The problem with *The Woo*

Is that it's an unnecessary part of the conversation.

Save that for after you show a vehicle. If you tell me there's no steering wheel and you control it with your mind, cool. But show the vehicle, first.

If you believe in - the 1897 Aurora, TX crash (as I do) - Or the 1942 Battle of Los Angeles (as I do) - Or Roswell, 1947 (as I do) - Or the 1952 Washington DC scare (as I do) - Or Lazar's claims of a "sports model" and ARVs (alien recreation vehicle) (I'm a little iffy on Lazar as a man but...) - If you believe we have a crash retrieval program (as I do)

Then we all agree that there's undeniable physical evidence, and not a small amount, and not so new that it's too edgy (even for us) to make part of the conversation.

It may very well be true that our minds are capable of great things or directly interfacing with technology. But it has little value in the sense of being evidence. Because evidence is independent, and objective.

Now let's talk about "showing these vehicles."

We get an image of an egg-shaped object suspended from another object. It's maybe 10 seconds long, and other than the existence of the video itself, there's nothing that we can connect that video to, in order to build objective trust in that video.

It's kind of like being accused of a crime. You can show me a polaraid of yourself against a white wall and use that to say you weren't at the scene of the crime. But why did you use such a low data method? Every camera phone in America geo-tags pictures now. That might better prove your innocence. Why not show your phone's GPS logs? Why not have independently verifiable information like a grocery receipt that matches when your phone was in that location? These are all examples of how additional context can add support to anything, so we don't have to take that person at their word. And the lack of said support ... well, it doesn't help to not have that additional context.

And yes, any "influencer," "discloser," or "leader" in this subject should be thinking about any evidence they share as if it were a court case. Because it is technically playing out in the court of public opinion, and will be treated similarly by Congress if they choose to pursue it. We're all the detective, here. And we want to bring the strongest possible evidence for Congress (the prosecutor) to get a conviction (full disclosure).

So as far as "showing vehicles," we get lights on the sky and a video so devoid of context that other than your own internal personal feelings about it, there's nothing we can do with it.

I'm not interested in debating if the woo is real because you can't take that before Congress and give them a string to pull to unravel the secrecy. They need evidence. Undeniable evidence. And while it'll be nice to summon a UAP to the steps of Capitol Hill, I'll settle for strong corroborating evidence, similar to how you'd proveyou weren't the scene of a crime.

Finally, Stanton Friedman was often misunderstood as a skeptic. He actually believed in the phenomenon. But he took an unpopular, pragmatic approach. I wish he were still around. It kinda seems like since he passed away the lunatics are running the nuthouse.