by threadbear » Thu 10 Jun 2010, 13:50:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', '
')
Yep. And I'm sorry, but I'm going to need some nice, crisp, credible footage, minimum. Surely not too big an ask in this age where everyone has a ten megapixel camera and every event of any significance whatsoever is filmed by twenty members of the public? I'm not taking anyone's word on this issue, astronaut or not.
Let's do a logical exercise here. I could NEVER provide footage crisp and credible enough for you. You would argue that it was faked, that it was altered digitally, etc... You would need film that was somehow officially endorsed. In other words, you would need not just A scientist, but a group of scientists to endorse it. Scientists wouldn't be willing to do this, as they can't publicly endorse anything like that, because they lose credibility, and it's bad for their career. A cover up creates a self reinforcing feedback system, in this way.
The thing that cracks me up about people is their inability to do logical follow through. They argue, "All it would take is one credible scientist to step up to the plate, publicly" One credible scientist wouldn't do the trick, in terms of endorsing that a cover-up had occurred. He/she would have had to have actually seen something, too, and would need film footage etc.. etc... That puts him/her in state secret security clearance territory.
Whether you realize it or not, you would pretty much need govt authorized testimony. And they hold all the best film and proof.
That being said, there are likely some brave scientists involved in the Disclosure project--but their very association with this group, would cast them in a bad light. See how it works. Ufos end up being the ultimate self censoring phenomenon, for this reason. I won't beat a dead horse. I simply can't waste my energy on retarded arguments.