Hi
We can understand Kirkpatrick’s annoyance at all the hype about these so-called recoveries of non-human flying craft. These fantastic statements tend to put off the lay public, to inflame debates, and to overshadow any scientific initiatives concerning UAPs. Additionally, we still have no proof of these supposed exotic technology crashes. But that doesn’t mean that this evidence doesn’t exist, or that no whistleblower is credible. But most importantly, it is extremely unlikely that Kirkpatrick can prove this. Because it is factually impossible to have proof of the non-existence of this proof! On the other hand, nothing prevents us from proving that life elsewhere exists, and that some of the UFOs that fly over us are technologies sent by some evolved species…
Of course, UFOs generate a lot of fantasies. Ranging from stupid and simplistic solutions (all UFOs are balloons, witnesses are crazy, etc.), to the most convoluted and fanciful solutions (ancient aliens, reptilians, etc.). But it is naturally logical that the human mind generates a whole bunch of more or less fanciful hypotheses when faced with a mystery. Especially when you haven’t studied it. Because UFOs are a reality, it’s a fact. Which, in fact, makes this phenomenon mysterious. But that doesn’t mean that all the stories and rumors surrounding this mystery are fantasies. Nor that all those who peddle them are fervent conspiracy theorist believers. No, it’s much more nuanced and complex than that. And making extremely simplistic generalizations like these is either having a completely binary vision of the world in which we live, or being dishonest because in this case they are fallacious amalgamations.
This is why Kirkpatrick’s latest remarks are disturbing. Because as a scientist, he is used to giving a much more nuanced and intelligent speech. Which is not the case in these few articles published recently. We can therefore assume that the people behind these articles are fervent “anti-UFO” believers, distorting or accentuating Kirkpatrick’s words. Because previously, in his interventions, Kirkpatrick did not deny the existence of these singular objects, and did not reject the extraterrestrial hypothesis (he worked with Avi Loeb on ET probes). He even said he wanted to understand these objects scientifically. He repeated it often. Except that most of these articles don’t mention that. No, their authors insist on the believers who are opposed to themselves (the “pro UFOs”), and on the non-existence of any extraterrestrial proof (for your information, if no object has yet been captured to offer “the ultimate proof”, however there are tons of credible clues to their existence).
Then, perhaps Kirkpatrick would have radically changed and become a pure anti-science fanatic, as many of these believers are. But we must rather be wary of the people behind these articles, seeking media buzz, and above all wishing to impose their beliefs on others, through relentless proselytizing. Because these “anti-UFOs” firmly believe that no extraordinary technology can fly over us. That is, these people “believe” that all UFOs are prosaic. Or rather, they “believe they know it” while being incapable of knowing how they know it. In the end, we are faced with a totally absurd and contradictory discourse. Because even if UFOs did not exist, these people could not have such information. And this is also the case for “pro UFOs” who cannot know exactly what UFOs are. Because no one is omniscient. Except that beyond the fact that UFOs already exist by definition, a whole bunch of facts indicate that they exist. It is therefore doubly absurd to maintain the opposite.
No, currently, there seems to be a strong push from “anti-UFO” believers, who use Kirkpatrick’s speech in all their interventions, to try to impose their personal conviction. Which is normally expected, because cognitive dissonance pushes these people to rebel against the idea of UFOs. And the method of these “anti-UFO” believers is to hit the believers opposite, the “pro-UFO” believers. Because it is easier for them to attack the beliefs of the “pro UFOs”, rather than study the facts, which contradict their own beliefs. Moreover, these two beliefs have been facing each other for 70 years: those who believe that UFOs are exotic, opposed to those who believe that extraordinary technologies cannot exist. A highly unproductive opposition, because it diverts debates towards the subject of beliefs, and stagnates scientific research into these objects. And the “anti-UFOs” have understood this well, because they don’t want us to study them (they don’t even want UFOs to exist^^).
Kirkpatrick must therefore prove now that his approach is still scientific, and that he is not trying to bury this subject, or just to make noise to get people talking about him. Because according to these articles, he seems to accuse “all” “pro UFO” believers of producing conspiracy theories. Knowing that he himself denounces here a conspiracy of believers, who are within the government and who would try to monopolize government budgets with the PANs. That is to say, Kirkpatrick is producing a conspiracy theory here. And he himself produces no proof. Which is damn paradoxical for a scientist. Especially since offices like those of the AARO cost nothing. That is to say that a plot would have been put in place to ultimately obtain an office with 3 guys in it… Precisely, so far, the amounts invested are clearly ridiculous. Even the $22 million for AAWSAP and AATIP is ridiculous. Especially considering the amounts spent in the USA every year on defense…
Because beyond all the cases collected by AATIP (144 military cases), we do not know exactly what these programs produced with this. And now it is obvious that some of AAWSAP’s research is questionable and seems ridiculous (Skinwalker Ranch and others). Except that beyond the fact that this would not be the first time that a government has funded ridiculous research, UFO research is not. Because with UFOs, there is the possibility that the discoveries could be fundamental. Not to mention the “air safety” part, which is also very important. It is therefore legitimate to believe in UFOs and to want them to be studied scientifically, and to know what these objects are. Likewise, it is logical that there are lobbying groups that campaign in this direction. And it is also logical that some lobbyists talk nonsense. Freedom of expression and belief give all these people the right to express themselves.
Except that this situation does not eliminate the basic facts, which the “anti-UFOs” strive to ignore (by noting only balloons, drones, etc.). Facts indicating that UFOs are a reality. And to accuse people of conspiring to embezzle money, you need real proof! Furthermore, if Kirkpatrick investigated all these whistleblowers, how would he have had time to work on the phenomenon… Knowing that it takes years to acquire exhaustive knowledge of the subject. The best specialists demonstrate this. It is not in two years that they have learned what they know. So how much knowledge does Kirkpatrick really have about the phenomenon? And is it legitimate to comment on the subject? Because if these articles do not distort his words, Kirkpatrick says that 90% of UFOs can be explained in a prosaic way, which we have already known for 70 years, but above all he claims to know what the remaining 10% are…
In fact, it would mean that what no one has managed to do in 70 years, Kirkpatrick would have done in less than two years. The guy would therefore have solved the greatest riddle of all time! And at the same time, he would have invented expeditious science, categorizing unknowns as known without even knowing them. Because from all these articles, Kirkpatrick seems to have concluded that none of these cases are scientifically intriguing. And that there would therefore be no facts demonstrating that these singular objects exist. Which is entirely false ! Because there are now enough credible and solid cases to demonstrate it. And because we are no longer in the 70s, where information was only available to a small number of people. That is to say that even if their research is difficult, the facts exist! Some of these facts can be consulted in the Blue Book, Geipan etc. databases.
Because it must be remembered that witnesses also produce objective facts, when we compare their testimonies together. The accounts of multiple and unrelated witnesses cannot be vulgarly rejected. Because after more than 70 years of phenomenon and scientific investigations, we know today that testimonies can also produce concrete facts. And I’m not even talking about photos, videos, radar contacts, etc. In short, when we cross all these facts together, we obtain a so-called “objective” reality. A reality that is difficult to refute. Of course, everything is debatable and can be denied. And people deny the roundness of the Earth. But denying these kinds of facts is precisely not objective. And in Kirkpatrick’s case, it would even be intellectually dishonest. Except that it is difficult to imagine that he could have changed to this extent…
Or Kirkpatrick was hired from the start to discredit UAPs (yes, I too can produce a conspiracy theory^^)? Because the parallel with Elizondo is surprising. Since he did exactly like Elizondo, who after resigning from the government, spoke out about this phenomenon. Except that Elizondo spoke out “for” UFOs, explaining that these objects existed and that they needed to be studied. Unlike Kirkpatrick, who spoke out “against” UFOs, claiming that there is no proof, apart from the beliefs of all these conspiracy theorists. Which would tend to demonstrate that there is still an open war between two groups of people within the US government. And that one of these groups seeks to create a diversion and drown out the facts.
In short, I don’t know if Kirkpatrick is a pure believer and if he was hired for this purpose. And I don’t even think we can go back 70 years as the “anti-UFOs” fantasize about. But to pass this threshold, that of accepting the reality that these facts impose on us, it risks being much more difficult than we might have thought. Because the general public’s acceptance of exotic UFOs goes through a slightly rising sinusoidal curve. We can therefore assume – after the peak of 2017 – that we are on the downward slope of this one. Because beliefs and oppositions are extremely strong with this subject. And because there will always be pure believers wishing to block such a reality…
.
Notes: First, I’m sorry for my long text (which will get even longer^^). Second, I am “pro UFO” and “pro ET”, because I simply cannot be “against”. No, UFOs exist, as does life, so it would be contradictory and illogical to believe otherwise. And thirdly, you should know that with UFOs, just the fact of taking a position “against” certain hypotheses, and more particularly “against” the extraterrestrial hypothesis, generates stigmatization towards those who are “for”, including those who firmly believe in it. That is to say that when someone like Mick West, for example, calls out “believers”, he automatically stigmatizes them! Because talking about believers is obviously pejorative. This is a generality. This refers to all those who do not reject this hypothesis, as he does. That is to say that he creates an amalgamation of different people, as if all these people had the same fault, that of believing in this hypothesis. It’s even insulting. Because claiming, as Mick West and others do, that life elsewhere cannot send technologies to Earth (already we wonder how they know that^^), this closes the debate, and decrees in fact, that You have to be crazy to believe in such a hypothesis. In fact, these people suggest that rationality lies in rejecting this hypothesis. And the targeted group, the group of people therefore accepting the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the “believers” as they call them, find themselves cataloged as irrational. In the end, these people, by criticizing this group of “pro ET” believers, divide the population into 2 groups, which they make oppose each other. And they themselves become by default: “anti ET”. That is to say, the stigma starts here ! Stigma begins with this kind of prejudice. It is this belief, “anti ET”, which by taking sides “against” and opposing the “pro ET” belief, ostracizes all those who could take sides “for”. It’s just mathematical. Because these are two beliefs that clash. And there’s nothing skeptic about skeptics. No, they are pure believers.
In fact, talking about each other’s beliefs has no use, apart from stigmatizing them and diverting the debate. Because to attack the beliefs of others, especially continually, is to attack their deep convictions, to affect them personally. Which is not the norm in science. Because if oppositions also exist, the doors are never truly closed. No, an honest scientist has enough humility to know that he cannot know which door is really closed. And he does not decree, in advance, that a door is closed if he does not have proof. No, scientists rather try together to understand which doors could be more or less open. Unlike people like Mick West, who claim that with UFOs there is no proof. These people have definitely closed this door. And they reject all clues related to UAPs. They even imply that there cannot be any! That is to say that all these people “firmly believe” that such an event cannot occur. They are convinced of it! And their speech is dedicated to rejecting the beliefs of others, by opposing them, rather than trying “with them” to understand this phenomenon. And that’s because they believe they have the solution. They believe that no ET tools can reach us. Except that it is not reasonable, or even scientific, to completely close the door. So often these people “suggest” they want better evidence. But as I demonstrate, they believe the extraterrestrial hypothesis is impossible. So they believe there will never be proof. It is therefore wrong to suggest this. Because by accepting that the evidence exists, these people would be “pro ET”. But they are not…
Especially since the “anti ETs” do not want their beliefs to be contradicted. People like Mick West, for example, do not want to open the door to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Otherwise they wouldn’t continually attack “pro ET” believers. Besides, what is the “anti-UFO” believer looking for? Because, the “pro UFO” believer is looking for better evidence. But the “anti-UFO” believer on the other hand… I mean, what is he looking for, is he trying to prove that these proofs don’t exist? But as a skeptic, possessing scientific reasoning (they are the ones who say so), they should know that we cannot prove that something does not exist… And their approach should also be to look for proof.. So they should be “pro UFO”. But that’s not what they do and that’s not who they are. No, these people are just trying to demonstrate – through all sorts of biased or fallacious means – that there is no proof, and that anyone who might believe otherwise is wrong. And they do this, without ever believing that they themselves could make mistakes. Because often their speech does not include any questioning or skeptical doubts about their method. Additionally, UFO studies are open and still ongoing. There is therefore nothing reasonably scientific about concluding and completely closing the door to the ET hypothesis. No, doing this is extremely radical !
In short, all this to say that the problem comes first and foremost from “certain people” and not from everyone’s beliefs. Because we don’t have to worry about beliefs! And we should only worry about putting words to facts. That is, to take care of cataloging the facts, and not a so-called group of people. On the other hand, we can personally criticize people who “believe” they have the truth (pro and anti), and who seek to impose it in a proselytizing manner. Because if these people do not offer proof, their approach necessarily opposes all attempts to honestly understand this phenomenon. That is to say that by “believing” that there is no proof, and by wanting to impose “their truth”, as Mick West and others do, they block the possibility that the we find better evidence, if it exists… Because, whatever we may believe, this evidence can exist, it’s a fact !
(I thought I saw an article yesterday where Kirkpatrick said that his superiors censored him and forced him to resign, would Kirkpatrick now reconsider his remarks^^)
submitted by /u/Tik00kiT
[link] [comments]