Avi Loeb announced to lead new "UAP Science Advisory Council" for White House

[JMartJr]

Well, unless they recovered the aliens pot plants at Roswell or wherever, I don't see how any variant of 'biologics' or whatever similar word is used can mean anything other than the aliens themselves. Its the classic ' we're not saying its aliens...but its aliens'.

My thought was that it provided some layer of safety if claims made under oath that SOUND like aliens do not, in fact, mean aliens. A recovered downed aircraft that had crashed after hitting a duck might be "advanced technology" and would have "non human biologics" smeared all over the point of impact, for example.

To my ear. the phrase "biologics" here is obfuscatory, whether intentionally so or not. The simplest way to say "we found an alien" is to say "we found an alien." Saying other stuff that merely implies aliens, to me, indicates they did not in fact find an alien but would like us to think they did.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

My thought was that it provided some layer of safety if claims made under oath that SOUND like aliens do not, in fact, mean aliens. A recovered downed aircraft that had crashed after hitting a duck might be "advanced technology" and would have "non human biologics" smeared all over the point of impact, for example.

To my ear. the phrase "biologics" here is obfuscatory, whether intentionally so or not. The simplest way to say "we found an alien" is to say "we found an alien." Saying other stuff that merely implies aliens, to me, indicates they did not in fact find an alien but would like us to think they did.

"NHI" (Non human intelligence) is actually the "not aliens, but aliens!" word here I think.

 

[MonkeeSage]

"Biologics" is vague enough to cover everything from alleged alien implants and things like "angel hair" all the way up to alien bodies.

 

[FatPhil]

My thought was that it provided some layer of safety if claims made under oath that SOUND like aliens do not, in fact, mean aliens. A recovered downed aircraft that had crashed after hitting a duck might be "advanced technology" and would have "non human biologics" smeared all over the point of impact, for example.

To my ear. the phrase "biologics" here is obfuscatory, whether intentionally so or not. The simplest way to say "we found an alien" is to say "we found an alien." Saying other stuff that merely implies aliens, to me, indicates they did not in fact find an alien but would like us to think they did.

It's deliberately obfuscatory - it comes with the easy out of "but we never said it was an alien" for a reason.

 

[MapperGuy]

It's deliberately obfuscatory - it comes with the easy out of "but we never said it was an alien" for a reason.

Very deliberate.
Mr Grusch and others thought that their statements would open the flood-gates to a torrent of proof of aliens. Turns out there were only fuzzy dot photos behind those flood-gates. People are back-peddling, and trying to do it as quietly as possible.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Very deliberate.
Mr Grusch and others thought that their statements would open the flood-gates to a torrent of proof of aliens. Turns out there were only fuzzy dot photos behind those flood-gates. People are back-peddling, and trying to do it as quietly as possible.

Yeah obfuscatory but still pretty clear.
Like, we all know "non human biologics in recovered NHI crafts" is aliens.
No need to dance around it, but I don't think anyone actually did.

 

[MrBurns]

Aliens not being used at much is in my opinion a clever push while working with the DC blob because the term is used in existing laws regarding immigration. For example :
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/depa...sent-decree-kansas-enjoin-state-enforcing-its

The Department of Justice Reaches a Proposed Consent Decree with Kansas to Enjoin the State from Enforcing its Unconstitutional In-State Tuition and Scholarship Programs for Illegal Aliens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

So you one would not need to constantly clarify that it's not about Mexicans but rather Martians.

 

[Mendel]

"Biologics" is vague enough to cover everything from alleged alien implants and things like "angel hair" all the way up to alien bodies.

So does "biomatter".

Like, we all know "non human biologics in recovered NHI crafts" is aliens.

I'd take an alien bug/spider/crawly, they'd look alien enough under a microscope to reveal their non-terrestrial origin.

Aliens not being used at much is in my opinion a clever push while working with the DC blob because the term is used in existing laws regarding immigration.

"Extraterrestrial" exists.

The problem that these people are having is that you can't convince anyone if you use these straightforward terms. So they seek refuge in the old adage, "if you can't convince them, confuse them". If you don't know what "biologics" or "NHI" means, you might assume it means something you're ignorant of—but it doesn't. They just want you to think it does.

Another reason they went for NHI is that it's inclusive of the more fringe ideas floating out there, but the drawback is that the term is so vague that it includes dolphins and Bigfoot.

 

[jarlrmai]

I'd settle for someone, anyone just asking him what he means. The lack of calling out this unusual term is poor journalism.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Not that "non human intelligence" is a perfect definition either.
Are orcas and whales "non human intelligence"?
Sure they're not stupid!

 

[Ann K]

I'd settle for someone, anyone just asking him what he means. The lack of calling out this unusual term is poor journalism.

Journalists are not scientists. And, as has been pointed out, the fact that a word is used in one discipline does not give them exclusive possession of an uncopyrighted word. That's as true for "biologics" as it is for "aliens" or "orbs". Trying to control jargon is a losing battle. We're better off just recognizing how the UFOlogists use it.

We cannot be the self-appointed language police.

 

[Gary C]

Agreed and rampant use of partial or full AI in copy generation without serious editorial effort is exacerbating the problem. The only thing you can do is follow the quality sources (and support or subscribe to them which is what matters in keeping them afloat) and to down vote and flag the sloppy attention seeking outlets.

The 'free' internet is driven by pay-for-clicks, putting quality writing at a disadvantage. Writing a long debunk to something posted by a 'bot is not likely to be a good use of your time. Down voting or flagging the company behind the 'bot or replying with links to quality sites, serious science, or simply back to Metabunk.org is probably the best response to machine generated journalism.

 

[Mendel]

Trying to control jargon is a losing battle. We're better off just recognizing how the UFOlogists use it.

If they're redefining terms to put their spin on a narrative, that's propaganda, and I feel we ought to call it out when we see it.

Like, I know we're not controlling the narrative about the "UAP threat", but I'm still going to keep calling it out (there is UAP fear and fearmongering, but no evidence of a UAP threat).