141
Pentagon ex-UFO chief says conspiracy theorists in government drive spending
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
141 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
71989 readers
3444 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I came here to link exactly that article. It's always important to do a little digging and verify claims before latching onto them, but people are embracing Kirkpatrick's claims without a second thought. It's easier for people to focus on one claim that supports their preexisting beliefs than to consider they may be wrong.
Whether or not any UAP come from some non-human origin, the government itself (including Kirkpatrick) has admitted there are unknown objects that don't match any known technology. If they could apply a label of even potentially being a drone, plane, or balloon, they would do so as they have done before. At minimum, it's a failure on the DOD to monitor our airspace. Just last year, the US engaged with and fired missiles at still publicly unknown objects over our airspace. However, Kirkpatrick is basically dismissing his former role as a waste of resources just because they can identify most (not all) reports.
My question is: What’s in giving these interviews and making these statements for him? He’s exited the role, he’s made himself clear about the stance he took when he was in the role. Why continue to talk?
When I leave a job and go somewhere new I’m not obsessed with dragging my old workplace.
He's still in a potentially relevant role. It seems that he immediately moved on to a role at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as Chief Technology Officer for Defense and Intelligence Programs. They do handle government contract work, so no telling if they have any projects that would benefit from his statements. I'm not one to delve into alleged government UAP programs, though I've seen Oak Ridge mentioned a lot. They have a lot of unique programs that are bound to stir curiosity.