This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/ufos by /u/Frutbrute77 on 2024-08-26 22:19:17+00:00.
Go to 47:30 for the comments by Kirkpatrick. I have listed them below:
“That's why my NASA partners have been so important on this of if there's an extraterrestrial civilization, how did they find Earth? How did they get here? How are they refueling and moving around? And what are the top three most probable ways all of that happens, and what are the signatures associated with that document that in a peer reviewed paper, or papers peer reviewed, not just put on somebody's website, and then that gives you a grounding for that hypothesis. So now, if I have data that matches that signature. I can say that. But most of my data, in fact, all of my data, matches either the middle or the left. And I can tell you for certainty that we have absolutely no evidence that anything matches the extraterrestrial hypothesis. We have no evidence of any of that, all of the evidence we have and all of the observations we have, including ones where people say, I don't understand it, it looks like it's violating the laws of physics, I can guarantee you that's not. There are advanced state of the art technologies out there today that that can maneuver and flight controls, that don't have control surfaces that don't leave a trail, and they are being commercialized. “
Kirkpatrick’s argument essentially states that for any claim of extraterrestrial technology to be valid, it must be backed by peer-reviewed research that sets a baseline. However if no peer reviewed research currently exists that sets a baseline for what to look for with ET tech then AARO will always be justified in saying they have no evidence of ET tech. I don’t know why no one has ever brought this up before. Kirkpatrick has literally told us the playbook as to why AARO is justified in making those statements, even when confronted with anomalous data. Constant word salad with these folks.