Significant evidence in support of non-human intelligence's (NHI) presence on Earth exists. Lawyers have argued that the evidence already rises above that which would result in a positive judgment in a civil lawsuit. However, many, perhaps a majority, of people are unwilling to seriously discuss the topic. Why is that? Please help with some research.
If you agree that non-human intelligence is present, click "Agree." Otherwise, think honestly, considering what could be occurring subconciously, about your own views of non-human intelligence and respond with the answer that best describes the reason you do not agree that non-human intelligence is present on Earth. Here are descriptions of the reasons:
AGREE
I already agree that the balance of the evidence is in favor of non-human intelligence.
IGNORANCE
I never had much interest in the topic and honestly can say I was not aware of most of the following:
The UAP Disclosure Act was a 64-page bill proposed by the Senate Majority Leader and supported by Republicans
The bill would have created a Presidential commission with subpoena power and eminent domain to collect records and physical evidence and declassify it, as well as to produce books and documentary films describing the intelligence in easy terms for public consumption, around late 2024
The bill was successfully opposed by five Representatives who represent districts where Lockheed Martin has been suggested to store NHI evidence
Research indicates that the percentage of scientists who took NHI seriously increased from ~25% to ~70% after a few hours of basic reading
Barack Obama admitted that UFOs exist and that "we don't know what they are"
The US government released multiple videos of craft performing "five observables" of extreme motion changes that would destroy any human vehicle
The government agency responsible for resolving UFOs determined 290 reports as not attributable to traditional object like drones and planes, and also not a product of either a domestic or foreign military technology
40 whistleblowers, some as first-hand witnesses and others in Cabinet-level positions, have testified under penalty of perjury to the existence of non-human intelligence
5% of humans report "abduction" experiences, and the described beings in the experiences match the physical descriptions of the government whistleblowers
There are an estimated 1,000,000 sightings of truly unexplained UFOs per decade
Significant evidence of numerous events exists, where a large number of high-quality witnesses were present with corroborating accounts, and physical evidence is available
It is not relevant whether I am convinced by these facts or not. I was simply unaware of them unintentionally, and was not willfully ignorant as described in some of the other reasons.
ANXIETY
As non-human intelligence gathers more evidence and has been reported on mainstream outlets like CNN and Fox News, I am at least somewhat aware of the topic.
However, the possibility of higher beings frightens me. I get anxiety from thinking that these beings could kill or harm humans at will, or could have manipulated human history for their own goals. This anxiety may be conscious or subconscious. I avoid discussions and research on the topic because talking about it brings up this anxiety that I wish to avoid.
DENIAL
I am at least somewhat aware of the topic, but I strongly don't want it to be true. Therefore, consciously or subconsciously, I act as if it could not possibly be true. I may even make jokes about "aliens" or demean others who take the topic seriously.
I want humans to be the most important creatures in existence because if that were not true, I would feel unimportant, or my religious beliefs would have always been wrong, or something other belief I held for a long time would have been false. I may even deeply suspect that non-human intelligence exists, but am embarassed to apologize to the people I derided as conspiracy theorists who were right all along.
SOCIALIZATION
I believe that if I discuss the topic seriously with others, they will perceive me negatively. They would even perceive me negatively if the truth were obvious.
I may even simply avoid researching the topic on the grounds that if the evidence leads me to believe the topic has merit, I would become "crazy" or "insane" myself.
Or, for good or bad, the opinions of others matter so much more to me that I simply don't care about non-human intelligence. Even if 100% of all claims were true, it still is more important to me that my friends or family perceive me positively than that I fully understand the topic.
REASONING
None of the other answers apply to me. I have researched the topic for at least 20 hours by watching whistleblower testimony, reading books, and/or viewing serious, evidence-based documentaries (i.e. excluding Ancient Aliens).
After reviewing the evidence I read about, I concluded that all of the sightings and the government whistleblower claims are more consistent with an alternate explanation.
1,000People are also trading
Hmm.. probably shouldn't have clicked an option before reading the description. After reading I'd say ignorance is more accurate than socialization; my initial thinking was I simply assume UFO/UAPs aren't alien in origin because I don't know any smart people I respect taking that seriously, nor any consensus of potentially semi-relevant experts (therefore no bothering to take seriously or do research, etc.). But I did not in fact know some of the things in the ignorance section, and I don't think anything in the socialization section applies to me.
Unfortunately you can't change or take back an answer. Not that it really matters, but just thought I'd throw this comment here in case anyone happens to see I'm the lone person in the socialization category lol.
@DavidHiggs After re-reading what's in the ignorance section, I think I lean in agreement of Fion: why think that's worth spending 20 hours researching further? In particular, the 1,000,000 sightings per decade stat, and the agreement between the physical descriptions of sightings & the physical descriptions of whistleblowers, are actually disconfirmatory pieces of evidence.
The sightings for UFOs are similar to Bigfoot or cryptid sightings, eyewitness reports of miracles, etc. Specifically they emerged only after popular media depictions of aliens, agree w/ said popular media in terms of the appearance of aliens, and similar such things. This is similar to how Bigfoot sightings and religious experiences are dictated by the surrounding culture & continuously empirically unverified (or unverifiable) by reliable methodology like peer reviewed scientific studies, pointing to internal psychological explanations like the myriad faults in human perception, memory and reasoning.
This leads to alien sightings for past decades being no serious evidence for alien visitations, and anything which closely agrees to such sightings also being likely cultural in origin. A.k.a. disconfirmatory evidence.
Subjective estimation that I wasted my time even going through this level of reasoning: ~50%. (Most people either already knew the general gist and had similar conclusions, or won't be remotely convinced, nor be inspired to go learn up on cognitive biases, probabilistic/bayesian reasoning, etc.)
*Is this what you really mean? You're asking about the interdimensional hypothesis, ultraterrestrials, and parallel universes, specifically in relation to UFOs. These concepts delve into speculative and theoretical ideas that are not mainstream in scientific discourse but are often explored in science fiction and theoretical physics.
The interdimensional hypothesis posits that UFOs might originate from other dimensions beyond our familiar three-dimensional space. Ultraterrestrials refer to beings that are not just from other planets but from a higher, more advanced form of existence or civilization. And the idea of parallel universes suggests that there could be multiple, perhaps infinite, universes existing alongside ours, with the possibility that UFOs are visitors from these alternate realities.
It's crucial to remember that these ideas, while intriguing, are largely speculative and not widely supported by empirical evidence within the scientific community. They often intersect with complex theories in physics, like string theory and quantum mechanics, which hypothesize the existence of extra dimensions and parallel universes, but their connection to UFOs remains in the realm of hypothesis.
*Written by non-human intelligence.
I spent about 3 minutes reading the description assuming this was about animal intelligence in the context of animal welfare discussions or something. Then finally worked out it was aliens and felt cheated.
By the way, what's this implication that you need to study something for at least 20 hours to reject it? Have you studied flat earth for 20 hours? Lizardmen? The theory that the moon is made of cheese? There are literally thousands of improbable theories that are not worth 20 hours of my time.
Actually, you know what? We're on a prediction market website, let's do this: If I spend 20+ hours researching aliens, will I think it was a good use of my time? https://manifold.markets/Fion/if-i-spend-at-least-20-hours-studyi?r=Rmlvbg
I will try to answer you by more than by checking the box. I did not study the evidence closely. The main reason is that it is very hard to actually distinguish what is real and what not. People lie, can get confused, and then there are people who like conspirations and create stories that can be even harder separated from truth. Even worse, there are many things that actually can be going on - like people covering a large corruption, etc. So, before even going to details, I made a meta-decision not to go too close to details* (knowing I would not be able to untangle it from where I stand). There is the effect where spending effort and reading very closely always makes you lean towards believing the story, or (if you have reasons not to believe it, refusing it). It is hard to read the story and not change your opinion. Yet, as I wrote before, people are not reliable sources of information, in particularly if you are not sure whether the source is correct and what other factors are at play, so on a meta-level, such evidence should not change your mind too much. (Plus there is the effort to actually read it).
While I think that I would not be able to tell the conspiracy from where I stand, I believe that if it is large enough, it would eventually leak. Even if the U.S. government is excellent in covering the tracks, if the NHI and UFO are real, there is many countries that should be able to spot them and publish their findings. Global conspiracy controlling all resources able to detect UFO seems extremely unlikely. Even individual scientific teams equipped with stratospheric baloons with cameras should be able to capture it sometimes. There should be mainstream media reporting about it, there should be renown scientists investigating evidence and claiming UFO are real (and not single cases either). That not happening is substantial evidence against the hypothesis, even not looking into details of the whistleblower's testimonials. (I believe media are independent and have large resources and motivation, if there is anything to it). That is +- the point where I would start taking it seriously.
So, I am not sure how you would classify me. As an optimist, I would call it informed ignorance with a bit of reasoning, but I will let that up to you, whether you will call me to be in denial or something else.
* In my country, there are lot of servers writing Russian propaganda memes and stories. It is known to be orchestrated, because there are people who do statistics on which narratives are how common and they tend to change in a correlated way in some pivotal moments, like blowing of ammunition storage and the stories changing over night. When some people ask me to verify particular claims, it is often very difficult. If I would go with completely open mind towards those stories with no priors, I might be persuaded, yet I know they are not true.
@Irigi I think that I would classify you in the "social" category - you appear to be worried that if you review the evidence, you might be convinced that UFOs are caused by NHI.
I do think it's worth discussing one key point you brought up: you are incorrect in saying that the story has "not leaked." The story is actually the worst-kept secret in the world. People have been making deathbed confessions about this stuff and leaking images and videos for 80 years. As I pointed out above, > 5% of people are saying they have seen these beings; it's not some sort of government-only thing. Remember, there are 40 people, up to the Cabinet level, who have put their careers on the line to say that this is true. While some books are low-quality and fictional, there are other hundreds of pages+ books that perform scientific investigations and draw serious conclusions. You are absolutely right that there is no way it could remain secret for so long, and it has not been a secret at all. People just have been convinced, partly by a disinformation campaign the CIA itself conducted during the 1980s that flooded the zone with fake data, that it's ridiculous.
There are some people who are indeed saying things such as "why haven't I seen the craft the government has?" Aside from what I've mentioned above (that there actually are various videos and images leaked before Winner, Snowden, and Manning tightened things up), these people don't understand what it's like to work in a SCIF. It is impossible to get anything out. Taking a phone into a SCIF accidentally one time is grounds for termination; this is why I didn't vote for Hillary, who didn't play by the rules of the average government employee. The computers inside SCIFs are not connected to the Internet, have no external drives, and a database is created of every outgoing print job. To perform Internet research, employees go to computers in a different building, print out thousands of pages of documents, and then bring the paper back into the SCIF to type source code in by hand. Inside the SCIF, there are SAP rooms that have additional locked doors and security measures separated even beyond the rest.
I think that your hesitancy to seriously research the topic is a key example of why so few people are calling for an investigation. While you are open to it yourself, however, you can also see here how there are a number of negative comments that demean even the poll itself, like @MaxHarms's statement that he regrets having engaged with it. Why does anyone feel so strongly about answering a free Internet poll?
Seriously, though, it's generally pretty easy to figure out who is making claims that are far out extrapolations and which things have more merit. You can actually figure out a remarkably consistent narrative about how the programs got to their current state, what crimes have occurred, what the nature of the intelligence is, what impacts disclosure would have, and why there is a sort of looming "deadline" now as opposed to any time before. I don't want to lengthen this post with that, but could write that summary sometime elsewhere.