UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOs

1239 readers

1 users here now

A community for civil discourse related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Share your sightings, experiences, news, and investigations. Everyone is welcome here, from believers to skeptics and everything in between.

New to Lemmy?

See the Getting Started Guide

Want Disclosure?

Declassify UAP offers a tool that automatically finds your representatives and sends them a prewritten message.

Community Spotlight

Useful Links

Community Rules

Follow the Code of Conduct.
Posts must be on-topic.
No duplicate posts.
No commercial activity.
No memes.
Titles must accurately represent the content of the submission.
Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post).
Common Question posts must include a link to the previous question thread if previously asked.
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion.

Other Communities

!uapmemes@lemmy.world

If you're interested in moderating or have any suggestions for the community, feel free to contact SignullGone or HM05_Me.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

SignullGone@lemmy.world

HM05_Me@lemmy.world

Top senators believe the US secretly recovered UFOs (thehill.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world to c/uap@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lynthe@sh.itjust.works -5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If your argument comes down to "you don't have the evidence to prove a negative" that's a pretty strong indicator that your argument is weak. People saying something isn't proof. If one is to make expansive claims there should be evidence to support those claims.

[–] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I dont think what you're saying is accurate.

"you don't have the evidence to prove a negative"

I dont think im asking for this. The poster I'm responding to is making very specific claims. Very definitively, that Grusch is lying, either for a money grab grift in some form, or due to "pathologies". For these specifics I would like some evidence, of which there is none.

If OP would leave it simply at "I don't believe it because I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me", then we would have a lot more in common as I'm in the same boat! I also want to see evidence regardless of which conclusion it leads to.

However, where we differ might be that given all the current info the public has, there is enough to take it seriously and desire more investigation. There's too much now to automatically say it's "absolutely untrue, and all BS and lies."