That's why it feels like he's just taking cheap shots - in many ways he's on the easier side of the debate (but ironically it's become the harder side because it's nearly impossible to deprogram his opponents out of their cult). And of course he has an inherent advantage of credibility because his conclusion doesn't require any extraordinary evidence. The only difference is the conclusion from which he starts. He depends on the same fallacy as his opponents. I'm not generally a fan of Mick West, particularly when he gets into specific debunkings of videos, because his argumentative framework depends on the same flawed approach as those he's debunking: he starts from the conclusion that the aliens are not here, and then claims any evidence offered against this conclusion is insufficient.
I guess the expertise is not as valuable as it seems, in the narrow problem of explaining camera rendering, and indeed someone with a games background knows a lot about that. I really love that it’s a game developer who seems to be thinking outside the box enough to provide explanations for the public materials. Military officials now believe that is the optics of the classified image sensor, designed to help target weapons, make the object appear like it is moving in a strange way. > Another video, known as Gimbal, shows an object that appears to be turning or spinning. > Military officials have largely come to the same conclusion. skeptics and experts in optics have long said many of the videos and sightings by naval aviators represent optical illusions that have made ordinary objects - weather balloons, commercial drones - appear to move faster than possible. There's no good answer to the question of "if Grusch is right about any of this, why did the DoD allow him to say it publicly" - she has a particularly harebrained theory that DoD classification rules allow Grusch to describe this stuff in generalities as long as he doesn't cross a line of specificity, which, just, no.īut people love talking about this stuff, so you can't blame Rubio for indulging it. At one point she cites the now-discredited "Gimball Video". No source she names has firsthand knowledge of "non-human origin" technology it's all people who heard something who heard something. Another is a Stanford biologist who started producing debunked materials science papers about allegedly alien artifacts (that turn out to look a lot like ordinary machine parts). Some of Kean's sources are proponents of things like psychic teleportation. It does not make Kean and Grusch's claims sound a lot more credible. Ezra Klein just did a long interview with Leslie Kean (a popular author and Coast to Coast AM guest) about her article in "The Debrief" - where it went, after the Washington Post wouldn't run it on her time schedule - about David Grusch:
0 kommentar(er)
