Video: US Government Admits UFOs in Press Conference | Disclosure


Can this be debunked as well?

Anything can be debunked depending on epistemic standards.

From your other thread:
He offers no evidence. Then he invokes the usual suspects of the Bilderberg group and the Tri-Lateral commission. I personally would like nothing more than for what he says to be true, but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Extraordinary claims don't always demand extraordinary evidence before "belief" of sorts sets in, e.g. numerous evolutionary creation myths. And it takes someone to demand evidence or "proof" in order for their to be a demand for it. That's an act of will.

Anything can be atomized or "debunked" from different perspectives if a person puts their mind to it. An interesting thing about some of the claims is that people seem to be unaware of group dynamics. So the basic premise of some arguments seems to be this: "If the people of my official group believed that, then I would. But look, that guy comes from a different crackpot group so he has a different group history!"

Here's a case that undermines the idea that it's always official groups against crazy crackpots:

Because he was the member of an official group... but now he could be re framed as crazy if enough people were interested in telling him how crazy he is. No word yet on if he's involved in any crazy crackpot groups that have a history of making incorrect claims or if he's taken an interest in becoming a crazy conspiracy theorist and so forth. Too late! Already a crackpot.

Note how the mayor originally framed his experience as crazy and/or entertaining even when he apparently knew that his observations and experience seemed real enough to him.

Might be worth trying to articulate what seems to be a subconscious line of reasoning in some "skeptical" threads of thought: "If the people of skeptical and official groups that have credibility found evidence, then I would find it too. Because they have credibility and don't have a history of making incorrect claims like the crackpots do." Yet that's incorrect, instead they have a history of making a lot of incorrect claims too. Much like any group of people. And if that line of reasoning isn't correct, then what's the real standard?

Darwinism is an interesting juxtaposition as far as epistemic standards go... because it seems hard to get Darwinists to admit that their experience as knowing and evolving beings "exists." And if it exists, then life probably doesn't reduce to blind, unthinking and unknowing mechanisms and processes. I'm still not sure why people have a hard time imagining that aliens/gods and "heavenly hosts" within the multiverse may, indeed, exist. They've always been reported. True, people imagine things or simply make sh*t up and lie all the time. So there is that. But many people who seem to think of themselves as skeptics don't seem to have any problem with making up evolutionary creation stories and many seem to even "believe" some of them too. They do that even when there aren't witnesses or apparently any way of verifying/falsifying all that they seem to be imagining. I should check that thread again, it seems like it might make for an interesting juxtaposition of widely varying epistemic standards.

From: "There is no evidence of sentience in any evolving life forms." to "Every living thing that exists can be counted as evidence of blind and ignorant evolutionary processes producing all that we know." Imagine that! (If you can...)


Senior Member
Hmmm...I think videos like these are going to get the same response as this:
Naw, that was a retired old fellow who happened to be a high-ranking military official way back in the day citing information from books he read as retired old fellow. These are retired military personnel testifying as to their actual personal experiences while still in service. There's a pretty big difference.
Last edited by a moderator: