• HM05@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the important thing to keep in mind is that studies won’t always determine what an object was. They’ll likely stop research once they get enough data to support the idea of a prosaic source. That will leave a lot of sightings in a grey area where it’s easier and safer to assume prosaic. Some will grasp that as hope it could still be non-human. While others will accept it as proof it’s prosaic and move on. Just know that it’s okay to accept something as both unresolved, but potentially prosaic. There are a lot of sightings out there and it can be easy getting hung up on one event. Regardless, keep asking questions and pushing for answers on the subject as a whole.

    • SignullGone@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s also important to note that NASA has the same data as the public. I don’t believe they have access to the classified sensor data, which paint the full picture.

      • HM05@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m speaking broadly of cases. And, I feel like you may be misreading my statement where I support the idea of accepting things as prosaic, but understanding the limit of the research. Is there a specific incident you’d like to expand your statement upon?