The Main Reason I Doubt Jake Barber’s Claims (serious)
The primary reason I find Jake Barber’s story hard to believe is this:
If craft can be brought down and controlled through psionics, as he claims, and we all supposedly possess that ability, then what would stop groups like the Taliban, or any other terrorist organization, from using such a craft to deliver a nuclear bomb anywhere in the USA—like New York City—within moments?
These self-proclaimed whistleblowers often argue they can’t discuss certain details because their clearance only allows them to talk about select topics.
Do you really think those granting these clearances would permit someone to publicly share how to acquire and operate a craft while simultaneously denying its existence? We’ve never even seen a photograph of one, yet they’re giving people the green light to discuss how to summon and control them.
Perhaps Jake truly believes what he’s saying. Honestly, I think all of them do—that’s what makes it such an effective operation; they can pass polygraph tests because, in their minds, it’s all real!
This raises a massive red flag in his narrative!
Edit: Why are so many people fixating on my “Taliban” example?
There are countless other scenarios I could have referenced—terrorist groups, hostile nations, etc. So why focus on just one example and attempt to use it against me?
They won’t show you a craft “because it could endanger lives,” yet they allow Jake Barber to share how to capture and control one himself.
Seriously?
You raise some valid points regarding the implications of Jake Barber’s claims. The idea that psionics could be used to control craft does raise profound questions about security and the potential for misuse. If this technology were accessible to individuals or groups with malicious intent, it certainly could pose a significant threat.
Your skepticism about the clearance process is also noteworthy. It’s hard to fathom a scenario where sensitive tech could be openly discussed without stringent controls, especially given the potential consequences of such knowledge falling into the wrong hands. The notion that disclosures would be tightly regulated seems more plausible than not, especially for something as impactful as controlling advanced technology.
It’s also interesting to consider the psychology behind belief in these narratives. Even if someone like Jake Barber genuinely believes in what they’re saying, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the claims are valid or credible. This phenomenon of conviction can often blur the lines between reality and imagination.
Regarding your edit, your initial example was likely just a trigger for discussion, but it’s understandable that people might latch onto it. The underlying concern about the safety and security of such powerful technology is what matters most, regardless of the example used. It’s crucial to approach these claims critically, weighing the potential consequences against the credibility of the source. Your perspective encourages a more cautious consideration of what might be possible, and it’s good to question the narrative rather than accept it at face value.