The person you replied to said extraterrestrial not UAP.
Did nasa release any evidence supporting the human traffiking and the other issue you mention? because they have not said it’s not real. NASA already made official statements acknowledging that there are uaps all over the world, they are now saying that they don’t have evidence that it’s aliens. they have not said it’s not real we have passed that point.
nul@programming.dev 1 year ago
5BC2E7@lemmy.world 1 year ago
yes and given the dismissive tone I believe that he doesn’t make any distinction between uap and ufo, nhi and aliens.
nul@programming.dev 1 year ago
Doesn’t sound dismissive to my ear. Sounds like they believe nhi are likely out there, but our attention is being maliciously diverted by the classical specter of “little green men” for the purposes of politics and control. That’s my read, anyway.
5BC2E7@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I hope he can clarify. your interpretation seems equally valid to me, i just did not see it until you said it.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
“There is no evidence to support that conclusion” is scientist for “no.”
lorez@lemm.ee 1 year ago
No, it’s not. It’s scientist for we don’t know.
ours@lemmy.film 1 year ago
You’re missing his point. It’s not not knowing, it’s “current empirical evidence points to X conclusion”.
Science is always open to changing their conclusion based on new evidence. People take that as doubt while con-men bring them absolute answers with absolute confidence and mistake this for facts.
lorez@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Exactly. Sorry if I expressed my thoughts all wrong. But that’s what I meant, that science always awaits new evidence.
5BC2E7@lemmy.world 1 year ago
my reply had nothing to do with “that conclusion” so you are not making any sense.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
What is “real” for a UAP?
5BC2E7@lemmy.world 1 year ago
your comment basically confirms you did not read my previous comment where i shared an example that nasa disclosed with a link. there is even a non blurry video of one…