Пренебрежительная статья Atlantic от 7 июня: «Почему все вдруг заговорили об НЛО» Марины Корень

I wish they’d do deep analytical dives. Real reporting. Like the days of old. Reporters that used to hold the government accountable to the public. Alas, they’re all gone. The only reporters remaining, a gangly crew of myopic thinkers who reach a conclusion and then write to support it.

Those debunkers who costantly threat ufo\aliens arguments with religious hate are all the same.

the problem here is not that there is some real state of the world that some people perceive correctly and others incorrectly. the problem here is that different human points of view will form a familiar constellation of views when certain conditions are present.

for example, eghigian’s view that it is «virtually impossible» that miraculous claims will be either proved or disproved is part of a familiar constellation. it is the same view offered by michael wertheimer during his work on the condon committee. it is the logical position that any «positive» proof will never be «positive» enough for disbelievers, while on the other hand it is not possible to prove the negative (that something does not exist).

what are the conditions necessary for grusch, eghigian and all commentators on all sides to adopt the familiar constellation of disputing points of view? it’s the condition that there is no public, corroborated, validated evidence that supports a highly probable single consensus interpretation to either support or reject a central claim.

apparently, grush has not seen for himself whatever artifacts or evidence he claims exists; he hears it from others who decline to come forward on their own behalf. he does not produce these persons, nor whatever evidence he may claim they have, to public view. his claims about crash retrievals and alien bodies have been made before in the past by other single witness or single testimony advocates, for example bob lazar; in all those previous cases it has turned out that public and corroborating proof has never been put forward.

there are two ways to approach this common situation. one is to adopt one of the cliché positions in the constellation of points of view — certain it’s true, certain it’s false, doubtful, wanna believe, etc. the other way is simply to decline to form any opinion whatsoever until you have public, factual, corroborating evidence to work with. i don’t see any at present (including the supposed evidence supposedly submitted to IG staffers), so at present i am entirely uninterested in what mr. grusch has to say.

Who’s the author? Maybe we should tell them to do there job, no not suppress skepticism, but to actually do some research.