Disclosure has begun

[Knows]

Investigative journalist Timothy Alberino reveals that the recent UFO/UAP document disclosure is deliberately limited and part of an internal struggle between a "secrecy group" and a "disclosure group" in Washington. Alberino argues that the most significant information—concerning recovered non-human craft and bodies—is controlled by a rogue "breakaway civilization" operating with no presidential or congressional oversight. This entity uses private aerospace contractors and Deep Underground Military Bases (DUMBs), keeping the President on a "need to know" basis and blocking official inquiries.

Bitchute 

Rumble

[GENERAL EYES]

Honestly, I think the whole thing is a bit silly....they were having disclosure meetings for the past what...seven years (?) with the Military and several testimonials, and two years ago in December there were all those drone sightings in New Jersey and for a few weeks EVERYONE (it seemed) was posting UFO captures from their phones....and then Christmas came, everyone forgot and now we're right back to square one.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Ask the AI which wrote that for an example of sufficient evidence for an extraordinary claim that isn’t itself extraordinary. No rush.

How about rocks falling from the sky? 

At one time the established science was that rocks falling from the sky was nonsense.Then the French revolution occured. After that, scientists were interested in the opinions of the common people that actually saw them fall into farm fields occasionally.

You see, the scientists lost their royal funding and needed to listen to the people that kept them funded with their taxes.

And now we know there are lots of rocks up on the sky and hundreds of tons fall every year. They looked at the evidence differently and found what was actually happening.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Some of you are bringing up pole numbers about belief. Belief in what exactly? The poles are too ambiguous to get any answers. Belief that your neighbor is from another planet? Belief that life could exist on other planets in the universe? Belief that we have been visited? Belief that the Bible and other ancient stories are about space aliens?

In those poles, all those believers are just thrown together in a meaningless jumble. 

I personally believe in the possibility but have seen no evidence of it. This "new" reliese has changed nothing for me.

[Astyanax]

How about rocks falling from the sky? 

At one time the established science was that rocks falling from the sky was nonsense.Then the French revolution occured. After that, scientists were interested in the opinions of the common people that actually saw them fall into farm fields occasionally.

You see, the scientists lost their royal funding and needed to listen to the people that kept them funded with their taxes.

And now we know there are lots of rocks up on the sky and hundreds of tons fall every year. They looked at the evidence differently and found what was actually happening.

The l'Aigle event was pretty extraordinary. Rocks don't often fall from the sky in front of crowds of witnesses.

[Astyanax]

For a common person at the time, the claim (that's what we were talking about, claims, not facts) that the apple attracts the Earth is extraordinary.

Indeed. But common persons knew nothing of it. The claim was confined to a small fraction of university graduates, at a time when education beyond religious instruction and the three Rs did not exist except for the upper classes. The ones who knew of Newton’s work were the elite of the elite, intellectually speaking, and to them there was nothing extraordinary about it at all.
 

We don't know what kind of evidence explains any claim, so we cannot say that it has to be extraordinary just because the claim is. It's possible that it needs extraordinary evidence, but it's also possible it doesn't.

I think you had better state precisely what you mean by ‘extraordinary claim’ and ‘extraordinary evidence’. Herewith, I give you my own definitions. An ‘extraordinary claim’ is to the effect that something rare, secret or unexpected is happening (aliens are visiting Earth and communicating with humans), or that the reason something is happening is rare, secret or unexpected (the aliens want human DNA and governments are secretly supplying it to them in exchange for access to their advanced technology). ‘Extraordinary evidence’ is evidence that is rare, unexpected or difficult to obtain (possibly because someone is keeping it secret), or evidence that is unusually rigorous. It is in the last sense, as I understand it, that Sagan was using the term.

If you don’t like those definitions, provide your own; if you accept them, explain how an extraordinary claim can be proven with anything except extraordinary evidence – and how this extraordinary evidence can be obtained without extraordinary research.

I’m still waiting, by the way, for the examples I asked you for earlier.
 

I don't see research as evidence, I see evidence as a result of research.

A debating point, no more. Extraordinary efforts were needed to obtain the evidence for the theories I mentioned earlier, and it came as quite a shock to the world when Ross found the same protozoan in the stomachs of Anopheles mosquitoes that Laveran had earlier found in the blood of malaria patients.

Extraordinary evidence is that which is difficult to obtain, requiring extraordinary efforts. You are making a distinction without a difference, or as it is more commonly put, splitting hairs.
 

People will feel more open to accept other opinions if they do not feel attacked.

You keep returning to this. It is irrelevant. Are we here to entertain and argue with each other, or to get at the truth? Personally, I say it is the former; this is just a rather primitive social-media site. But the common narrative here – a narrative you have played into for years by making heroic efforts to preserve the old ‘data’ from ATS and make it accessible here – is that these sites exist(ed) to find out the truth – ‘to deny ignorance’, as the motto is.

If that really is true, then sparing the truth and stroking people’s egos is futile and most likely to lead us astray in our inquiries. The scientific world is not so tolerant; scientists know that good science cannot be done under those conditions. No more tolerant are philosophers, mathematicians, historians, engineers and others whose work depends on the truth – often as a matter of life and death. People who value feelings above the truth, on the other hand, are hucksters (including priests and ministers of all religions), politicians (including terrorists), flatterers and social parasites, the self-deluding, and the insane.
 

Being a programmer, I do that all the time, when facts show me that my thinking was completely wrong.

Unfortunately that is not what I meant. The trivial realisation that one has made a mistake in one’s procedures or calculations while at work is an experience common to us all and its consequences, if any, are usually minor. The emotional consequences of realising that years of work have been wasted because you made a severe category error when judging the material in the first place is something very different.

So you’re a programmer who has never heard of Richard Dawkins. Never heard of his use of cellular automata in his biological research?

[Astyanax]

Some of you are bringing up pole numbers about belief. Belief in what exactly? The poles are too ambiguous to get any answers. Belief that your neighbor is from another planet? Belief that life could exist on other planets in the universe? Belief that we have been visited? Belief that the Bible and other ancient stories are about space aliens?

In those poles, all those believers are just thrown together in a meaningless jumble. 

I personally believe in the possibility but have seen no evidence of it. This "new" reliese has changed nothing for me.

I’m sure a poll could be designed that would investigate public attitudes towards UFOs far more specifically and accurately than this. The trouble is that professional polls cost money, and the people who are interested in UFOs tend not to have any.

[BeyondKnowledge]

The l'Aigle event was pretty extraordinary. Rocks don't often fall from the sky in front of crowds of witnesses.

Extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim. Before that time, there be fire breathing dragons in the sky. They were rocks. Now we have them on security cameras. 

Now when do we get a UFO landing in front of many?

[ArMaP]

If you don’t like those definitions, provide your own; if you accept them, explain how an extraordinary claim can be proven with anything except extraordinary evidence – and how this extraordinary evidence can be obtained without extraordinary research.

I agree with the extraordinary claim definition, but not with the extraordinary evidence definition, as to me, the fact that evidence may be hard to find doesn't make it extraordinary, ordinary or extraordinary being a characteristic of the evidence, not of how it was obtained or how hard it was.

I’m still waiting, by the way, for the examples I asked you for earlier.

I can't even remember any extraordinary claim, much less of one being explained by ordinary evidence.
 

You keep returning to this. It is irrelevant. Are we here to entertain and argue with each other, or to get at the truth?

We can do both.

Personally, I say it is the former; this is just a rather primitive social-media site. But the common narrative here – a narrative you have played into for years by making heroic efforts to preserve the old ‘data’ from ATS and make it accessible here – is that these sites exist(ed) to find out the truth – ‘to deny ignorance’, as the motto is.

If that really is true, then sparing the truth and stroking people’s egos is futile and most likely to lead us astray in our inquiries.

Don't distort my words, I never talked about sparing the truth and much less of stroking people's egos, I was talking about being opposed to someone's ideas without being rude.

The scientific world is not so tolerant; scientists know that good science cannot be done under those conditions. No more tolerant are philosophers, mathematicians, historians, engineers and others whose work depends on the truth – often as a matter of life and death. People who value feelings above the truth, on the other hand, are hucksters (including priests and ministers of all religions), politicians (including terrorists), flatterers and social parasites, the self-deluding, and the insane.

I see you don't understand my point of view.
I'm not talking about valuing feelings above truth, I'm talking about using people's feelings to make them easier to accept the idea they may be wrong and make them think.
When people accept the possibility of being wrong it makes them easier to get to the truth (although they may never get there) and accept other points of view.
 

Unfortunately that is not what I meant. The trivial realisation that one has made a mistake in one’s procedures or calculations while at work is an experience common to us all and its consequences, if any, are usually minor. The emotional consequences of realising that years of work have been wasted because you made a severe category error when judging the material in the first place is something very different.

You see, to me it's the same thing, only on a bigger scale, with more important consequences, but accepting responsibility for our own errors is something we either have or not.

So you’re a programmer who has never heard of Richard Dawkins. Never heard of his use of cellular automata in his biological research?

No, why should I? Is he supposed to be someone important? I don't do that "personality" thing.

[quintessentone]

I know I know Neil is plugging his new book, "Take me to your leader", but I agree with his point that they should 'bring out the alien' and he explains how the physics does not work with some UAP behaviour.