Connect with us

Offbeat

UFO research allegedly ended in 2012, but it didn’t. Why keep lying?

Published

on

UFO research allegedly ended in 2012 but it didnt Why keep lying

The Pentagon, under the orders of former Senator Harry Reid, had a secret UFO research program working from 2007 to 2012. It allegedly ended, though reports indicate it simply had its direct funding pulled. Luis Elizondo, he headed the program, resigned in October and claims a replacement was named. So much for the program ending five years ago.

It’s hard to question why we have such a program. The real question is why they won’t just admit to it. Acknowledging the existence of a program doesn’t divulge any of its secrets. We know he CIA exists without knowing many of the details about what they do. Why does the Pentagon and/or the government in general feel they need to shroud such an endeavor in lies?

As one who doesn’t believe UFOs are from a planet far, far away, I’m still okay with the research itself. There are definitely unidentified flying objects. Our national security may require us to someday identify these objects. For all we know, some of them have been identified and our national security was protected as a result.

If it had been, we wouldn’t know about it.

Here’s the piece about the program from the NY Times:

Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.htmlOfficials with the program have also studied videos of encounters between unknown objects and American military aircraft – including one released in August of a whitish oval object, about the size of a commercial plane, chased by two Navy F/A-18F fighter jets from the aircraft carrier Nimitz off the coast of San Diego in 2004.

Mr. Reid, who retired from Congress this year, said he was proud of the program. “I’m not embarrassed or ashamed or sorry I got this thing going,” Mr. Reid said in a recent interview in Nevada. “I think it’s one of the good things I did in my congressional service. I’ve done something that no one has done before.”

Final Thoughts

This isn’t about disclosing secrets or causing an uproar. It’s about credibility. We need to know the government takes it seriously and we need to know they haven’t necessarily found anything too worrisome. Just put our minds at ease. Let us know you’re watching the skies, even if only to make us feel better.

Scarlett is a mom and a friend. She blogs for a living but really prefers to read more than write. She writes mostly about politics, but occasionally delves into book and movie reviews.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Personalized Artificial Intelligence: Project Pai hopes to let you do things for yourself without you

Published

on

Personalized Artificial Intelligence Project Pai hopes to let you do things for yourself without you

Imagine having a digital “avatar” that could do things for you. It could interact how you interact, do things on your behalf, and possibly even replace you in certain situations. Sound impossible? It may not be for long.

Project PAI, which stands for Personalized Artificial Intelligence, hopes to build these avatars based upon your online interactions. It utilizes blockchain protocols to power the creation of a “virtual you” that you can unleash on the web and eventually through other venues.

Let’s fast-forward a bit with speculation. Could this ever be used to create an avatar that is so much like you, it replaces you completely? Could it be used to help grieving friends and family once you die? Could it sit in for you in meetings? The potential here is incredible, but it can also be scary. There was an episode of Dark Mirror that took it to the extreme, taking similar concepts and applying them to a synthetic body that replaced  a deceased husband.

Others, as you can watch in the video above, are even more skeptical about the potential this brings.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

2700-year-old seal found in Jerusalem reaffirms Biblical narrative

Published

on

2700-year-old seal found in Jerusalem reaffirms Biblical narrative

Believers in the Judeo-Christian worldview have no problem believing that Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel/Judah since the days of King David 3,000 years ago. Skeptics and people with religious or political agendas have denied the claims of the Bible. Archaeological discoveries continuously prove their denials wrong, as was the case recently with a discovery at Jerusalem’s Western Wall.

Israeli archaeologists find 2,700-year-old ‘governor of Jerusalem’ seal impression

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-archaeology/israeli-archaeologists-find-2700-year-old-governor-of-jerusalem-seal-impression-idUSKBN1EQ0WHThe artifact, inscribed in an ancient Hebrew script as “belonging to the governor of the city”, was likely attached to a shipment or sent as a souvenir on behalf of the governor, the most prominent local position held in Jerusalem at the time, the Israel Antiquities Authority said.

The impression, the size of a small coin, depicts two standing men, facing each other in a mirror-like manner and wearing striped garments reaching down to their knees. It was unearthed near the plaza of Judaism’s Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem.

“It supports the Biblical rendering of the existence of a governor of the city in Jerusalem 2,700 years ago,” an Antiquities Authority statement quoted excavator Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah as saying.

This find is one among several dockets in recent years that reaffirm Israel’s claims to the city of Jerusalem. President Trump recently announced that the United States would acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital, sparking an international uproar that became a United Nations resolution against the move.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.