@EhMe11

Feel bad so I sent you a Ṁanagram ❤

@SirCryptomind Aww you didn't have to do that! Thanks Sir! <3

False, this isn't proof, this is officially an allegation

>“A man assure an oath in front of congress that he saw a weird flashing light in the sky, but can’t tell more on it.”

>Amy : yes, of course that is the proof that we aren’t alone in the universe.

@DavidChee feel free to read the comments and if you choose to resolve NO or N/A based on the information, I will agree with your decision.

@EhMe11 Clear NO. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-oversight-committee-hold-hearing-ufos-rcna96154

Lawmakers call for greater transparency on UFOs during House Oversight hearing

Three former military officials testified during the congressional hearing held by the House Oversight subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs.

@FernandoIrarrazaval @Sodra @Teilo ^

@EhMe11 lol I have no idea what this question is even meant to be asking and what people are even betting on. I don't think this market could ever resolve YES and could only resolve NO according to how I would interpret such a title at face value. It's just a congressional hearing.

I would probably N/A it and next time actually write resolution criteria haha. Let me know if you want me to change it for you

@DavidChee go ahead and N/A it :)

@DavidChee I took her question as subjective to her interpretation of the testimony under oath in the hearing.
Not my market to decide, but if it is reversed to NO or N/A , I understand your point.
Also, maybe should have been marked non-predictive.

How can this be N/A since we didn't officially find out we are not alone in the universe by any source?

@FernandoIrarrazaval I left too much up for interpretation in my market, I figured we'd be hearing testimony under oath in this congressional hearing; posted the link in the description and I would say N/A is a fair choice since those who made bets did not do so with clear instruction.

@EhMe11 If that were the case, then about half of the markets in Manifold would resolve to N/A.

The answer to "Will today be the day we officially find out we're not alone in the universe?" is a clear NO, and I am unsure if there is any way to twist it to a YES. The people that bet YES were on the testimony of Grusch (which is clearly not official info).

@EhMe11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims

Post proof

define officially

@Sodra

Proof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ7Dw-739VY

Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Hearing

Learn more at https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/

Officially: Testimony Under Oath at the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Hearing by US Government Oversight

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/jul/26/ufo-hearing-congress-david-grusch-whistleblower-live-updates

UFO hearings live: whistleblower David Grusch says ‘non-human biologics’ found at alleged crash sites

Former intelligence official says information came from multiple colleagues but couldn’t ‘go into specifics’ at Congressional hearing into cover-up claims

@EhMe11 this is not official, this is a congressional hearing with a former intelligence official. The statements from someone on the other side of the stand do not make statements official or true.

@Sodra @SirCryptomind Thoughts? You seemed pretty sure I should resolve yes as well.

I can not say in anyway that it should have been resolved NO considering what we watched and heard from a protected and under oath whistleblower given their testimony given to the committee.
I can not say it should have been N/A either.

I watched, I heard, It is an official government hearing and it is all under oath.

And not to discredit Sodra, but they are new, have no chart or other trades, and were trading in a similar way with 4 other "new" users.

@SirCryptomind I would agree with this statement. One of the members of the committee Mr. Gaetz also mentioned he had been able to witness photographs, radar, and testimony of an UAP that to his knowledge, couldn't be man made or operated. First I've heard of a committee member stating something of this nature.

@SirCryptomind The statements of someone under oath do not automatically make them true, nor does it mean that the official position of the other side is that of agreeing with the person under oath.

Under oath means they will get in trouble if they lie. And if they are lying, they only get in trouble if the lie is revealed and the DoJ decides to prosecute.

Despite how much I want it to be true, this is not an official proof that we are not alone.

I signed up because I thought it would be an easy win, because I calculated the chances to be low enough that I thought betting everything would be worth it.

@EhMe11 I want to believe, and bet NO because I do not expect to be pleasantly surprised. What has happened today is that a man has said some things. We’ve not been shown alien craft, or corpses, or even photos. He may be right. He may be wrong. He may be mad. I do not think that today we officially learned anything other than there are more questions for officials with security clearance to answer.

@Noit Plus, as of right now I don’t see any headlines saying “We are not alone in the universe” are you arguing that the mainstream media is in the pocket of Big Alone-in-the-universe? Or is it simply not the news you imagine it to be?

Other people online that watched the hearing: "Nothing new you can't get from a conspiracy theory YouTube channel". Crazy that this was resolved YES.

https://twitter.com/GeneticJen/status/1684248900994060288