are seen often. There is a possibility this could be a message? Deciphering this message will be based on accurate observations. SETI needs to be involved in this activity.

 

[Mergatroid]

What a bunch of baloney. People are being led down the garden path. The military is laughing. Why would they reveal their cards, which is basically "there's no such thing" when China and Russia are looking on?
This is just another case of hearsay, with zero actual evidence. There cockpit videos they show have already been debunked.
All these decades and still not a shred of actual evidence, and not with literally billions of cameras all over the world, we still get zero credible evidence.
Even their so-called "credible" witnesses are all "well, my friend saw this, or my colleague saw that, or this person said they saw "biologicals".
Nothing. Zip. Once again no evidence.
Fairy tails.

 

[Dave]

The genie has been let out of the bottle. You cannot put it back in. The military are not debunking what the whistleblowers have seen. The truth has been revealed at a congressional meeting in congress. We can all breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[billslugg]

The military is rightly convinced there are well documented instances of unknown items in the air. If they are doing their job then they should have a well organized effort to identify their owners. I have my money on Chinese drones launched from submarines as being the first source we'll prove. As for ET involvement, nothing so far is convincing to scientists.

 

[Dave]

We have been calling for mainstream scientists to do the data with regards to UFO sightings for decades. The military gather all the data.
As we learned at the historical hearing in congress they do everything they can to misdirect the public and classify all the true evidence of intelligent lifeforms observing earth.
Our science is nothing less than primitive science to an advanced species observing us. This is why there are thousands times a thousand credible witnesses observing this phenomena. The
'we are alone' crowd would have us all believe that humanity is superior to any other form of intelligent life in the galaxy. If that were true (it is not) we are all in very serious trouble.

 

[COLGeek]

Methinks some assume the military is something other than it is. Folks watch too many TV shows and movies. That is not reality folks, I can assure you.

 

[billslugg]

Dave said:
"We have been calling for mainstream scientists to do the data with regards to UFO sightings for decades. The military gather all the data."

There is a dictum in science says the person making the claim has the burden of proof. This involves presenting some evidence and then analyzing it. In this case, the "believers" are insisting that someone else (military) provide the evidence and then another party (scientists) do the analysis.

 

[Dave]

A congressional hearing at congress on July the 26th has told everyone what the new reality is. Those of us who believe 'we are not alone' have known this all along. Nothing new to us. Thousands of credible witnesses to UFO and UAP sightings will finally be heard. The logical next step will be whistleblowing against those who have kept all of this top secret. You do not have to believe the truth. If you wish: you can stick your your fingers in your ears, repeat, "la, la, la, la" and continually drink plenty of rum and vodka. The rest of us will believe in reality.

 

[billslugg]

If ET visitations and ET vehicles are so common, how come you don't have one to show us? First person to do so gets instant fame, uncounted riches and a Nobel Prize. Seems rather odd to me this has not happened. I have my money on "it didn't happen because we have not had an ET visitation yet".