Sure, there's that to hide, but two key points:

1) it doesn't mean there's not anything else to hide. No obliviousness about that, the only obliviousness seems to be yours when you think that you can't have more Categories of hidden things, Cacti haha! :)

and

2) given that counterintelligence (CI) disinformation is used to protect classified weapons systems, it erodes your point that there's no disinfo or obfuscation.

> there is no topic area denial or whatever you’re talking about. no one is stopping anyone from discussing it, claiming anything, or publishing anything. there were hearings in congress for gods sake. what exactly do you think is being covered up here?

Your tone is a little bit hysterical. A desperation that erodes the seeming sureness with which you intend your words. Given that this topic has a documented history of being targeted with disinformation and counterintelligence (Blue Book, AARO), your assertion rings hollow.

Combine that with how the people present at the hearings in congress (including congressfolk themselves) have spoken multiple times about there being a coverup, and being stopped from discussing it (in a classified settings, SCIF denial), and that DOPSA has held up Grusch's op-ed, your take comes across as somewhat misinformed of the facts, to put it lightly.

I get it's possible to have that take from a distance, and even desirable. Doing so prevents you from having to update your priors or worldview to include what is understably very difficult-to-process information, to put it lightly. If that's what you're struggling with, there's no shame in that. Just take it at your own pace.

But try not to be abusive to other people with these types of hysterical outbursts and weak assertions aggressively offered. The implication of your words is that anyone who takes this topic with the seriousness it deserves, is some sort of cretin.

That's not a very nice thing to say, but I get it could be compensatory for you. I also get that from a distance it could be easy to form that opinion of this topic, because that opinion directly reflects the CI disinfo about this topic, that aims to discourage people from discussing it seriously by convincing them that only cretins would do so.

It's also incorrect. If you're up to it, it's a challenging intellectual engagement. One I think you'd be worthy of, once you calm down hahahaha! :)

I'm sure you might find this offensive but if you want to take it slow, it would be better to hold your tongue in public than speak about things you don't know, because I think that would only weaken the bubble you put around yourself, which is counter to your objective of protecting yourself from awareness of this reality.

Anyway, your view is a little bit behind the times of where the reality of this topic is, right now. I am thrilled however that you found my comment such a challenge to your (admittedly, I'm sorry to say) archaic view of this topic, that you were spurred to respond haha! :)

> what’s happening is that the people who believe are upset that no one accepts their evidence. that’s all it is. this is not a both sides are equal situation. there is one side who knows the evidence to date is insufficient, and there is everyone else.

There's truth to that. But it's not the whole picture. The "evidence" is actually really good, even in the open. The classified evidence is also really good. It's not actually a data problem. But I get you could be misled by the evidence seeming crap, if you start with a crap dataset: take all the good data and mix it in with lots of crap (obvious fakes, obvious balloons), and you get an incorrect picture that the data is crap.

That poisoning the evidence is actually one of the pillars of the disinformation CI activity on this topic. The fact that your viewpoint of denial carves out so nicely the contours of the disinfo in reverse makes me think you have a background in information warfare that you aren't sharing haha! :)

> disinformation isn’t the issue. obfuscation isn’t the issue. cultural stigma isn’t the issue.

These things are issues, and are meant to be issues. There are released government reports of the past where it's stated the CI objective is to persuade the public the topic is too ridiculous to discuss, in order to protect against public discovery of realities around it. Even among skeptics the disinfo CI of this topic is well established.

> if you want to have people accept crap for evidence, pick something less titanic than the first evidence of intelligent life outside of earth, maybe try something smaller first like your aunt betty was talking shit about uncle joe. people will accept crap evidence for something like that.

Hahaha! Dude maybe you're talking about your own life there, but I think you're just not informed of this topic. Unfortunately, it is not an "evidence issue", but that is a common CI/disinfo talking point.