Of course it is. They’ve been lying since 1947 at least.
Yep. The Air Force had publicly admitted to lying about Roswell for decades. Whether or not their most recent claims have any truths, it shows that they have lied about it in the past and recent events suggests that’s never stopped.
One of the biggest things I want is transparency from the DOD. I don’t expect everything to make it to the public, but there should at least be accountability with other groups within the government. The fact that they’ve failed 6 consecutive audits, admitted that they can’t account for where all of the money goes, and then proceed to lie to congress is troublesome.
One of the biggest things I want is transparency from the DOD. yeah, that’d be fun. not gonna happen tho.
this leads me to believe that there are two scenarios left:
1 - there are no aliens, but the DOD’s been testing stuff on their own forces/capabilities. which is plausible.
2 - there are aliens, the DOD knows, and is trying to cover their existence because…?
Wishful thinking, I know.
With the progress of technology, it really is difficult these days to grasp what the military is capable of. We keep breaking grounds of what we previously considered possible. Though there have been reports for decades of object maneuvering that we still haven’t publicly replicated or properly explained. Assuming any of those reports to be true, that either suggests there is an external factor, such as NHI, or the government has been concealing groundbreaking technology for way too long.
Some plausible scenarios I’ve come across that tie in with your second point are…
- The government has documented UAP this whole time, but doesn’t have a comfortable grasp on what it is. Revealing that could be seen as a vulnerability, so they’d rather dismiss it than appear weak to the nation and world.
- They’ve recovered technology of NHI or unknown origin and have been reverse engineering it for decades. The silence on it would then be to keep the advancements between the DOD and private contractors to benefit from. And/or, to cover potential illegal activity in the acquisition and monopoly of the technology.
There are a lot more scenarios I’ve seen, but these seem the most plausible and accessible.
many possibilities, few I want to contemplate :|
In big red letters at the top:
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
The article then rambles on about Matt Gaetz, because he’s one of the few people in office that believes this. Or he’s at least this desperate to be known as anything other than cocaine fuled parties where he has sex with children he transported across state lines.
Because literally anything is better than that.
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.
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.
Have some respect for the capability of Lemmy users to read the beginning of an article.
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?
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.”
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.
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
This piece is really rustling some jimmies 😂
I really wish they would stop using any balloon as an explanation. We know they’re not balloons, they know they’re not balloons. The author is right that this excuse really insults the intelligence of the general public.
The balloon excuse really is lazy at this point. The sad thing is that it’s enough for a lot of media to dismiss it. I’m open to prosaic explanations where appropriate, but they’re clearly going with any vague match they can use to end their investigation.
