Instead of blanketing the Earth with data centers or putting them in orbit, we should be putting them on the ocean floor and engineering them to be artificial reefs.
Exactly, the accredited investors got to buy in early.
Now, just look at it this way. Tomorrow if you're buying in, you're essentially funding the exit of those 4,000 soon to be millionaires.
Who knows what happens tomorrow, but I'll be watching the show from the sidelines.
Sucks you're getting flamed. It's completely reasonable to expect a new vehicle to never have to be towed for service. I've been very close to having my R1S towed, but thankfully was able to bring it back to life with hard reboots (12v battery issue). I'm on my 6th or 7th service with it, not great, but also not terrible. No brand should be beyond criticism.
Tesla people and the Rivian people now
Reddit finds the Australian documents David Grusch just referenced.
AI Summary Below:
These pages appear to be an Australian National Archives document summarizing an argument about U.S. and Australian official handling of UFO reports from 1947 through the late 1960s.
Key points:
The document claims early USAF intelligence took UFO reports seriously, initially considering Soviet origin and later, in some circles, possible interplanetary origin.
It argues that Project SIGN, Project GRUDGE, and later Project BLUE BOOK shifted from investigation toward public dismissal or “debunking,” especially after concern that mass sightings could overload defense communications or be exploited by the USSR.
The CIA’s Office of Scientific Intelligence is portrayed as quietly interested in UFO performance and propulsion, while public-facing programs allegedly minimized the subject.
The 1952 wave of sightings, including Washington D.C. events, is described as a turning point that led to the Robertson Panel in 1953 and a public-relations approach aimed at reducing public concern.
The document criticizes the Condon Report and Project BLUE BOOK conclusions, saying they conflicted with underlying data and were rejected by some scientists, including J. Allen Hynek.
It highlights statistical claims from BLUE BOOK material suggesting that higher-quality sightings were more likely to remain “unknown,” contradicting the idea that better data would explain sightings away.
It links U.S. interest in “saucer” aircraft, Avro projects, gravity control, and anti-gravity research to possible attempts to emulate UFO performance, though these claims are speculative within the document.
The Australian section says the RAAF treated UFO investigation as a low-priority air-defense matter, with minimal staffing and little scientific analysis.
It criticizes Australian identifications of sightings, including allegedly invalid Venus and meteor explanations, and says Australia relied too heavily on USAF public attitudes.
The final recommendation is that Australia should not remain ignorant or simply follow U.S. public policy, but should create a scientifically sound, intellectually honest investigation, possibly under a department better suited than the RAAF.
Overall, the document’s thrust is: official public dismissal of UFOs is presented as a facade, while the author argues that intelligence agencies privately considered the phenomenon more serious and that Australia should investigate independently and scientifically.
"The American people deserve more than vague denials and selective releases": UAP whistleblower David Grusch speaks about the importance of disclosure, saying he wants to help Congress and the president restore lawful accountability and to be transparent with Americans.
He also stresses the need for whistleblower protections after learning he was being investigated after testifying before Congress in 2023.
More: https://t.co/nY25rXzhTm
I listen to a lot of this stuff, but this is indeed one of the craziest stories I've heard in a while even in this space.
Luigi has been holding this one back it seems. I'm still not sure how I feel about it.
The psionic space is very messy and I tend to agree with @pavelibarrameda and Corbell on their views here.
At best I'm highly suspicious of some of the characters involved based on their behavior. I've also seen ample evidence that some of them(perhaps majority) absolutely are misidentifying what they are seeing.
https://t.co/I5PJve9NSW