I think the issues you raise here regarding assemblages—defined loosely as groupings or networks of interconnected elements—should be tied into one of the pioneers of "systems" type theories—Alfred North Whitehead. In the quote below, there are three views going on here (two that agree about metaphysics of process—Whitehead and his defender, the quote's author Shaviro—and Harmon, an essentialist).

Whitehead - Reality is process, but there are endurances of patterns, meaning recurring structures or configurations that maintain coherence over time and can often be seen as persistent objects. Whitehead preserves these endurances by viewing each moment of becoming as an "actual occasion," which integrates prior patterns into a unified experience. These occasions form a sequence, inheriting qualities from their predecessors, allowing stable patterns to persist even as the underlying processes continually shift.

Graham (contra Whitehead) - Reality is objectile, and each object possesses a "hidden essence" that cannot be fully accessed by other objects. For example, a stone might be perceived differently depending on its relation to a human observer, a riverbed, or geological forces, but its core essence—the quality that makes it a stone rather than something else—remains inaccessible and unaltered by these interactions.

Shaviro (agreeing with Whitehead, contra Graham) - Reality is process, and Whitehead accounted for persistence through the recognition of persistent patterns.

Here is the quote:

Harman rejects Whitehead’s relationalism for two reasons: 1) he worries it reduces ontology to “a house of mirrors” wherein, because a thing just is a unification of its prehensions of other things, there is never finally any there there beneath its internal reflections of others; and 2) he claims that an ontology based exclusively on internal relations, wherein entities are said to hold nothing in reserve beyond their present prehensional relation to the universe, cannot account for change or novelty. In such a universe, there would be “no external point of purchase from which structure could be transformed,” as Levi Bryant puts it (The Democracy of Objects, 209). As Shaviro is quick to point out, however, Whitehead was well aware of this potential objection (see page 35 of PR, for example), which is exactly why he amended his ontology sometime between his final editing of Science and the Modern World (1925) and Process and Reality (1929) so that becoming was understood to be atomic rather than continuous. A fair reading of Whitehead’s mature metaphysical scheme should acknowledge (despite a few inconsistent statements here and there) that his goal was to strike some balance between internal and external relations, precisely for the reasons put forward by Harman and Bryant.

In response to Harman’s first worry regarding an infinite regress of prehensions, I’d call his bluff and say that a truly aesthetic ontology (which he also claims to be seeking) would leave us with just such an infinite regress of appearances. A thing’s “style” or “allure” doesn’t need to be understood as emanating from some substantial core or fixed essence; we can also understand a thing’s “style” as Whitehead does in terms of the “enduring characteristic” realized by a historical route of actual occasions. There is nothing hidden from view by such outward qualities other than the occasion in question’s moment-to-moment subjective enjoyment of these characteristics. Which brings us to Harman’s second (I believe unfounded) worry about relational reductionism. Whitehead’s dipolar account of the process of experiential realization includes both a public moment of display and a private moment of withdrawal. Every drop of experience begins by taking up the “objectively immortal” data of its past. It then unifies this data into its own singular and private perspective on the world. It is this moment of privacy that most closely resembles Harman’s doctrine of withdrawal. The occasion in question is in this moment entirely independent of its relations. But as soon as this private, never before experienced perspective on reality is realized, it perishes into objective immortality, becoming publicly available for the next occasion of experience to inherit as it moves toward its own novel concrescent realization. “The many become one, and are increased by one.” Whitehead is able to make sense of change and novelty while at the same time preserving a non-reductive account of internal relations. It seems to me that Harman’s insistence on the irrelevance of evolutionary time for ontology is part of the reason he is unable to make sense of Whitehead’s attempted compromise (“The ontological structure of the world does not evolve…which is precisely what makes it an ontological structure” [GM, 24]). In effect, Whitehead’s entire process ontology can be understood as an imaginative generalization of evolutionary theory. — Shaviro

It's a great example of what happens when you have no structure to your philosophy and end up putting philosophy of language prior to metaphysics and the philosophy of nature. Also the tendency of philosophers (particularly in the Anglo-American tradition) to start by analyzing human language as a sort of sui generis phenomena, rather than a special case of communication/signification and act. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I like the cut of your jib here. Good observation.

Real objects withdraw for OOO, but sensual objects don't. Sensual objects, unlike real objects, have direct access to each other.

... and with that, I'm out of this Thread. — Arcane Sandwich

As I interpreted it, "real objects" always retain something "withdrawn" that sort of makes it its "essence" (though that word is a bit tricky in various contexts). If it was all sensual objects, everything would be indeed just a "bundle of properties". There is something of the object qua object, that doesn't get translated in this theory. This theory seems to directly oppose "bundle theories" and "process theories", as both would be the translation part, but not the object part.

The idea is that, contrary to "behaviorism," nouns are not dispensable. — Leontiskos

Reminds me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology#Withdrawal

And that's why I'm posting. Much as I've enjoyed building models over the years, I'm a little uncomfortable that the approach I'm describing has a sort of blindness. Whenever a question is raised about what something is, it is immediately rewritten as a question about how that thing behaves, so that we can get started modelling that bundle of behavior. — Srap Tasmaner

This is basically the argument I have been making regarding Philosophy of Mind for years. Others on here have similarly pointed out this "blind spot"- it's the Hard Problem. It's metaphysics par excellence. Talks of maps overtake talks of terrain. The terrain is discarded as "non-sense" and thus "cannot be spoken". The continentals don't seem to care about this self-imposed rule. It tends to lead to neologisms, mystical flights of fancy, solipsism, and all the other epithets that more analytic-types would throw at it.

Is there just one example of good evidence amongst the thousands of claims and tall tales that the UFO brigade have generated? I notice you haven't gone down the Bob Lazar rabbit hole as yet. :wink: — Tom Storm

It's more telling those tall tales under oath to a major government authority. What's the point in:
a) Allowing the hearings
b) Lying under oath

Are there even consequences? It's not matter of free speech when it is under oath, no? Is perjury under the legislative branch seen as different than perjury in the judicial branch? In other words, what incentive is there to lie to a Congressional hearing under oath, if in theory, there are consequences if caught lying? Why be a "whistleblower" when there is nothing to blow a whistle on? Are they just schizophrenic? Another psychological disorder? Grandiose narcissism? Bob Lazar didn't actually go through with a Congressional hearing, nor was he the head of an intelligence program in the Pentagon. He's a dude who is interviewed by other UFO aficionados.

Here is Elizando in his own channel:


Daily Show interview (before hearing)


From hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/g9eN11DQITg

More from hearing

Above all, if you believe, you're important. You're not in the mass of the "sheeple", as the conspiracy theorists view other people. — ssu

It reminds me a bit of Gnosticism. Gnostics had secret knowledge only the initiated can understand fully.

These two blend in perfectly. Or at least, before Congressional testimonies and US fighter pilot interviews that made the discourse a lot more different. (Or before conspiracy theories of the deep State wasn't official as it is now in the Trump administration)

Yet before that... it was just like the belief in the paranormal something on the fringe. — ssu

It is this exact thing that has piqued my interest- the Congressional hearings. What does that mean for the status of UFOs? Are they something to be taken legitimately? The discourse around it is no longer fringe as you say, so what is it? UFO literally means "Unidentified Flying Object". The new term, UAP, means "Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena". So as far as first hand evidence from videos and pilots, this would seem in the realm of acceptability. That is to say, it could be anything from natural phenomena to adversarial technology. However, people like Grusch and Elizando are attributing it to NHI (non-human intelligence), and that we have retrieved air craft and "biologics" (bodies?). So you see how the claims of possible quickly become suspect to claims of the extraordinary. Yet Congress doesn't seem to dismiss it out of hand. Is that because the US Congress is increasingly populated by conspiracy theorists or because they know of some confidential information related to this that they are trying to reveal to the public slowly? The UFO guys are saying that there is stuff we have and it just needs to be revealed. Why would Elizando and Grusch testify under oath if it was found to be lacking in evidence at some point? Why would the government allow them to say this stuff if they wanted it secret? Notice, the story can write itself. All you have to say is the government wants us to know slowly over time so when the big reveal happens, we are not so shocked, and talk of UAP and NHI is normalized. I am not saying I necessarily believe that, but you see why all of this is bizarre.

Americans have this perplexed emotions towards their government: on the one hand it is as inefficient and bureacratic as any large government is, on the other hand it's this nearly uncanny giant octopus capable of hiding the most elaborate secrets. In any way, the real threat is somehow the US government.
— ssu

Americans have this perplexed emotions towards their government: on the one hand it is as inefficient and bureacratic as any large government is, on the other hand it's this nearly uncanny giant octopus capable of hiding the most elaborate secrets. In any way, the real threat is somehow the US government. — ssu

Right, the biggest blow to this theory is that a secret of this magnitude could be kept secret for this long. But, then because of the nature of this type of conspiracy thinking, you can always say that it hasn't been kept secret really, that some people have known and their stories are true all along. Of course, most of them end up being charlatans. This new batch though seems a bit more sophisticated. They were part of counter-intelligence, they were researching UAP, and they do have at least some videos already de-classified to refer back to.

This then brings me back to truth and epistemology. At what point is something a lie? If Elizando truly believes they are NHI, that there are retrieval programs he has knowledge of, and biologics, but he says he cannot give details because he has signed a confidentiality agreement, what do we make of this?

Agree. There's a religious element to this wherein people see a kind of transcendence from everyday humanity, a way of re-enchanting the world via a kind of techno-spiritual movement. — Tom Storm

If it's harmless, let them have it. Although philosophically, is there something morally relevant in being a few degrees divorced from reality, living in your own fanfiction? I think the theories are fun to read about if you do it from a purely skeptical standpoint. But some people think the disclosure will prove all the skeptics wrong. It'll happen soon by X date, with X person.

And I've noticed that once committed to this thinking, it is almost impossible to shake people, even with evidence. It becomes a faith-based system that is impervious to outsiders, who are either 'idiots' or part of the system's duplicity. — Tom Storm

I suppose people who have read/watched too much sci-fi would be suspectable to this. However, I can see why it would be harder to shake than other things. There are hearings on it from government officials, this gives it a "sheen" of legitimacy.

That being said, the US government created more distrust for its own citizens when they had NSC spokesman Kirby and Homeland Security secretary Mayorkas say it's nothing to worry about, but we don't know what it is. That did sound suspicious, to be fair.

I think the UFO/alien folks are looking for meaning beyond the mundane. It also gives a sort of hope- that something bigger than humans is out there and that their beliefs would be vindicated all along.

As others were saying, it also belies a mistrust in government, and actual psy-ops during the Cold War. Better for people to attribute things in the air to aliens than to new technology. Drones are just the newest version.

My guess is New Jersey is congested with air traffic because it's so close to so many population centers, airports, and military facilities. Combine all this and you have a fairly crowded skies. Has there been an uptick in drone usage since November? Probably. Some people were saying that people were testing them before Christmas and things like this.

I think Steven Greenstreet pretty much hit the nail that there is a group of UFO aficionados who essentially cross-reference each other. I don't think all of them are necessarily lying, but rather embellishing or falsely attributing unknowingly. That is to say, yes there might be really fast moving "tic tac" UAP, or even weird orbs, or other anomalous sightings, but not much more than the footage we have. And "crash retrievals" might just be weird materials being studied in a lab that are falsely attributed to crashed UAP. So it's actually a bit more nuanced than outright lies.

But would I want there to be some secret program this whole time that would be revealed to the public in a crazy disclosure? Sure, why not. I think like most people, such an astonishing revelation would be a nice diversion and keep us entertained for a long while.

But then life would go along. Just as it has to. You have to go to work, pay the bills, walk the dog. And so on... — ssu

Yeah for sure, existential dread and mundanity doesn't go away :wink:. Like any new revelation, it would be at first shocking, and then we would just learn that it is part of the way things are, and people would go about their daily lives. However, I think it would become part of regular briefings and updates, etc.. if it were actually true that is.

But haven't had the ability to understand it. Otherwise it would be already our technology. And this is the real harm that has been done with the secrecy, assuming there would be the technology. It's been in the hands of some specifically picked scientist who have sworn to secrecy. And that's the worst that can happen with tech. — ssu

Funnily enough, bureaucratic red tape and secrecy would actually hamper more advancement. Assuming this exists (big if), it would be in the highest levels of confidentiality. That being said, intelligence officers at the highest levels would probably make sure that each department that studied these artifacts of technology would be separated as much as possible from each other on a "need to know" basis. Thus, if they need consulting from a materials engineer they will only be revealed aspects dealing with that. If they need propulsion experts, they only deal with mechanical engineers and physicists that deal with those fields. They would never allow any one scientist/expert/officer to know the full details. Only a very few would have the big picture. Thus, being that collaboration might be at a minimum, progress might be slower than it would take if there was a larger project akin to a Manhattan Project. Then again, this is all just fun speculation on my part. I'm just giving possible scenarios.

Just think how little the Soviet Space program helped ordinary Soviet technology compared to how NASA's achievements and programs have spurred useful technology for the US household. Tech held secret won't help anybody. And tech that we don't understand and know will help even less when it's kept secret.

Make a global effort to understand the technology... would be also likely what advanced space travelling species would see as something positive from us. — ssu

Well, I would tend to agree, and thus, if it was secret, I can imagine many efforts to reengineer any technology or to study it in the greatest detail might be encumbered without more people looking at it. However, if you think about it, the technology might be treated like military technology and thus, if there is a way to have an advantage over other countries, the confidential nature becomes paramount. However, I find the notion funny the NHI space craft are making themselves known more and more to the point where it forces the government's hand.

I think you give governments more credit than they are due when it comes to their ability to cover their tracks…after all there would be leaks somewhere down the line. — kindred

I'm more on the skeptic side until provided any sufficient evidence from reliable sources. When I propose these fringe theories, I am doing it for the sake of argument.

It would be cool if aliens have or had visited us but I just don’t believe it has happened. Plus with everyone having a camera at their fingertips these days we would have evidence for it but we hardly have any credible ones. — kindred

The UFO theorists might say that many people have photographed sightings and many pilots have reported it to FAA and AARO:
https://www.aaro.mil/
https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/Official-UAP-Imagery/

And of course ex-intelligence officials like Luis Elizando and investigative journalists like Michael Shellenberger who claim that there are other programs, and there is more evidence that is kept hidden such as high resolution pictures and videos etc.

The issue is that of technological advancement and capability of traveling to other worlds and overcoming the light speed barrier to do so. In this regard we have no conclusive proof or evidence that this has happened but are left with conspiracy theories that they have in fact visited earth but are covered up by government. The question is why?

One of the reasons it could have been covered up is that we’re a war mongering species so any technological advantage we may develop because of this tech would be best kept under wraps in order to maintain such an advantage. — kindred

I don't know but that might be what they might say. A "believer" might say that the government does not want a panic and perhaps are worried about the public's unpredictable reaction to such news.

Some of the ideas floating right now (no pun intended), is that the "real" UAP are these "orbs" that some people see, and the drones are actually there to investigate the orbs.

Perhaps it's institutional inertia. They hid it for so long, that to reveal it would be also to reveal the government hid their knowledge, and distrust would be even greater so they don't want to increase that.

Again, I am just giving speculations based on fringe theories.

The fact that the government is willing to have these public hearings tells me that the government doesn't actually have a whole lot to hide. If they had something to hide, they'd be trying much harder to hide it.

Then again, maybe that's exactly what the government wants me to think... — flannel jesus

The disclosure people would say that it is a slow drip so they get ahead of it before the big reveal :D.

1) One global media frenzy. — ssu

It would certainly be a frenzy. I think there would be more than that. There would be an economic crisis, the stock market might crash, people would start re-evaluating their place in the universe as beings with greater intelligence or extraordinary powers would put us in a status as not "alone". It would be akin to something religious perhaps.

2) Likely other countries, perhaps even the Catholic Church, will come forward with "new that, old stuff" comments. Perhaps the Pope says something about the greatness of God etc. — ssu

Certainly religions would try to accommodate this and even speak of it in terms of religious phenomena perhaps.

3) The US will have a boondoggle of Congressional hearings about a secret program that in the end will look a complete farce. How could this happen? Where was Congressional oversight? — ssu

This certainly, but this would be the least hectic thing. I don't think you would have anything else being discussed for a solid year.

Likely we won't see a fleet of UFO's hovering around the UN Building to make the official contact with the official global authority, UN's Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), for formalizing the already seems to be so ordinary connections to Earth's governments. I think they would likely wait and see. — ssu

It depends on the nature of what was "disclosed". I would say it would simply be that we know of alien technology, and that they fly around, so close encounters of the 1st and 2nd kind, but not really 3rd kind. That is to say, there are some form of anomalous life forms that seem to have intelligence that we cannot account for and seem to be watching us, but no communication is established or understanding yet of what they are or what they are doing.

There is no evidence because the conspiracy covers everything up.
Therefore not believing the conspiracy is compliant with the conspiracy.
If the committee cannot get to any real evidence, it is either because the committee is being duped by the conspiracy, or because the committee is part of the cover up.
There can never be a resolution, because the absence of evidence is evidence of the conspiracy. — unenlightened

Yep, this seems to be how this works. As I stated above:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/954602

The intelligence industry is the natural home of the paranoid, just as philosophy is the home of the gullible. And yes there is an overlap. And just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean there's no conspiracy; on the contrary, the paranoid are always conspiring, so nothing to see here.

The question I have for the aliens, not knowing if they are benevolent or malevolent, is why they are cooperating with opposed and secretive governments to hide their presence from folks that would be willing to cooperate with anyone who wasn't the current government of whichever country? It makes them look weak; and surely they are not weak? — unenlightened

Right? I can only speculate, but some answers from the NHI community would be:
1) They prefer to work with the heads of government or have an agreement with them.
2) There is no live "they". Rather, we only have evidence of NHI from crafts and/or dead alien bodies. There's never been actual communication. However, somehow they agreed to not disclose themselves until they deemed humans are ready for it?

My guess is it would have to be the fringe of the fringe to even entertain 1. But 2 probably represents the standard view.

:lol:

That said, this would a massive story if true and I would imagine there would be a risk of unrestrained anger, panic and scapegoating. Not sure there would be a good or entirely safe way to reveal this. — Tom Storm

But you see, this is how the "disclosure" conspiracy works. For reasons like the ones you list, these conspiracy theorists claim that unlike previous years, starting last year with the congressional hearing, and this new one, and the drones, and the increased UAP sightings and activity, the US government is trying to slowly get the public used to this secret and that it is going to be fully disclosed soon, maybe by someone like Trump. Again, this has the whiff of old school hopes for End of Times prophecies. It's going to come any day now.. It's getting closer and closer... You watch...

Now, some in this group believe that the aliens (or "non-human intelligence) are actually trying to make themselves known more and more, and the government cannot prevent it, so is trying to either obfuscate it either with their own drones or by denying anything is going on, or slowly getting people used to the idea of weird phenomena in the sky that is really NHI. Again, I'm just conveying some current views to show how creative it can get.

Of course the situation is probably something more like this:
- There is just generally more drone activity globally because more people are flying drones. People think this is a sign of something more.
- People are paying attention to the skies more because of media about UAP, and this combined with more drones means people are now just noticing the new "norm" of increased drone activity
- There may be an increase in certain areas around military installations because Ockham's Razor- military are testing their large drones! This is the current state and future of warfare.
-The government does act shady around military technology but that is obvious because it's generally the MO of the military to keep things confidential in general

The issue for me is the term "the Government" what does that really mean? Does this suggest a single, monolithic, united and coherent group who has consistently acted in unison to maintain such a secret? Or are we saying a secret body which keeps secrets - attached to government, but not really part of governing? The mind boggles.

To me it is like the term 'they'. It's always 'they' who lie to us or do bad things to us. 'They' don't want us to know the truth. 'They' are making money out of it. 'They' are responsibly for disinformation, etc, etc. — Tom Storm

Haha, it's always some shadowy smoke filled backroom somewhere with anonymous men in suits under hazy light. I guess in this case "they" is supposed to be some "secret" super top secret arm of a military or intelligence community. This one is allegedly known as "Immanent Constellation" or something like that. Usually it's alleged to be somewhere in the Pentagon.

Same as other thread in Lounge. It looks like a very similar conversation from the previous round. I guess I didn't pay much attention to the first one, and this one caught my attention for some reason, but being that this is a continuation of that first "hearing", it is good to keep the conversation of this weird social phenomenon going.

Cool thanks for sharing the old thread. I guess I just shrugged off that as background news previously and was more taken aback by it this second round. It looks like you are right, the exact same conversation is taking place, with all the questions and skepticism. I this post had some good remarks:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/813411

And what about this:

For fun's sake, let's say it's all true. The government has aliens and alien technology and have for years. If they were to disclose this, what would be the best way to do this understanding social psychology? — schopenhauer1

@BC

I have no idea whether the Koreans or Iranians or Australians might be hiding a nuclear bomb or two, smuggled into the country. It's not a far-fetched idea. What better way to stage a decapitation event as part of a war? — BC

Why only looking at night? Clearly that isn't much of a cover :lol:.

Perhaps Santa Claus is testing out drones as a humane alternative to forcing reindeer to fly thousands and thousands of miles in one night. Or maybe Santa is looking for gains in delivery efficiency. This business of landing on roofs, slithering down a narrow dirty (and possibly hot) chimney (if there even is one) with a bag has to be a nightmare of wasted time and motion. If they capture a drone, it is likely to be "manned" by elves. Or, maybe Santa needs more data about who's been bad or good, and the old Christmas surveillance methods just aren't sufficient any more. — BC

Well, that NORAD Santa Claus tracker seems to get more attention than this New Jersey case. As you noted:

One of the things I find annoying about the drone business in New Jersey is the dismissal of observations reported by ordinary people. — BC

Seems the government is either majorly gaslighting or the drones are nothing more than the new norm of many companies and citizens flying their new flying machines.

According to some in the UFO community, the idea of "disclosure" is big. That is the idea that the government might slowly disclose that we know of UFOs and NHI all along. Some claim that the government is slowly dripping it because they think it's such a shift in our view of the world, they cannot do it all at once without causing panic. Of course, every time they think it will be disclosed, it never does. These drone incidents would probably be seen in this light.

For fun's sake, let's say it's all true. The government has aliens and alien technology and have for years. If they were to disclose this, what would be the best way to do this understanding social psychology?

Edit: What's interesting about this disclosure idea is that it can become a hope akin to religion, because you can always look for increasing signs that the government is going to reveal it any day now..

Interestingly enough you have a lot of strands going on at the same time. They can be completely isolated or connected.

Strand 1: UFO hearings.
Strand 2: Increased activity of drones and UAP around military bases.
Strand 3: Current drones reported near New Jersey

1 can inform the rest by simply getting people to be distracted while testing drones.
2 can be connected to 3.

The more fringe theories would say 1, 2, and 3 are all connected.

The story said there have been a couple of radiation spikes detected previously in the NY / NJ area which were not explained. This source said that there are fears that North Korea might over time smuggle the various parts for a complete atomic bomb into the country, then assemble it and use it at their convenience. — BC

I heard this story too but I thought it was debunked.

I forgot to include this:

They had me at dinobeavers. — wonderer1

:lol:

@Relativist @ssu @Tom Storm @BC
@Hanover
For reference, here are the two hearings where people testified to Congress under oath about these programs. Skip around to what might interest you.

David Grusch and First Hearing


Luis Elizondo and Second Hearing

Can the true-believers get "something" right? Not sure what that might be, other than the fact that there is secrecy, in the military. The general problem is that they fit everything into their belief that aliens are (or have been) here, and the government is hiding this from us. — Relativist

I agree. If you look at that video in my last post you can see that it's the pet project of some people that seems to have been given more air time. But again, my interest is not really the claims so much as the increase in institutions taking it seriously. Otherwise, I wouldn't care so much or be interested. If I see a clip from C-SPAN I expect some boring stuff about a new monument or budget, or currently, grandstanding politicians about whatever issue. I don't expect UFOs. So when I see that, I take notice. Here is another revealing video below from the first hearing.

Here is another revealing video below.

@Relativist @ssu @Tom Storm @BC
@Hanover I thought this video useful. Mind you, this came out before the second Congressional hearing but after the first one (with David Grusch), so it looks like these are all people involved in the same UFO circles and are circular referencing each other, perhaps. If that is the case, this adds more to the point about "epistemology" and how one determines the truth of the matter. Can a kooky group of people be right by accident, or can they be dismissed out of hand for all the fringe stuff they are involved in? Like a broken clock, can a fringe group actually get something right, even if a majority of their interests can be thrown out as pseudo-science? Either way, the only thing that piques my interest from these groups is the seriousness which the US government takes some of the claims. At least, it is serious enough to allow for hearings and to be televised, etc. Of course, we can say that we are just living in a big entertainment world right now, so it's to be expected, and that probably wouldn't be wrong. It's all the spectacle and truth is basically "the spectacle", pace Guy Debord.

Keep in mind with this video, that there is seems to be an implicit bias here- it seems like a hit piece. Also, I believe AATIP was actually recognized contra this video as another name for a division of an actual program from the Pentagon called AASAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program

So it looks like even Greenstreet was given misinformation from the Pentagon for which he drew his conclusions. However, I think the notion that these UFO folks are from the same circle is relevant to the credibility.

Then why all the talk of UAPs if we know they are actually UAS? I'd like to loop you into the other discussion because that one is a broader one as if you look at the OP, I think a lot of the broader public discussion on this started in mid-November when Luis Elizondo and others in House Congressional hearing testified under oath that they had information on UFO retrieval programs, reverse-engineering, etc. Now this is one of three things to my estimation:
1) A crackpot with fabrications created from a massive liar who apparently isn't afraid of being prosecuted if he was found to be lying to Congress under oath. Or at the least someone willing to accept highly speculative fabrications as real (though he claims I believe first hand information).


2) An approved asset who is spreading disinformation about UFOs (UAPs) and alleged NHI (non-human intelligence), to get Congress and the public distracted while they add money for current drone technology, and as a cover to get people guessing if they see more of these drones.

3) He has some validity to his testimony.

Again, for reference, go to that other thread and watch the videos and read the OP. Here is the thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15651/epistemology-of-ufos/p1

Schopenhauer's suicidal apotheosis is the desire to liberate the material self, an interruption_perturbation of flow, from its incompleteness. Some force disturbed the surface of the primordial waters, thus causing water droplets to spring upwards into the air. While the water droplets live airborne, traversing space and time, they long to return to the sublime oblivion of the primordial waters.

Under this view, the consciousness of the water droplets - a stand-in for sentient beings such as us - is tragical. It's formatting function of the mass/energy binary is an attempt to return to the primordial waters in piecemeal fashion. The primordial waters, however, are the limit of consciousness and what it constructs. The constructions of consciousness are forever approaching but never arriving at their source. — ucarr

I like your analogy here. I for one, take Schopenhauer seriously, but at the same time metaphorically. That is to say, I don't necessarily buy into the metaphysics (i.e. Will objectified into Forms and mediated by the appearances of object for a subject further conditioned by the PSR which creates the appearance of individual world). I might be more agnostic on this. However, if taken as an allegory, it has the ring of truth of the animal condition, such as we experience. Although all animals experience the striving and contingent nature of existence, humans suffer particularly acutely because of our increased levels of self-reflection, creating a "hall of mirrors" that amplifies the effects. Other animals seem to be more embedded in nature through instincts and being in the "present". Humans struggle to experience this state, and thus look for it in any number of avenues: "peak" experiences, flow states, drugs, pleasures, meditation, study, worship, and a whole host of other ways. But where animals are already "there", we have to try to get there. It takes conscious effort and thus, work, and thus more striving. The dissatisfaction is thus implicit in our struggle. There is a striving principle to life, and there are contingent negatives one generally encounters and/or tries to overcome. All the while, we are self-aware of this endeavor.

UAP does not entail aliens; the concern is that a foreign government might be using technology beyond ours. — Relativist

But that’s not what was said from people like Elizondo. He talked directly of NHI. And there were several questions about this. I’m not saying it’s true or he’s not lying, but this wasn’t just a hearing on foreign adversary technology.

The notion that aliens are here is an irrational conspiracy theory. Members of Congress are as susceptible to this as anyone (former Senator Harry Reid was a believer) — Relativist

Right but the more established the institution, the more prominent the officials willing to entertain the inquiries on UAP, the more susceptible the public will be in believing something fantastical is going on. So here we are with increased alleged drone and UAP sightings.

But why would they do that? Distraction? Obfuscation? Disinformation? What’s the point?

But also, and obviously, that people have been looking for flying saucers does not prove that there are flying saucers. — Banno

Yes, and that distinction is important. I am looking at the level of the significance of why supposedly legitimate institutions are "looking" for flying saucers. Is that a result of the abundance of evidence (some perhaps not fully disclosed), or simply the actors doing the "looking"?

My sense is perhaps this: In the current world of risk management and security, and risk mitigation matrixes, committees and organizations investigate any number of odd things because if they don't they may be seen as neglectful. And there's alwasy the quesion, what if, by not investigating, they miss something critical? — Tom Storm

But if someone is investigating big foot, and someone is investigating nuclear weapons, one is obviously verifiable as a high probability, and one not so much. UFOs are somewhere in between perhaps? This is why sources matter. Sources for this would be military pilots and intelligence officers that are or were formally in government positions to see this first hand. The pilots have testimony and/or video. The testimony stands based on how credible you think the witness is on what they thought they saw, and how lucid they were. The video speaks for itself, but obviously can be explained a whole bunch of ways including quality of the recording device and the parallax effect when viewing moving objects at certain angles and trajectories. As for the ex-military intelligence officers, again, this would have to rely purely on credibility of the person providing testimony, their willingness to be charged with perjury if they were found to be lying, etc.

So in a way, you can make a matrix like this:

The institutional distributor of information matters for the public (Is the info coming from a "legitimate" institution like government agencies, or is it coming from your Uncle Joe).

Sources matter for the information gatherers: (Is the info coming from "legitimate" credible witnesses and accounts, or from bad actors?

Evidence matters for information gatherers and the public (Is the info first hand accounts, are they recorded, do we have any physical artifacts? Have they been analyzed for material composition, biologics, and comparative design?

Well, for my money, until we actually have something demonstrated to us, we really should suspend our judgement on this 'phenomenon'. — Tom Storm

Agreed. What should one make of Congress entertaining/hosting it? A bunch of crazy conspiracists or because there is something more? This is the "context" part I was discussing.

Aside from that, little has changed. Man sees something unfamiliar, it's either two or three things. Something of use, something of harm, or something that could go either way. Those who aired on the middle option, often survived. Perhaps many did not and perished where those who aired on the first or third option did. We're simple beings, really. Not much has changed in that regard. — Outlander

This is assuming any of it is real and not just disinformation or misunderstanding.

I am not certain about anything related to UFOs, but the thing I am closest to being certain about is that no government agency could keep a secret like this for 75 years. — T Clark

Trump can barely keep his mouth closed about anything. If he knew, that you don't think he would be breadcrumbing that all day and night?? Then again, the "deep state" doesn't trust him, so maybe not ;).

I love the fact that a big part of the government's solution is to rename UFOs and start another new agency.

Of course the irony is that the government could address a lot of this by opening their files. Are their still secrets about events in the 1940s that can't be disclosed for legitimate security reasons? Perhaps. Of course, they've sort of, kind of done that by letting congress have hearings. As you note, that hasn't really resolved anything. — T Clark

Right, so is there a "there" there? Is it secrecy because government rather have people fooled by UFO stuff when they are working on military technology?

I've known quite a number of atheists who believe in UFO's, ghosts and Bigfoot too. We tend to forget that atheism only refers to disbelief in one thing. — Tom Storm

Yes, so you are attributing it to psychological phenomena, something like mass hysteria or public psychosis. I think media can generate a great deal of this. However, if my theory is correct, and that this latest batch of UFO stuff is from the congressional hearings, what does that indicate in regards to the validity of the claim?

The answer is revealing. If it is a fact that there was a major governmental hearing entertaining a "whistleblower" about UFOs, does that mean there is something to it, or that the government is run by crazy conspiracists? What should the public think of it? It looks like its affecting how people see the skies around them, for example.