extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; however, there is none.
congresspeople taking it seriously doesn’t mean much. they also take climate denial seriously. they took anti vaccines seriously. they’re just laywers, by and large. they don’t actually know much of anything about science or the probability of aliens visiting or whatever.
as a (former) astronomer, let me tell you that even if there does exist life in the universe outside of our own, even if these lifeforms travel these vast distances fast (somehow, the physics isn’t really clear), even if these supposed spacecraft are manned, the probability of anything visiting earth is infinitesimally small. the universe is just too big and empty. think about it, space has on average a single hydrogen atom per cubic meter. on earth an equivalent volume of air, let’s say, holds 10^25 atoms. and throughout billions of lightyears of this dark, empty vacuum you stumble upon…us? it just doesn’t make any sense when you think about it. sure, the idea of aliens visiting is cool but at the end of the day, it aint happenin
I’m with you that there is no publicly available proof of non-human intelligence. And I agree that the testimony of congresspeople isn’t exactly the best way to ascertain whether something is true.
But I’m not claiming that non-human intelligences are here, I’m merely answering the question posted by the OP: the allegations made by Grusch and other whistleblowers are being investigated by Congress, and that they have shared with Congress testable evidence that has not been made public. That includes program names, names of the people in charge of those programs and the location of some of those retrieved craft.
Everything else is our personal opinion, strongly as we may feel about it. I personally think it is worth investigating these allegations. If the witnesses have lied to Congress under oath, they need to suffer the consequences. But if they haven’t… Well.
I personally think it is worth investigating these allegations
And you hit the nail on the head about why an elected representative won’t say one way or the other unless it’s objectively proven or shown to be false - anything else doesn’t need a response. Further any rep who does claim the matter to have been solved, one way or the other, only opens themselves up to criticism for something they probably didn’t get into politics for in the first place.
When scientists and experts (plural) start getting involved then it’s interesting however, imo, your focus on government being the ultimate truth-finder is flawed
Look at this post: respectful comments answering the question and offering objectively verifiable data are downvoted to hell, while comments laughing at the whole subject in a few words are heavily upvoted. The stigma is massive, and yet the subject continues to get traction in both parties in the US Congress, with several bills having passed and further in the pipeline. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that there are some things that we the public don’t know about it.
your focus on government being the ultimate truth-finder is flawed
Oh, no. What I believe is that certain institutions within our governments are the ultimate truth-keepers, because they have the means to be. Look for example at how little the public is allowed to know about national defense (e.g. the design and capabilities of submarines).
