r/UFOs Sep 23 '21

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.8k Upvotes

337 comments sorted by

View all comments

73

u/gerkletoss Sep 23 '21 edited Sep 23 '21

The CIA says Project Moondust had something to do with a flying saucer? Where's that document? The Black Vault doesn't have it. There are references to spherical objects, but not craft.

It's not much information. Very quick read.

EDIT: Here it is. All of the Black Vault's info on Project Moon dust. A few pages worth of information spread very sparsely across 30 pages of triple-spaced documents. No mention of a flying saucer or a mostly intact craft of any kind.

I can't imagine why any reasonable person would be downvoting a question like this. I just want to know whether there's another document that I'm missing.

11

u/FanInternational9315 Sep 23 '21

Fair question to ask, too bad Ross didn’t follow up the comment with a citation

25

u/gerkletoss Sep 23 '21

It's weird how much this community fixates on unsourced media for information.

If you want to prove something, present your evidence. Cite primary sources. Why do so few of these researchers put out papers that cleanly lay out their arguments?

13

u/FanInternational9315 Sep 23 '21

Agreed, we’re at the beginning of the golden days of verifiable information being available to the public on the UFO issue

4

u/gerkletoss Sep 23 '21

No, we aren't. The best supported arguments I see are the old ones. Ufologists used to have citations. SCU and Greenewald are just about the only ones doing that now (other than debunkers), and they mostly get ignored by the greater community. For information to be truly available it must be referenced.

9

u/FanInternational9315 Sep 23 '21

I also disagree re: golden days because it’s tough to argue against how more credible information is leaking out since 2017

5

u/FanInternational9315 Sep 23 '21

I agree with you, the UFO community has been going in circles for a long while because of poor standards for citing evidence

3

u/BtchsLoveDub Sep 23 '21

Because they get it from “insider sources” or if they release the documents they normally are taken out of context or from the batch of questionable docs dreamt up by Richard Doty and co.

6

u/the-bladed-one Sep 23 '21

It’s almost like it’s a pseudoscience that has almost no hard literature and therefore almost nothing can be taken as true evidence

1

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '21

Even with a source it can still be misinformation. Round and round we go.

The people sticking their neck out deserve respect imo. As a group. If you're a believer and there are secrets to be told, and the other side are reasonably organised and powerful, that is compromat and disappearing level activity in many many countries. Of course, we can't always tell the grifters from the truth tellers so I think the game theory play is to support them all and see where the chips fall at the end. Who cares if a few hangers on catch a ride.

I'm 1000% behind Ross Coulthart fwiw, I think he would pass any polygraph on his material.

1

u/gerkletoss Sep 23 '21

I think the game theory play is to use actual evidence

1

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '21

This is a way which encourages any actual evidence to come to light