• 0 Posts
  • 322 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • Are you purposefully dodging the obvious difference between actual research and “doing your own research”?

    What I was citing is an example of how “doing your own research” (colloquialism) can yield something productive and valid when I was sharing my article. I was using that as a example, and comparing it to my brother who “does his own research” (again, we’re talking about the colloquial meaning…) and believes QAnon insanity and conspiracy theories about everything.

    That is what the original post topic is referring to. Not literal scholarly research as you appear to be stuck on.

    What I wrote on UAP is not the equivalent of QAnon crazies. I cited declassified documents from the National Archives and quoted various pilots/military/government personnel.

    Your retort here just tells me you read snippets of my UAP article and are not acknowledging most of the information. Kevin Day was the Cheif Radar Operator, and this is a direct quote:

    "…Immediately we were thinking: ‘Are these things real? Are they some type of glitch?’ So when we ran a bunch of diagnostic tests and we brought all our systems back up, the contacts were stronger now. That’s when I became concerned about these things and I strongly recommended that we take one of the aircraft that just launched off the Nimitz and go intercept one and go see what it is.”

    The pilots witnessed the object/its movements with their own eyes, which corroborated the data from their sensors and radar data on the Princeton. I’m going to trust the concerns of the Cheif Radar Operator, multiple Top Gun pilots from a world famous squadron, and their weapons systems specialist over you and your arrogant condescension.

    I guess I should have specified that what I am referring to is the category D UAP (see the COMETA report). I believe that some percentage of category D UAP could be possibly explainable by more conventional explanation.

    I’m also not arguing that there is evidence of extraterrestrials; I’m only arguing that a percentage of category D UAP represent intelligently controlled physical objects, which represent disruptive/breakthrough technology.

    That does not mean the technology could not be of human origin. But this technology represented in the Nimitz Event outperformed our F/A-18F Superhornets, and that same type of craft was identified on a mass scale beginning in 1947.

    The sightings were so prevalent in the 50s that the US Air Force issued a public address on UFOs to the nation.

    The reason I don’t rule out the possibility of non-human technology myself is because this kind of technology being invented and concealed since 1947 somehow seems even less reasonable to me.

    You can disagree with me, the expert individuals’ accounts, and refuse to acknowledge the documents from the National Archives, but it doesn’t make my argument crazy.

    I am simply arguing there is breakthrough/disruptive technology represented in a percentage of the category D UAP. That is supported by ODNI’s report as well, in which it states a potential national security concern is that they could represent breakthrough/disruptive technology by an adversary.

    Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained “uncharacterized and unattributed,” and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis."

    I am up for debating the subject. If I am wrong about anything and you have expertise and can share it/information, I’m all ears. Unlike most people, I want to challenge my beliefs and will gladly shift my beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.

    There’s more supporting evidence of disruptive/breakthrough tech represented in category D UAP than there is evidence of any religion.

    And if this is a bogus area not worhy of study, why is Harvard’s Galileo Project so invested in studying UAP? Or UAPx? And why was there such unprecedented unanimous bipartisan support passing UAP related bills in the least productive House in history?



  • You have no clue what my opinion is of myself. You’re just jumping to conclusions. You talk down to me about being stupid, yet your argument against me is juvenile and half of it is just ad hominem (not valid criticism).

    I never claimed to be anything either, so what exactly are you accusing me of being fraudulent about?

    What’s wrong with the information I have cited within my articles on radicalism and on violence and mental illness? Do you not like the information? Do you have a complaint about a particular source?

    As far as your criticism about my UAP write-up, are you referring to the section on the Nimitz Event in which I mentioned some UAPs’ movements reminded me of the quantum locking and quantum levitation of super-cooled superconducting? The part where I say that is out of my depth?

    Yeah, admitting something is beyond my education/comprehension screams fraud, genius…

    The vast majority of my UAP write-up is reporting information. I speculate a few times, but I make that clear and do not make wild claims like you’re misframing it to be. I reported information and expert testimony.

    Kevin Day is the one who said the radar was confirmed by Fravor’s (as well as others’) visual observations that day. The pilots said that it wasn’t visual instrument malfunctions, because they saw it with their naked eyes.

    If you have a problem with their accounts, take it up with them. I truly don’t care what you think of me or your petty criticism and insults.

    I’ll readily admit I’m not educated in avionics, which is why I quoted all of those individuals who were in various roles of expertise.

    If your critism is that all of my arguments/beliefs are bogus because it’s out of my depth, then surely you concede on the grounds of expert testimony, as in the Nimitz Event?

    Or do you think you know more than our greatest pilots and military personnel?

    Edit: Just took more notice of this:

    Weird that you would showcase a vacuous article as an example of “research”.

    I would not consider my articles legitimate research, which was not being discussed in this thread. “Doing your own research” is a common saying, and that’s what was being discussed here.

    I don’t know if you’re doing it intentionally or unintentionally, but you certainly misconstrued the colloquialism to try to make fun of/discredit me, which is dishonest and a disingenuous argumentative tactic.

    If you think I’m such an idiot, you can surely make a stronger case than this disingenuous argument full of ad hominem. You argue like a poor man’s sophist.


  • I totally get where you’re coming from in regard to the importance of critical thinking and media bias/government influence.

    As for my blog, the references section is how how I affirm it’s valid information. I used scholarly sources or reputable publications, like Psychology today, and only linked to media sources when it was pertaining to the current radicalism in our politics over here in the US.

    But even then, I personally use independent media fact checkers on the media institutions I cited. Cross-checking what those articles state is pretty easy, and having multiple unbiased/less biased sources corroborating reporting is a decent indication it is accurate.

    But as you said, recognizing the validity of citations is a learned skill. Speaking personally, this was a skill I developed academically. I often encourage people to take a critical thinking course at a local community college and I believe that should be mandatory curriculum in high school/secondary school.

    That certainly provided me with a buffer to the misinformation and radicalism that I’ve seen grip and corrupt so many people I know/knew.












  • I wanted to add that repetition is key in the process with which people are radicalized. It typically involves an individual who is in a vulnerable state (job loss, interpersonal hardship, injury) and the individual is exposed to repeated misinformation/extremism, and this is then reinforced by the radical in-group. [1]

    Radicalism spreads through a social contagion effect, and social media (including lemmy and reddit) can act as a catalyst which facilitates the spread of extremism. [1]

    This information is covered in this article I published on my blog explaining how people become radicalized. (I have ads turned off and do not benefit in any way from my blog. It’s purpose is to share information.)

    I wrote that article partly selfishly to wrap my head around family I have lost to Far-Right radicalism. It is essentially a literature review, and it’s well-cited and thoroughly explains the process of radicalization. I’ll also add that this is in my field of study/career, and I’m working on my Master’s in Clinical Counseling.

    It is very relevant here, as the federation with Threads will allow for the extremism permeating Threads to seep into our instance, even if the individual user blocks them. (Remember, blocking Threads won’t stop Threads users’ comments from being displayed here.)

    This opens the doorway for vulnerable individuals in our instance to have their rationality chipped away until they lose their self-identity and experience identity fusion with a radical group. [2]

    If instances federate with Threads, they are deciding to put their users at risk, and hold culpability in the loss of self-identities, fractured families, extremism, and real-world consequences that could subsequently result from federation with Threads.