I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You clearly don't actually.
CV has cited data showing that sitting senators have been talking about UFOs and mainstream news in general in a serious way before recently? He hasn't.

Right. I think CV and others have put forth reasonable arguments suggesting there is no overall meaningful blip in the preponderance or quality speculation.


OK but you counter 'specifically sitting senators now opining is new'

To that i offer my prior reply.

It is certainly reasonable to think sitting Senators have always had opinions but when it was KNOWN that official gov't policy was not to comment or opine on these 'unknowns', it would be arguably foolish for a sitting Senator to do just that.

They would immediately and rightly be countered with or asked 'what proof do you have', 'are you getting intel we are not' and they would either not be able to comment or would have no real good reply, just making them look foolish or like CTers or involved in a cover up.

It would be a no win situation.

Now that gov't has changed there view (per my quoted post above) that frees them up to join the 'opinion debate' as they can reply' you have seen what I have seen so I am just drawing my opinion from that'.

Just all of this right here is plenty of proof of my argument. That's why I can say that it isn't a matter of opinion. The discourse about UFOs has changed and they've been 'mainstreamed'.
And we already have some idea of how and why this has happened in regards to Harry Reid and his connection to Robert Bigelow and the AATIP program.
People have all right to conclude that it means nothing but they don't have a right to conclude that it isn't different.
Another one from 2019 in Slate: This Year UFOs became a little more legit

I mentioned several names who did/do have an interest in the topic and who commented on the issue years and decades ago.

Admiral Peter Hill Norton UK
https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/news/2018/...more-what-you/
Nick Pope former MOD official UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Pope_(journalist)

John McCain USA
https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/...id/3399529002/

Senator Barry Goldwater USA



POTUS Jimmy Carter
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...n-ufo-sighting

POTUS Ronald Reagan

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/flashbac...ing-msna166941

And many more. Authority figures have been talking seriously re UFOS for decades. It's not just now.

Tbh I'm kinda lost regarding what precisely he's trying to say or what point he's trying to make here.He claims media propaganda pushing a narrative that UFOS are "real" or something serious anyway, yet when asked why he goes all vague and doesn't really spit out what's on his mind. He gave some vague answer re "technology" and something called project bluebeam which seems rather fantastical/arcane to me, but he hasn't come right out and actually stated anything unequivocally so again I'm not even sure what he's trying to say here.

I was utterly fascinated by UFOS as a kid and teenager and even as a very young adult. After researching it for years I came to the conclusion that there was no evidence they're aliens and probably have a plethora of explanations.

But as someone somewhat familiar with the topic, again I don't see any undue increase in either MSM coverage or authority figures commenting on it. It's been essentially the same since decades past, for me.

Fair enough in that case. Pretty much most of those examples I wasn't familiar with.
The Reagan one I was although it's more of a UFO invasion fantasy than anything else.

But if he's willing to entertain such things for whatever reason even as an analogy, it still shows how actually mainstream the topic became and became years ago.

It's an intriguing topic in the sense that you have that billion to one possibility that some ay be anomalous anyway even if I personally don;t believe such things and it's a topic that might make people glance up from their coffee when on MSM. Maybe to someone like you who may not have an interest in the topic pr be familiar with it, the coverage seems unusual or out of place but for those who are familiar with it, it's really no biggie. As I said coverage teds to come in waves and predominantly in the summer months.

But I don;t think there's anything to it and FWIW, my opinion is to a degree anyway somewhat educated or informed if you will, on the topic.

The bolded would seem to describe the differing ways that we're seeing this.

What does 'fair enough' mean there?

Is that you acknowledging that what you said just prior asserting your opinion was so near fact as to not be disputable?

Or are you now willing to acknowledge that reasonable can disagree with your position?

That a reasonable person can see the open opining of two of history POTUS along with all the other cited material as a bigger prior point on this debate then what you claim is 'senators' commenting on it, making it so unique?

Don't make me start quoting George Carlin again to mock you.

Cuepee,
If you ever tried to mock me you'd end up just mocking yourself.
The fair enough means that I respect CVs thoughts on this.
I still stand by my position however.

It is not me mocking you.

It is George Carlin who is.

As one of the most successful comedians of all time he recognized this trait as being common amongst people...



Do you understand what he is mocking there?

If not I want you to contemplate as you read the post of CV and so many others saying they disagree and you insisting they cannot disagree.

You leave no room for 'difference in opinion'. Once something makes sense to you it therefore must be the only correct answer.

This is called discernment.
And yeah-- seeing a bunch of articles in mainstream press that go "woah UFOs" and me saying "woah what are they doing?" isn't too hard and doesn't take a lot of discernment to know it's not purely business as usual.
But maybe they do wag the aliens every certain x amount of years and I've just missed it previously. That is basically what CV is saying.

And is that position still:

Or can you now see that it actually is a matter of opinion, and that you simply have a strong one?

If the former, you might want to give some thought as to whether things being "qualitatively different" can be anything other than a matter of opinion.

Edit to add: Actually, just reread your last post, and I guess your position has shifted a bit.

It's not really that important whether people agree with me.
The people who want to think nothing has changed can continue thinking that. We will probably find out next month that they are right.
There also is no rule that qualitative differences cannot be matters of fact. It just means that it cannot be measured quantitatively. I.e., we're not measuring the volume of UFO stories in media but rather looking at the stories themselves. That does not mean that all opinions become equally valid.

And yet you are arguing that is literally impossible to be true. Only you can be right on this and no one can dissent.

And that is why Carlin could make millions of people laugh with this joke which is a joke directly pointed at you.



You are the butt of that joke and i am not even sure you understand why.

Cuepee,
You posting some George Carlin meme and thinking that you're making fun of me says more about you than me.
Your opinions actually mean very little to me fwiw.
Also that meme is "problematic" but I'll let someone else tell you why.
Furthermore the idea that 2p2 politics posters are "everyone" is very lol.

Why??
I've already shown you examples of senators and presidents and high ranking officials commenting on UFOS from decades ago.Why is now so different in your eyes? What anomaly are you seeing that nobody else is?

I really don't understand your position here. You appear to be seeing some sort of anomaly that doesn't exist. Again the topic has been spoken about publicly by officials and reported by MSM for decades.

So again how is it different now and why do you think this is happening? For what purpose? You've really kinda lost me here sorry.

Apparently he has no idea - he just wants to know why everyone else thinks this might be. The problem is, no one else is all that convinced of a discussion-worthy anomaly, so around and around in circles we go.

With respect, nearly every example of this interesting ebbing and flowing in history has been met with "I wasn't familiar with that". Which is absolutely fine, I really don't recommend going down the rabbit hole on this one, but it means when you say that this time is different you aren't actually comparing it to anything. What is it different to? Definitely not different to when this topic came up in the 50's or 60's with Project Bluebook. Not different to the 70's and so on (see CV's links).

Again, I say this knowing it's patronising, but my suspicion is it feels very different to you because you've noticed this all happening now. It feels like it must be somehow different, but only because you never experienced it before or don't have the context of the past to put this in place. It's a normal cognitive bias, and the way to distinguish it from seeing an actual phenomenon is to point to something that can't be said about the past. And then you can't point to articles in the news, we have those, you can't point to Rubio because there was Carter and McCain and more. What's the thing that we can point to now that we can't point to in the past?

This entire post is lulz worthy.

The last line in particular is a giant WTF? that shows you do not comprehend it even a bit. Nobody said anything like the last line, especially me.

You just don't get it.

This is not even a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

Luckbox has seen enough. He is convinced. This time is different. WHy? Because he is convinced.

That means this leaves the realm of opinion and moves over to fact.


And for the record this is the type of argumentation you see slip into any argument he has with anyone. An inability to see beyond his own opinion and that is not factual or right simply because he is convinced.

He is not alone though. Carlin made millions, in part mocking the people like that who cannot separate their view of a thing from what is right or wrong. He is just an oblivious example of it.


It is very common for the most ignorant amongst us to also be the most belligerent and convinced they must be right.

it is a dangerous combination.

Good thing about topics like UFOs is that your noted dangerous combination is not dangerous at all. That is why it is a perfect topic for people like Lucky to spend a good amount of time on pointing out how something with UFOs in 2021 is different (see the same 2-3 links a bazillion times) than in the past, without ever being willing to say what is actually different when asked. The more time spent on a topic like UFOs - the better, so the longer the answers to the question of "what is different?" are "reasons" or "things" then I am satisfied.

Unfortunately, not all topics are completely harmless like UFOs, and we did see the damage that can happen when a dangerous combination gets genuine power over things that matter.

I'm really getting a lot of heat for what is an incredibly simple stance.
I'll try at some point later to explain how easy this all this.

It's not the simplicity that people are having a problem. It's the accuracy.

Don't waste your time trying to explain the position again, everyone gets that. You need to focus on what I asked for in my last post. You need to find something in the present that can't be said about the past occurrences.

You need something that means this is more serious than Project Bluebook, or when Reagan or Carter or McCain took made statements or took positions on UFOs. Just find one thing (for a start) that you can say now that a UFO enthusiast in the past couldn't have said then. Posting your news article or Rubio again won't do it, we had those things before too.

Were Carter and McCain the same as Rubio?
Did the press treat Carter and McCain the same as Rubio?
Rubio isn't even the only here either. There is a whole cadre of former officials- Christopher Mellon, Dan Ratcliffe, this Elizondo guy, John Podesta is lurking around.
And these people would all also seem to be in each other's orbits. It's a Washington UFO clique.