DocWatts

That's a fair point, but the best that eyewitness testimony can do at this point (even when that comes from someone more qualified than most to speak about ariel phenomena) is demonstrate that there's something worth looking in to further using other empirical methods. Just saying that something is Alien in origin by a process of deduction still doesn't tell us what these things actually are, what they're doing here, if these are vehicles whether they're manned spacecraft or automated drones, etc. Also where they're coming from, what sort of technology these things possess, or whether or not whoever's controlling these things is actually interested in observing humans specifically. Are these craft intentionally trying to avoid detection? Or are legit sightings so incredibly rare that it just seems that way to us? Eyewitness testimony alone, even from the most credible source in the world, will never be able to tell us most of what we would want to know about these things (beyond thier mere existence). So yeah, saying that these objects warrant further study is Valid, even if their existence is already settled in your mind.

Sure, it's of course a possiblity that some of the people who come forward about this stuff are fabricating stories. But the idea that the a majority of the Air Force pilots who came forward are just Inventing stories for attention (rather than mistaking conventional things as extraterrestrials) seems even more unlikely than Aliens. The problem isn't that people who make these claims are all lying, it's that eyewitness testimony without other types of 'hard' evidence can only go so far as an explanatory mechanism.

Really? All of them are lying? What would the motivation for that be? Seems far more plausible to posit that they're being Honest about whatever it is they've seen and experienced, and go from there. It doesn't mean that their Interpretations for the cause of the phenomena are necessarily correct, but just positing that people that come who forward are being dishonest seems like a way of avoiding challenges to your skepticism on this issue.

As someone who's been on both sides of the class divide, the difference between being rich and poor when trying to access Health Care is the difference between a $15 copay when picking up a Prescription, and paying a third your monthly income for Insulin. The US Government does very little to set price limits on what perspective drug companies are allowed to charge for medication, and it's not uncommon at all for medications to cost hundreds of dollars. Predatory Capitalism at it's finest. It's extremely expensive to be a poor or a working class person in America, and health care is no different.

What's that Chinese proverb about cursing someone to live in 'Interesting Times'? I'd expect that the last gasps of breath for any ideology that's on its way out after holding on to power for a long time is almost bound to be ugly. Let's hope that that when Green climbs from the ashes it's not a pyrrhic Victory on a ruined and devastated planet.

Some takeaways from the book; Policing is a seemingly impossible job, where men and women are tasked with a long list of difficult and often contradictory tasks; they're simultaneously expected to be warriors, disciplinarians, social workers, mentors, and medics. Police training heavily over-emphasizes how dangerous the profession is, and how likely any scenario is to turn deadly in an instant. While Policing is a dangerous profession, statistically a Police Officer is about as likely to be killed or injured on the job as a Utility Maintenance Technicians or Constriction Workers. Pizza delivery drivers are statistically more likely be inured or killed by another person while on the job than Police Officers. The primary danger for Police Officers in the authors experience are Mental Health problems such as PTSD and Depression from seeing terrible things and repeated stressful interactions with people in bad circumstances Police Training emphasizes that Officers have a right to go home safe at the end of the day, but does not emphasize that members of the Public should expect the same. The vast majority of a Police Officer's time is spent handling minor infractions or misdemeanors, rather than responding to violent crime In the vast majority of cases arresting someone does nothing at all to help anyone, generally only making things more difficult for desperate people with already difficult lives Some of the poorest cities in the country spend up to %40 of thier budget on thier Police Departments; often exceeding the amount that is spent on schools. Most of the men and women that the author served with took thier role as public servants seriously, but were indignant at considering how thier profession contributes to problems of systemic racism (ie it's not my fault that the people commiting crimes around here happen be black) A visible Police presence is something that is actively wanted and approved of by many Residents living in rough areas, who are more frightened of gangs than they are of the police Systemic Racism has become so baked in to the assumptions and biases behind Policing that it's often Invisible, and due to sociological factors outside of the Justice System. And not something that will be solved by just diversifying Police Departments. For many of the black officers that the author worked with, a rational she came across was that 'the safest place for a young black man to be in America is behind a badge'

Thought I might recommend a book I read recently about policing in America, from a Law Professor and Journalist, Rosa Brooks, who became a Reserve Police Officer in one of the poorest districts of Washington DC, and later wrote about her experience. The book makes an excellent complimentary read to books like The New Jim Crow, as it does an excellent job of reconciling the systemic problems of the US Justice System with a Humanized look at the stressful and difficult job of Policing. Haven't seen Rosa Brooks or her work brought up much in discussions around the topic, which is unfortunate because she offers a very balanced and fair look at the issue that's backed up by direct, real world experience of the realities of the job.

%15 - 20 percent (or nearly 1 in 5) of the American adult population have come to believe in QAnon Conspiracy Theories. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/study-finds-nearly-one-five-americans-believe-qanon-conspiracy-theories-n1268722 We're going to be in for a rough few decades before Demographic shifts make the Republican Party non-viable at the national level.

America is almost two different countries depending on where you end up on the socio-economic ladder. People who've been insulated from the problems of the current system would change thier tune real quickly if they exchanged places with someone who was forced to declare bankruptcy because of medical expenses, or with a working class person with a chronic illness who was forced to choose between paying hundreds of dollars for medication they need or paying rent that month. The entire purpose of the Privatized Health Care industry in America is to extort as much money as possible from its customers, rather than to provide for people's Health and Well Being. It's an inhumane and needlessly cruel system.

And here I was thinking that someone like Mick West taking the time and effort to identify false positives would be a good thing.

Or develop any sort of mental illness that needs treatment. Much easier to have that person become homeless, wind up in the prison system, or go on a mass shooting than to provide funding for mental health care services and social work. I had a next door neighbor when I was living in a low income area who was living with severe schizophrenia without access to treatment, who ended up being shot and killed by the police after having a psychotic break and waving a pistol at Police Officers who arrived at the scene. Could this incident had been avoided if this poor guy had access to the same sort of Mental Health services that wealthy individuals take for granted? I'll never know for sure, but it's a sad state of affairs when Society neither values or cares about people without access to financial resources and social capital.

I'd argue that a minority of obstructionist Legislators (representing perhaps a quarter or a third of the country) being able to obstruct the will of the entire Country is actually far worse than a majority of Senators being able to pass whatever they want with a simple 51 to 49 vote. The filibuster is flagrantly anti-democratic. It's simply a Senatorial rule, not something to be found in the Constitution. In theory our system is supposed function so that the other two branches of Government serve as a check on Legislative power and Senatorial overreach. The President could Veto said Bill, or one of the Courts could strike it down as Unconstitutional. Obviously the System is not working as intended, but the Irony is that removal or modification of the Filibuster is completely necessary to address the numerous ways in which our system is undemocratic and dysfunctional. That will never happen if 40 Senators representing far less than %40 of the population (due to Senate seats not being proportional to population like in the House) can obstruct democratic reforms.

What's hilarious is that many of the most Vocal of the sOciaLiSm bAd! crowd tend to be Boomers who are directly benefiting from government programs like Social Security and Medicare, yet somehow manage to equate Single Payer Healthcare with Communism. Propagandized Americans just might be the most ignorant people on the entire planet.

America's an awesome place to live if you're Rich. It's very easy to isolate yourself from the problems of the rest of the society over here, or wish to see those problems continue because you've managed to place yourself in a position to directly benefit from them. For ordinary people without access to vast financial and social capital, things are decidedly less awesome, and a working class person would almost certainly enjoy a higher standard of living in just about any other developed democracy.

So what a alot of people outside the US don't realize that what we have in the States is basically a Tiered system, where wealthy and upper middle class people are often fortunate enough to have access to high quality Healthcare thier whole lives, and aren't really concerned that the system is a nightmare for the bottom half or two thirds of the country. Americans are also relentlessly propagandized by Bad Faith news media that adopting a system similar to what's common in the rest of the developed world is a gateway to Socialism, and it would mean waiting months or years for a knee surgery. Of course such arguments are ridiculous, but that doesn't mean that Propaganda hasn't been highly successful at getting at least some portion of Americans to advocate against thier own best interest.

Trying to disabuse Trump's cult of any of thier delusions is about as productive as trying to have a discussion with an angry drunk person who's throwing bottles across the room. The main difference being that unlike the alcoholic who's causing problems down at the local pub, most of Trump's sycophants won't be sobering up any time soon. Because American Democracy will be what get smeared across the road if the drunk drivers are the ones who keep ending up at the Wheel.

I half suspect that people on the extreme end of Moral Relativism don't fully believe what they're advocating; if only because they value thier own autonomy, and wouldn't be happy if society devolved to a level where Slavery was openly practiced again. It seems far more sensible that the truth is probably somewhere in between the extremes of Morality being completely Relative and Morality being Absolutist. The idea that Societies haven't made any Moral Progress at all in thousands of years seems overly pessimistic. At the same time, the desire to avoid shovanism about the Morality of one's own Society in and of itself is ironically a sign of Moral Progress I'd argue. It doesn't seem unreasonable to propose that while Morality is undeniably a Social Construct that's highly contextual, it doesn't necessarily follow that every Moral System is equally functional or well adapted to the Survival Conditions that are present. An 'Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth' moral system makes sense when Survival Conditions are brutal enough to warrant such an approach. Does it make as much sense for places with a functional Justice system? Not so much. Morality being more or less well adapted to the Survival Conditions that are present seems like a better way to look at the issue. At the same time, we can recognize that not all Survival Conditions are equally conducive to human flourishing and happiness. This allows for Morality to be highly Contextual without misconstruing every type of Moral system as "equal".

I think it's more more useful and more accurate to say that Morality is contextual rather than relative. More useful because the term Moral Relativism brings with it some baggage, namely that it has heavy connotations with Postmodern theory. Which can serve as a distraction because disagreements over Moral Relativism inevitably tend to become disagreements over Postmodernism. I'd also argue that morality being Contextual rather than Relative is more accurate as well, because Morality only has any meaning if placed within some sort of broader Context; it can't exist within a vacuum. Thinking of Morality a Contextual rather than Relative also has the additional advantage that a Contextual conception isn't completely groundless like Relativity. At the very least you can say that all human morality is grounded at the broadest level by the fact that we're social creatures that need to find ways to live and interact with one another. Any further Moral considerations will then have to take place within a more clearly defined Context, that can either be somewhat broad or somewhat narrow depending on what Goals you're trying to achieve.

I would never argue that eyewitness testimony is worthless, but it does have serious limitations as a methodology for validating empirical claims that lie far outside of most people's lived experience. Is eyewitness testimony useful for more mundane things such as a recalled conversation, or the make and model of a car that pulled away from a building? Sure. But for bizarre things that completely outside of normal everyday experience, do I trust most people to be able to correctly interpret whatever the hell it is that they think they're seeing? Not so much. Now I am willing to give more of a benefit of the doubt to people like David Fravor who at least have several years of expertise that's directly relevant to their claim, and is part of the reason I'm not completely dismissive of the alien hypothesis. If nothing else, it at least demonstrates that there's something worth looking in to. Of course Scientific investigation has limitations as well, but it's a much better methodology for making sense of these types of claims than just taking people at their word. If the conclusions that were being made from eyewitness testimony were much more modest in their ontological claims, most reasonable people wouldn't have a problem with it, ie: "There have been sightings of many strange areal phenomena over the last 50 years that could be interpreted as aliens." Even if eyewitness testimony could tell us beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were dealing with is alien technology, we would still want to know what these objects actually are, what they're doing here, how, etc. Which would warrant further investigation using other methodologies.

Our legal system (at least in the US) has sentenced plenty of innocent people based on mistaken eyewitness testimony (that was later overturned by DNA evidence), so I'm not so sure that the methods of the Legal System is what you want to be using as a Benchmark for Truth.

I'm of a similar mind that nothing conclusive has been proven, but I do recognize that it's at least a possiblity (even if it's not necessarily the most likely explanation). While I've yet to be fully convinced, I think that aliens are actually less unlikely than some of the alternative explanations that have been proposed (such as the idea that some nation or military has technology that's massively more advanced than anything that currently exists, and has somehow kept hidden from the rest of the world). Both hard skeptics and hard believers are mistaken in my view, which is that aliens are a plausible interpretation for at least some of these events, but not one that's supported by conclusive evidence (at least so far).

I suspect that this is correct, and it's a very good point. As an aside, I find it endlessly Interesting how one of the visionary scientists whose discoveries paved the way for quantum mechanics (namely the photoelectric effect and brownian motion) could never come to fully accept the eventual implications of his discoveries. The additional irony being that Einstein's Relativity Theory was itself built upon the work of previous scientists (such as Max Planck) who themselves wouldn't or couldn't accept the implications of their own discoveries.

@Consilience I'm far from a diehard defender of the Materialist paradigm, but a number of very prominent scientists from that community have posited methods for skirting the edge of known physics to travel faster than light (including Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, etc). There's no reason to believe why Faster than Light travel would shatter the underlying assumptions of Materialism any more than the discovery of Quantum Mechanics did. Materialism might have its limitations, but not like its completely unable to adapt to new discoveries. Virtually every Materialist has come to accept the reality of quantum mechanics (even if they don't fully accept all of its implications). Quantum Mechanics ended up being folded in to the Materialist paradigm, and I see no reason why the same thing wouldn't happen with the discovery of aliens who can break the light speed barrier. I would think that as far things which would toss Materialist Reductionism on to the rubbish heap, discoveries as to the nature of consciousness (say if Consciousness were scientifically proven to be as fundamental to reality as gravity or electromagnetism) would be far more likely to achieve this than having to revise concepts about the speed of light.

How so? It's my understanding that the Materialist Reductionism paradigm allows for the possiblity both of interstellar travel and intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. How does the existence of aliens overturn the underlying assumption that Matter/Energy is all that exists of Reality?

Even if it does turn out to be the case that aliens spacecraft are visiting us, we're still a long way from having conclusive evidence available to the public which demonstrates that in an unambiguous way. Claiming off handedly that the 'US military has known about UFOs for years' isn't very conclusive without an official statement backed up by some hard evidence, or a whistleblower akin to an Edward Snowden who achieves something to that same effect. Low quality video footage that's highly ambiguous and interpretable as to its phenomenological cause is not hard evidence. Someone like David Fravor relating an experience that's corroborated by the accounts of a handful of other highly trained professionals saw is a lot better, and is enough to give the hypothesis some legs, but it still doesn't tell us what the phenomenological cause is of whatever these things are. And even if you believe that beyond a shadow of doubt that alien craft are visiting us, categorizing them as alien in origin still doesn't explain what these things are, what they're doing here, etc. About as useful saying something is human in origin; helpful in some ways, but there's still so much that it doesn't tell you. Are these types of phenomena worth studying further? Absolutely; the fact that there's a non negligible chance that some of these may be aliens warrants that. But it's just too early to say anything definitive about them for the time being.