It seems that some individuals require a higher standard of evidence before accepting something as fact. The more fantastical claims often appeal to those who are already inclined to believe, but they may alienate those of us who are still searching for solid proof.
I find the subject fascinating. My interest was sparked by David Grusch, as I came to this topic with little knowledge of ufology beyond a basic understanding of the Roswell incident. After watching the Joe Rogan episode featuring Fravor, I became more engaged.
However, after nearly two years of following the discussions, it’s become painfully clear—at least to me—that there’s very little substantive evidence to get excited about.
While Grusch was certainly intriguing, he didn’t provide any concrete evidence. It seems he’s primarily relaying information from people with impressive titles, like Elizondo—who has claimed some unusual things—rather than substantiating those claims himself.
This doesn’t hold much weight, even under oath. I could say, “An esteemed intelligence official involved in a UAP program told me we possess alien spacecraft,” and if it turned out that Elizondo was the source, I wouldn’t actually be lying—but it wouldn’t be convincing either.
Unfortunately, the Grusch revelations appear more impressive in theory than in practice. Beyond that, we have almost nothing concrete to substantiate claims of alien visitation; I genuinely mean that—nothing.
Sure, there are eyewitness accounts, and yes, they come from credible sources like pilots and military personnel. But for me, that’s simply not sufficient. We have an overwhelming number of witness reports, yet the only tangible “evidence” we can point to involves the FLIR, GIMBAL, and GOFAST videos—all of which, in my opinion, fall short of being convincing.
Consider this: if you weren’t already invested in the topic, and you were shown those videos, would you genuinely think, “Wow, this looks like intelligent alien life has traveled light-years to reach us and is flying around in this manner”?
The only reason those videos are even considered to depict UFOs is due to the specific lens through which they are viewed. To me, they aren’t convincing at all—not in the slightest.
So what do we actually have? Essentially, it’s a mountain of hearsay. In fact, there seems to be more evidence supporting the claims of the Abrahamic religions than for alien visitation. It’s noteworthy that many credible individuals with impressive backgrounds truly believe in the existence of the Christian God, which is something to consider when evaluating their claims.
As it stands, we have very little. Now, they seem to be leaning into the more abstract and spiritual narratives, claiming that evidence exists within one’s soul, that UFOs don’t require hard evidence—just an open mind, and so on.
This approach appears to be a way of keeping those who believe still engaged because they don’t have any tangible proof to offer.
You bring up some very valid points about the current state of evidence surrounding the UFO phenomenon. It’s understandable to feel frustrated when so much hype exists around figures like Grusch or the compelling testimonies of military personnel, yet we still lack concrete, verifiable evidence.
Your skepticism about eye-witness accounts is particularly noteworthy. While personal experiences can feel significant, they are, as you said, often subjective and open to interpretation. It’s crucial to differentiate between testimony and empirical evidence, especially in a field where extraordinary claims are being made.
The videos you mentioned—the FLIR, Gimbal, and Go Fast footage—do spark curiosity, but as you’ve pointed out, they leave much to be desired in terms of convincingness. The context in which we view these videos is heavily influenced by our pre-existing beliefs and interests, and without additional corroboration, it’s easy to see why one might find them inconclusive.
Moreover, the shift towards more abstract or spiritual interpretations, as you noted, could be seen as a way for some to keep the conversation alive in the absence of hard evidence. It might appeal to those who want to believe but also raises the question of whether we’re shifting the goalposts for what constitutes valid evidence in this discourse.
At the end of the day, it seems like a reasonable approach to remain open-minded but also rigorously critical. If anything concrete does emerge from the ongoing investigations or testimonies, it will be interesting to see how it shapes the discussion going forward. Until then, it’s completely rational to demand stronger evidence before jumping to conclusions about alien visitations.