As we get better cameras/sensors, we find rational explanations for the UFOs we see. But at the same time we become more able to detect things we didn't previously see. There's never been a case where we detected something and it got more interesting as we got better information about it.
Some people see anything mildly unusual in the sky and rapidly conclude that it can't have a mundane explanation, so it must be some anomalous or extraterrestrial object, without any further investigation.
Some people do the exact opposite: if the available data even remotely fits some mundane explanation, they conclude that it must be mundane, without any further investigation.
Naturally, we are all aware of plenty of mundane objects, so it is natural to have strong priors. However, I also think that it is worth being a little curious and a little open-minded: when some data looks unusual, let's try to gather some more data, as there may be something interesting to discover.
This requires gathering data systematically, as data gathered accidentally can't be replicated. In other words, we should study objects in our atmosphere like we study the stars: systematically, with callibrated instruments, and an open curious mind.
That is why the Galileo Project by the astronomer Avi Loeb is such a breeze of fresh air.
Thanks, that is a good read! I had a similar thought earlier today while listening to a podcast about UFOs: the photos of mysteriously phenomena are always going to be blurry because that's what makes them mysterious. Better cameras cannot change that fact.
Though I had assumed that this "tautological blurriness" would become less common as cameras get better, but you have correctly pointed out that it won't because previously invisible things will now be upgraded from invisible to blurry and mysterious.
Associates who vouched for Grusch said his information was highly sensitive, providing evidence that materials from objects of non-human origin are in the possession of highly secret black programs. Although locations, program names, and other specific data remain classified, the Inspector General and intelligence committee staff were provided with these details. Several current members of the recovery program spoke to the Inspector General’s office and corroborated the information Grusch had provided for the classified complaint.
Why not simply demand that Grusch's complaint be declassified? If it is bunk, we have a right to know; the US Government does not have any Constitutional authority to conduct psyops on US citizens. If it is real, we also have a right to know that.
The one thing I am certain of is that the US Government is morally corrupt in keeping either one of these secrets from us (psyop or aliens), and it needs to come clean. We cannot have a democracy if our government is constantly undermining it by keeping us in the dark about anything it chooses to label as a "national security" matter.
Why shouldn't we trust official secrecy? Nearly 78 years ago, a secretive United States Government thrust its civilian population into the nuclear era by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, killing as many as 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians. The American public had no information about the bomb, no vote on its funding, and no choice about spending decades cowering in bomb shelters and under school desks. If Vladimir Putin did to Ukraine what we actually did to Japan in 1945, the entire world would call it a war crime. Official secrecy prevented any such democratic check from occurring in real time; how do we know that something similar isn't happening today?
As we get better cameras/sensors, we find rational explanations for the UFOs we see. But at the same time we become more able to detect things we didn't previously see. There's never been a case where we detected something and it got more interesting as we got better information about it.