🏅 Top traders

< 1% what am I missing if anything?

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/09/nasa-clears-the-air-no-evidence-that-ufos-are-aliens/?utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_brand=ars&utm_source=twitter

NASA clears the air: No evidence that UFOs are aliens

NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific.

@AbdullaFaraz while it's technically accurate to say that UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) doesn't automatically equate to extraterrestrial life, making such a statement without presenting the strongest evidence for UFOs can be misleading. The claim seems to dismiss the phenomenon of UFOs as inconsequential or fully explained, which isn't the case. There are credible reports and videos released by the military and eyewitness accounts that defy conventional explanations. Therefore, if someone is going to assert that UFOs are not related to aliens, they should be ready to provide compelling evidence or theories that explain these anomalies. Otherwise, it feels like an attempt to shut down open discussion and inquiry into a subject that is still very much unresolved.

Do past endorsements count? (Source: UFOpanel.com about halfway down the page)

@MikeElias Can you tell me exactly what on that page I should be looking for? It's a long page, and "about halfway down" is not very specific.

@ScottLawrence Did you see the screenshot I attached? There's a black section of the site with high-ranking officials making statements about UFOs and the sources from which the statements came

@MikeElias even if past statement would count, I don't think these people qualify as high-ranking U.S. official defined in the description

@FranklinBaldo

Is this clause of yours — [[An endorsement can be as little as saying "we should take the idea of extraterrestrial influence seriously", or similar remarks.]]

Satisfied by this quote by President Truman? "I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on earth."

Or any other presidents on that page (screenshot for convenience)

@MikeElias Ah no, I didn't notice the screenshot sorry.

From your most recent screenshot, and taking those quotes at face value:

Gorbachev counts. Truman requires a bit more context---"given that they exist" could be sarcastic, for instance. Kennedy does not count. Ford does not count. Carter does not count.

I hope the reasoning is clear. There must be an explicit line drawn between UFOs and aliens. It's okay if the line is drawn by a question, and the official says "yes", of course.

Note that under no circumstances will this website or any like it count as one of the two required sources.

Here is the opposite question:

As things stand I think it's not clear how this market treats non-public statements. For instance, Biden tells his cabinet something in December, but it's not leaked until after the new year.

I want to update the resolution criteria to include something like: "the statement must either be public, or made public (e.g. leaked, and confirmed by an independent source) by the end of the year".

Thoughts? Objections?

@ScottLawrence Sounds fine, but you should probably restrict the news sourcing for the leak, otherwise any UFO website can claim a leak.

I haven't gotten around to it but I wanted to actually make a list of names in your market description and see also if there were any that you missed. I need to do that and some googling on public statements they've made to see how likely it might be.

@parhizj I won't be adding any more positions at this point, by the way. It's way too late in the market lifetime to do that!

The leak requires there to be reliable reporting of two independent sources. I don't want to restrict the news sourcing too tightly, but yes, obviously "some UFO website" is out. I don't really expect this market's resolution to come down to "which news to trust", so for now I think I'll go with "I'm using my judgement".

@ScottLawrence I've edited the description as discussed. Feel free to ask clarification questions.

Related:

I've added NSC to the list. I don't plan to do more additions unless someone makes a strong case.