John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs

  • #36
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
To out right deny the possibility of anything that we lack the ability to totally disprove is an over abundance of pride.
I'm glad you said this because I need to inform you that you are being controlled by an invisible, insensible weird purple jellyfish. It is sitting on your head with its tentacles inserted into your brain, whereby it controls your thoughts and motivations. It is composed of matter unknown to science and undetectable by any known means. I mention it because you have a right to know, and I'm glad to hear you do not possesses an over abundance of pride that would lead you to deny this possibility.

Feynman's take on extraterrestrial visits to Earth was that, rather than get balled up asserting they can't be disproven, ask yourself if they are probable. In his estimation, the probability of such visits was so low it was not worth getting worked up about the un-disprovable possibility. Occam's razor: before we resort to extraterrestrial explanations of various reports, let us first explore known phenomena for the explanations.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #37
Jeff Rosenbury
746
144
The article I linked to in post #15 points out that more "smart people" have weird beliefs than you'd suppose. Weird beliefs are suppressed at PF, so this is not apparent among PF members. In real life, according to Shermer, you encounter more science types who harbor weird beliefs than you'd expect; a scientific attitude is supposed to be a prophylactic against this kind of belief, but this isn't born out by reality. So, the chances he is merely a smart person/crackpot are quite reasonable.
Two points:

Scientists are the easiest people in the world to fool. They believe what they see. Manipulate what they see, and you can make them believe anything. That's why academic honesty is so important.

Just because something is true, doesn't mean it's not crackpottery. Crackpottery is more about convoluted logic and lack of evidence than it is about truth or falsehood.
 
  • #38
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
Scientists are the easiest people in the world to fool. They believe what they see. Manipulate what they see, and you can make them believe anything. That's why academic honesty is so important.
Not because "they believe what they see", but because they think they are better at analyzing what they see than they actually are in some cases:
Shermer said:
But ask any magician (I have asked lots) and they will tell you that there is no better audience than a room full of scientists, academics, or, best of all, members of the high I.Q. club Mensa. Members of such cohorts, by virtue of their intelligence and education, think they will be better at discerning the secrets of the magician, but since they aren’t, they are easier to fool, because in watching the tricks so intensely they more easily fall for the misdirection cues. The magician James “the Amazing” Randi, one of the smartest people I know, gleefully deceives Nobel laureates with the simplest of magic, knowing that intelligence is unrelated (or perhaps in this case slightly inversely correlated) to the ability to discern the real magic behind the tricks. Tellingly, over the years I have given a number of lectures to Mensa groups around the country and have been struck by the number of weird beliefs such exceptionally smart people hold, including and especially ESP. At one conference there was much discussion about whether Mensa members also had higher Psi.Q.s (Psychic Quotient) than regular people!

Just because something is true, doesn't mean it's not crackpottery. Crackpottery is more about convoluted logic and lack of evidence than it is about truth or falsehood.
I more or less agree with this. You can believe something that is true but have arrived at the belief by crackpot logic. Therefore, regardless of the truth of the belief, you are really a crackpot.
 
  • #39
gjonesy
263
182
you that you are being controlled by an invisible, insensible weird purple jellyfish. It is sitting on your head with its tentacles inserted into your brain, whereby it controls your thoughts and motivations. It is composed of matter unknown to science

HEY! Leave the little purple guy attached to my brain out of this, this is about John Podesta and if he has damaged his credibility to the point of no return or if he actually believes or possibly knows of compelling viable evidence in the possession of the government. And there is the use of the P word "probability" its the ultimate scientific safe word denoting a quantity between 0-1. Zero being impossible and one being a scientific certainty. Its alway either used negitively or positively. Its one of sciences religious words i know but it leaves that tiny bit of wiggle room so that if by some wild stretch of the imagination something happens to pop up with some undeniable truth attached the nay sayers can say...well i didn't say it was impossible i knew all along there was a chance it could happen.

Playing devils advocate for a moment. WHAT IF, he knows something we don't? What if he knows of some tangible viable evidence that can not be explained away? Science will be the first area to raise its skeptical sheilds and say..."well just becauae we can't explain it doesn't mean it came from an advanced alien society." Anything that violates known physics will undoubtedly be rejected out right. And something like this would do that. But then there are the many unknowns in the area of sciences that within any of the fields that would be affected by something like this scientists would cling to the hope of an alternative explanation or "debunking" with the vigar of a religious zelot until a new discovery that would make said evidence a strong possibility. Interstellar space travel being in any way theoretically possible is still a no no...if we can't do it...then hey nobody can. But what if tomorrow there is a breakthrough discovery that raises an eyebrow and makes this more of a tangible possibility? Thats why aliens and God and premonitions will always be in the (well that's not probable category ) that is until we can give sound scientific basis for such things. I once saw a monster 4x4 chevy corvette stinray...a mechanic would say (well that's not probable)...but it is possible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #40
Dotini
Gold Member
635
231
Playing devils advocate for a moment. WHAT IF, he knows something we don't? What if he knows of some tangible viable evidence that can not be explained away?

The Brookings Report took the position that the discovery of extraterrestrial life in our solar system could be disruptive to human society and suggest a coverup would be justified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

The RAND report seemed to take a softer view.
https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=12280&s=2e7c78d706e4211b6cc0f65c973266a7

Both these studies took place long ago, but I don't know if the essential facts have changed. Because I'm very conservative, I tend to agree with the Brookings report. But because I have seen UFOs several times from fairly close range, I am convinced they are natural phenomena akin to lightning, but sometimes appear to behave in an "intelligent" fashion, which is very disconcerting.
 
  • #41
nsaspook
Science Advisor
1,208
2,364
UFOs sighting seemly have decreased as the technology to capture sightings with high-fidelity recordings has increased to the point of saturation 24/7 coverage in large areas of the planet.

settled.png
 
  • #42
Dotini
Gold Member
635
231
UFOs sighting seemly have decreased as the technology to capture sightings with high-fidelity recordings has increased to the point of saturation 24/7 coverage in large areas of the planet.
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.
 
  • #43
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
9,666
9,297
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.

uh huh, so they are never going to see something flying above them to video it anyway haha
kinda kills the inference from the graph ! :rolleyes::wink:

settled[1].png
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #44
nsaspook
Science Advisor
1,208
2,364
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.

It's a lot more than just cell phones world-wide, just look at what happened in Russia with a random flying object. :))
 
  • #45
davenn
Science Advisor
Gold Member
9,666
9,297
It's a lot more than just cell phones world-wide, just look at what happened in Russia with a random flying object. :))


That one happened in a country where almost everyone has a dash cam in their vehicle. I don't know about the USA,
but they are becoming more common over here in Oz. Even seriously considering getting one myself because of the
increasing number of idiot drivers out there :frown:

Dave
 
  • #46
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2022 Award
22,304
6,397
Yes, in the last number of years, I have noticed many people in cars, on the sidewalks and seated in public places using cellphones. They are invariably looking down.

Peripheral vision is a thing, you know. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes zoobyshoe
  • #47
jack476
328
125
The Brookings Report took the position that the discovery of extraterrestrial life in our solar system could be disruptive to human society and suggest a coverup would be justified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Report

The RAND report seemed to take a softer view.
https://www.alien-ufos.com/showthread.php?t=12280&s=2e7c78d706e4211b6cc0f65c973266a7

Both these studies took place long ago, but I don't know if the essential facts have changed.

The facts haven't, but attitudes certainly have. The attitudes towards anthropology, culture, politics, science, and society where they can be extended to deal with the possibility of alien contact. In that part of history, it was possible to keep scientific works as large as the Manhattan project a secret, but in 2016 there is exactly zero chance of a project of similar magnitude (as in-depth study of extraterrestrial culture or technology would no doubt be) staying secret for very long. Compared to 50 years ago, government secrecy is politically troublesome for elected officials, we consider whistleblowers to be heroes instead of traitors, and no scientist's career would survive a prolonged period of not being allowed to publish. The world's too small for secrets now.

At the height of the Cold War, where alien technology that was superior to anything on Earth could have turned out to be last resort should worst have come to worst, there would have been good reason for the government to stay quiet about it. In 2016 the stakes aren't nearly as high, and if the US government did turn out to be sitting on alien technology then in the current political climate I'm inclined to think that they would want everyone to know about it. And on top of that whoever managed to be first to market with the superior technology would be rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Because I'm very conservative, I tend to agree with the Brookings report. But because I have seen UFOs several times from fairly close range, I am convinced they are natural phenomena akin to lightning, but sometimes appear to behave in an "intelligent" fashion, which is very disconcerting.

So why not get some pictures for us the next time that happens, and we can settle this once and for all?
 
  • #48
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
  • Like
Likes Jeff Rosenbury and Drakkith
  • #49
Dotini
Gold Member
635
231
Peripheral vision is a thing, you know. :wink:
Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for. Only about 10% of people ever see a UFO. Of all sightings, only about 5% remain unexplained after careful investigation. So there is a residuum of thousands of unexplained cases. Once you have seen a UFO, you will want to understand it, as it challenges our notions of reality. If you really don't want to see a UFO and have your notions of reality challenged, I would advise always looking down, and never up.

As a mountaineer in remote places in Alaska, Canada, Washington and Peru, I developed a habit of constantly scanning the skies for changes in the weather as if my life depended upon it. Because it did. As a racing driver, I kept 100% focus on the track and cars around me as if my life and fortunes depended upon it. Because they did. As a fencer, I maintain focus on the position of my opponent and his/her actions with the blade. If we want to see things, it starts with maintaining focus and attention. If you want to see UFOs, it starts with looking up.
So why not get some pictures for us the next time that happens, and we can settle this once and for all?

Pictures and videos can be easily faked, especially these days. Pictures and videos won't settle anything. To my knowledge, there has never, ever, been a UFO caught, killed, captured or in any way obtained for study as an object, piece or particles in a laboratory. They seem to be elusive, transitory, temporary, ephemeral events rather than permanent objects.

My observation of UFOs follows that pattern. Three times over five decades I, together with other witnesses with me, have seen large, nearby glowing balls of light doing funny things in daytime. These glowing balls appeared fuzzy, sometimes changed in number, shape, size and color, and eventually disappeared. In no way did they seem like solid objects. Perhaps you have seen photos or videos of ball lightning? They were like that, what I take to be a rare, distinctly odd electrical phenomena.
 
  • #50
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2022 Award
22,304
6,397
Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for. Only about 10% of people ever see a UFO. Of all sightings, only about 5% remain unexplained after careful investigation. So there is a residuum of thousands of unexplained cases. Once you have seen a UFO, you will want to understand it, as it challenges our notions of reality.

Uh, that's nice?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #51
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for.
I've seen UFOs twice.

The first time I was a kid and saw what looked to be a double row of red lights moving horizontally across the sky, but see-sawing as it moved. My younger sister saw it too, but the last time I asked her about this, she says she doesn't remember it. The second time was more like what you described: mysterious yellow balls that were dancing around overhead in an overcast sky with a distinctly 'non-ballistic' motion. Eventually one joined up with another one, and they all disappeared. This was seen by a whole line of people standing outside a movie theater (25-30 people).

The first one could have been a hoax. The second is harder to explain, because, as you say, the lights had no feeling of solidity to them. They seemed to be 'glowing balls of light.' The first one in my first sighting seemed to be a solid craft while the second ones didn't. They seemed like some inexplicable light phenomenon.

Anyway, though, I was not rattled by the experiences anywhere near as much as I am rattled when there's an earthquake here. I find earthquakes to be profoundly disturbing experiences.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #52
russ_watters
Mentor
22,134
9,282
Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for. Only about 10% of people ever see a UFO. Of all sightings, only about 5% remain unexplained after careful investigation. So there is a residuum of thousands of unexplained cases. Once you have seen a UFO, you will want to understand it, as it challenges our notions of reality. If you really don't want to see a UFO and have your notions of reality challenged, I would advise always looking down, and never up.
What is your definition of "UFO"? I'm an amateur astronomer (btw, so is Drakkith) and I'm always looking up. I very often see things I can't well identify (UFOs?), but based on my knowledge of what is up there, I often see things that others wouldn't be able to identify, but I can -- and the ones I can't identify, I can think of feasible explanations. Do they still count as UFOs if they turn out to be Venus, an iridium flare or an airplane, but no one ever conclusively proves that?

The number of publicly known sightings that would qualify as "reality challenging" are not in the thousands, they are in the dozens at most. And the fact that none have been able to be compellingly shown to people who didn't participate in the sighting - despite virtually everyone carrying an HD video camera everywhere they go - is telling.

The main problem with UFOs is that people let their imaginations run free and end up describing what they think they say (a flying saucer, just above the trees!) instead of what they actually say (a moving point of light).
 
  • #53
Dotini
Gold Member
635
231
What is your definition of "UFO"? I'm an amateur astronomer (btw, so is Drakkith) and I'm always looking up. I very often see things I can't well identify (UFOs?), but based on my knowledge of what is up there, I often see things that others wouldn't be able to identify, but I can -- and the ones I can't identify, I can think of feasible explanations. Do they still count as UFOs if they turn out to be Venus, an iridium flare or an airplane, but no one ever conclusively proves that?
Actually I prefer the term UAP, or unidentified aerial phenomena, as the term UFO is too freighted with emotions and preconceptions. If a sighting is diligently investigated and resists explanation by all prosaic means, it should be classified as as an unknown, or unexplained. I would avoid the term prove or proof.
I've seen UFOs twice.

The first time I was a kid and saw what looked to be a double row of red lights moving horizontally across the sky, but see-sawing as it moved. My younger sister saw it too, but the last time I asked her about this, she says she doesn't remember it. The second time was more like what you described: mysterious yellow balls that were dancing around overhead in an overcast sky with a distinctly 'non-ballistic' motion. Eventually one joined up with another one, and they all disappeared. This was seen by a whole line of people standing outside a movie theater (25-30 people).

The first one could have been a hoax. The second is harder to explain, because, as you say, the lights had no feeling of solidity to them. They seemed to be 'glowing balls of light.' The first one in my first sighting seemed to be a solid craft while the second ones didn't. They seemed like some inexplicable light phenomenon.

Anyway, though, I was not rattled by the experiences anywhere near as much as I am rattled when there's an earthquake here. I find earthquakes to be profoundly disturbing experiences.

Your second sighting resembled my first.

I would agree earthquakes are more immediately frightening. I've endured three. In '01 I was walking alongside the Duwamish river outside the Boeing Renton plant where I worked. The quake set all the bridges across the river rattling and bouncing up and down with such an unholy clatter I thought they were going to fall in! I hugged a tree until the damned thing passed. :H

But to return to John Podesta and his disclosure ideas, I'm ambivalent. I'm sure there exists UAP phenomena, but do not believe there is an ET presence in our solar system. If the government merely confirmed the existence of an unknown natural phenomenon without raising concern over ETs, then that could be a positive development for society and science, as it would remove the stigma of serious investigation.
 
  • #54
Jeff Rosenbury
746
144
Would you like to see a UFO? Really? You should be careful what you ask for. Only about 10% of people ever see a UFO. Of all sightings, only about 5% remain unexplained after careful investigation. So there is a residuum of thousands of unexplained cases. Once you have seen a UFO, you will want to understand it, as it challenges our notions of reality. If you really don't want to see a UFO and have your notions of reality challenged, I would advise always looking down, and never up.

I doubt it would change my view of reality.

Science is about the observable and repeatable. Something like an unexplained UFO is not repeatable (at least by us) and therefore not open to scientific scrutiny. Science is only one belief system among many. Pick one.

I like science. It explains lots of stuff and gives insight into far more (emergent behavior for example). But I don't think it is the end all be all of reality. The universe has much that is unknown and probably unknowable. Because of this, I can say with confidence, "I don't know."

Science is a process, a journey. To me it is about the joy of discovery, not the shackles of false certainty.
 
  • #55
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
If the government merely confirmed the existence of an unknown natural phenomenon without raising concern over ETs, then that could be a positive development for society and science, as it would remove the stigma of serious investigation.
It doesn't seem to me the government is in the position to confirm unknown natural phenomena. All they might be able to do is release anecdotal eyewitness reports they might have.
 
  • #56
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
Playing devils advocate for a moment. WHAT IF, he knows something we don't? What if he knows of some tangible viable evidence that can not be explained away?
Looking at the video tells me he's expressing frustration at not having gotten access to the information he wanted to see. I don't see any indication he's hinting he saw something everyone else should know about. He regrets not having secured the release of information because that meant he, himself, wasn't able to see it.
 
  • #57
gjonesy
263
182
Looking at the video tells me he's expressing frustration at not having gotten access to the information

Well in "this" instance yes. In others he speaks as though he knows (something) that is solid proof. Remember this guy has been obsessed with this for quite some time. And it could very well be like the tons of other evidence. (now playing the other devils advocate) Much of which has been debunked as misidentification. Others that have been "classified" could very well be top-secret next gen government aircraft. Remember the SR71 the stealth bomber and the F117 stealth fighter. These are among some of those misidentifications. In 20 years once its old and there have been enough leaks and it becomes declassified perhaps we will find out its been "us" all along. But by then we may have more top-secret aircraft and more rumors of strange lights in the night sky.

Note: I'm not a supporter nor am I a skeptic...not yet anyways. I've seen things I can't logically explain. That doesn't mean a logical explanation doesn't exist. just saying :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes Tolklein
  • #58
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
Well in "this" instance yes. In others he speaks as though he knows (something) that is solid proof. Remember this guy has been obsessed with this for quite some time. And it could very well be like the tons of other evidence. (now playing the other devils advocate) Much of which has been debunked as misidentification. Others that have been "classified" could very well be top-secret next gen government aircraft. Remember the SR71 the stealth bomber and the F117 stealth fighter. These are among some of those misidentifications. In 20 years once its old and there have been enough leaks and it becomes declassified perhaps we will find out its been "us" all along. But by then we may have more top-secret aircraft and more rumors of strange lights in the night sky.

Note: I'm not a supporter nor am I a skeptic...not yet anyways. I've seen things I can't logically explain. That doesn't mean a logical explanation doesn't exist. just saying :smile:
Something else to consider is the controversy over what gets classified. I just learned about this from reading up on the Clinton email scandal. Here's some stuff from the wikipedia article:
The Associated Press reported that "Some officials said they believed the designations were a stretch — a knee-jerk move in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification."[59] Jeffrey Toobin, in an August 2015 New Yorker article, wrote that the Clinton email affair is an illustration of overclassification, a problem written about by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his book Secrecy: The American Experience.[55] Toobin writes that "government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security."[55] Toobin wrote that "It's not only the public who cannot know the extent or content of government secrecy. Realistically, government officials can’t know either—and this is Hillary Clinton's problem.[55] Toobin noted that "one of Clinton's potentially classified email exchanges is nothing more than a discussion of a newspaper story about drones" and wrote: "That such a discussion could be classified underlines the absurdity of the current system. But that is the system that exists, and if and when the agencies determine that she sent or received classified information through her private server, Clinton will be accused of mishandling national-security secrets."[55]

Richard Lempert, in an analysis of the Clinton email controversy published by the Brookings Institution, wrote that "security professionals have a reputation for erring in the direction of overclassification."[82] Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, says that "The odds are good that any classified information in the Clinton emails should not have been classified," since an estimated 50 percent to 90 percent of classified documents could be made public without risking national security.[82] Nate Jones, an expert with the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said: "Clinton's mistreatment of federal records and the intelligence community's desire to retroactively overclassify are two distinct troubling problems. No politician is giving the right message: Blame Clinton for poor records practices, but don't embrace overclassification while you do it."[82]

I thought the sentence:"Toobin writes that 'government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security.' " might apply to whatever is classified about UFOs.
 
  • #59
gjonesy
263
182
,
in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security.' " might apply to whatever is classified about UFOs.

Yeah very true, but once again motives for classification especially in aircraft could very well be in place for reasons of national security. Hypothetically let's say we had a drone we could deploy, that was invisible to radar had weapons/surveillance capabilities could fly at 70,000 feet, that could hover and fly in all directions and fly at mach 13 when it needs to allude a pursuing aircraft. And it was purpose built not to be identifiable and could be destroyed remotely and leave no trace that it ever existed? This is something you wouldn't want on the six o:clock news seeing as how foreign countries both allies and enemies monitor us this way. And if Podesta isn't in the need to know or have clearance to such things he may only be aware of what's been reported. I know for a fact the government keeps secrets from government officials without clearance.


Personal Note:
BTW the thing I saw that was unexplainable was an object, that could be seen with the naked eye didn't appear to be well lit and had no light on it but was reflecting ambient light. The moon was very bright that night. It traversed the night sky from north to south in just a few seconds and made no sound. It was witnessed by another LEO. We inquired as to what it could have been and were told the International space station was visible with the naked eye and could fly that fast across the sky. Is this true?...just wondering.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Kevin McHugh
314
164
I

Contrast this to the Republican party, in which you can unironically say that you think that angels are real and the Earth is 6000 years old and in some states have that considered a good thing for your viability as a candidate and anyone who says otherwise is part of a conspiracy to annihilate your religious beliefs. A fantasy about aliens visiting Earth is downright playful by comparison.

Your bias is showing. I'm sure there are Christian Democrats too.
 
  • #61
Kevin McHugh
314
164
,

Personal Note:
BTW the thing I saw that was unexplainable was an object, that could be seen with the naked eye didn't appear to be well lit and had no light on it but was reflecting ambient light. The moon was very bright that night. It traversed the night sky from north to south in just a few seconds and made no sound. It was witnessed by another LEO. We inquired as to what it could have been and were told the International space station was visible with the naked eye and could fly that fast across the sky. Is this true?...just wondering.

When I was in the Army, I pulled guard duty 1200 to 0400 hrs. We were on FTX at the NTC in Fort Irwin (Mojave). You could see the space station, but it looked like a large star, and took several minutes to traverse the observable sky.
 
  • Like
Likes gjonesy
  • #62
Jeff Rosenbury
746
144
Your bias is showing. I'm sure there are Christian Democrats too.
And your bias is showing. I'm a Christian and most of us are not young earthers. The Roman Catholic Church (our largest denomination) never rejected Darwinism, etc. (Humani Generis, 1950)

Oddly young Earth beliefs have been dropping among Republicans. This might be the result of demographic shifts raising the possibility that the Republican party is losing the fundamentalists.
 
  • #63
jack476
328
125
Your bias is showing. I'm sure there are Christian Democrats too.

I didn't say "Christian", I said "Young Earth creationist". Of course there are Christian Democrats, but creationism is overwhelmingly a Republican cause.
 
  • #64
Dotini
Gold Member
635
231
Please confine your remarks to the topic, gentlemen.
 
  • #65
Kevin McHugh
314
164
Please confine your remarks to the topic, gentlemen.

Sorry Dotini, still trying to get a feel for the forums. Unlike so many others, it seems this site is well disciplined.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #66
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,288
,Yeah very true, but once again motives for classification especially in aircraft could very well be in place for reasons of national security. Hypothetically let's say we had a drone we could deploy, that was invisible to radar had weapons/surveillance capabilities could fly at 70,000 feet, that could hover and fly in all directions and fly at mach 13 when it needs to allude a pursuing aircraft. And it was purpose built not to be identifiable and could be destroyed remotely and leave no trace that it ever existed? This is something you wouldn't want on the six o:clock news seeing as how foreign countries both allies and enemies monitor us this way. And if Podesta isn't in the need to know or have clearance to such things he may only be aware of what's been reported. I know for a fact the government keeps secrets from government officials without clearance.
All obviously true and the alternative I would consider most likely, rather than the notion an authentic alien craft is being kept somewhere being reverse engineered. Or that alien bodies exist somewhere.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #67
gjonesy
263
182
All obviously true and the alternative I would consider most likely, rather than the notion an authentic alien craft is being kept somewhere being reverse engineered. Or that alien bodies exist somewhere.

Mach 13 super sonic stealth spy drone with recon/attack capabilities would definitely be above John Podesta's pay grade, but wouldn't they just tell him something just to shut him up? To keep the peace and preserve the continuity of government so that he appears competent? I agree totally ! that is a big possibility, there is something buzzing around out there at night ,its probably man made and has the occasional witness and I am probably one of them. BUT there are "phenomena" like dotini spoke of that the government has investigated and released Laughable conclusions,...case in point "Brown Mountain Lights". I've never seen them but my folks have, what they describe couldn't have been swamp gas or moon light reflected off of fog.
.
 
  • Like
Likes Dotini
  • #68
Kevin McHugh
314
164
...case in point "Brown Mountain Lights". I've never seen them but my folks have, what they describe couldn't have been swamp gas or moon light reflected off of fog.
.

They've never been able to explain the Marfa lights in TX either. There are no swamps between San Antonio and El Paso..
 
  • #70
russ_watters
Mentor
22,134
9,282
Oy. Those are among the worst types of "UFO"sightings, IMO - right up there with mistaking Venus or an airplane for a UFO...because those have pretty much been conclusively proven to be car headlights and aircraft lights.

I think this thread has run its course and we don't do "debunk this UFO photo" threads. Locked.
 

Suggested for: John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs

Replies
32
Views
824
Replies
3
Views
375
Replies
17
Views
511
Replies
22
Views
595
Replies
16
Views
934
Replies
1
Views
333
Replies
12
Views
723
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
575
Replies
1
Views
447
Top