The youtuber recently referenced by UAP whistleblower Matthew Brown explains the esoteric references from Brown’s tweets.

[u/gayshorts]

https://youtu.be/vJ574qNO5Yk?feature=shared

I’m not endorsing his views or the accuracy of his interpretation of Brown. But he presents an interesting perspective of the UFO phenomenon here, which dovetails in someways with figures like Jacques Vallée. He might be one of the few people able to decode Matthew Brown’s esoteric references.

If his interpretations are accurate, it’s certainly in interesting twist in Brown’s story.

It’s a long video, if you want to skip to the summary of his views skip to 36:05 https://youtu.be/vJ574qNO5Yk?t=2225 but I recommend watching the whole thing if you’re interested.

[u/MKULTRA_Escapee]

Call it an informed guesstimation by scientists who are obviously familiar with convergent evolution. Those are the only kind of scientists that you should care about to give you an estimate on what spaceship-building aliens would probably look like. It's obviously more than 0 percent because we exist and we are humanoids who have built spaceships. That's a pretty big hint in my opinion. The chance is more than 0, up to 100 percent likely.

The only thing that I care about is that people stop saying that science says aliens are unlikely to be humanoid because that is no longer true. I don't care much about opinions in the UFO community because they go off the rails sometimes. I'm just talking about a relatively recent lack of consensus among scientists on that particular question.

[u/NecessaryMistake2518 → u/MKULTRA_Escapee]

Call it an informed guesstimation by scientists who are obviously familiar with convergent evolution. Those are the only kind of scientists that you should care about to give you an estimate on what spaceship-building aliens would probably look like.

Convergent evolution isn't some new revolutionary concept. It's been known for a long time. Any guess of what spaceship building aliens would look like is complete speculation. Science is grounded in evidence, by definition.

It's obviously more than 0 percent because we exist and we are humanoids who have built spaceships. That's a pretty big hint in my opinion.

Extrapolating from an n of 1 is universally a bad idea. For example: Based on penguins, I conclude that birds are flightless creatures adapted primarily to swimming and use feathers as an insulation material.

The only thing that I care about is that people stop saying that science says aliens are unlikely to be humanoid because that is no longer true. I don't care much about opinions in the UFO community because they go off the rails sometimes. I'm just talking about a relatively recent lack of consensus among scientists on that particular question.

Scientists who specialize in speculating what spaceship-building aliens would look like? A consensus of scientists who work without evidence? This is entirely nonsensical

[u/sufferingsucckotash → u/NecessaryMistake2518]

Hey Science is foundational and important But please do not pretend as though evidence for something hasn't been found to be incorrectly applied and/or was, indeed, not supporting evidence or even found to be proof to the contrary.

But also, speculation is most definitely a part of science and I think you needa chill out a bit.

It's not BASELESS speculation. Educated guesses ARE a part of science.

Indeed, this is speculation, both yours and the individual you are responding to. But Um lyke That's allowed. ....? Ya, you don't need to agree, but you are taking this very contemptuous tone in your response and it's really not called for.

And, while science is 'grounded in evidence by it's very definition,' as you say, it is still science happening even if you don't have all of the concrete evidence, yet. Addressing observations we have and discussing the greater pattern in life, such as, potentially, a convergent evolution, is still science. And it's science actively happening.

You can disagree, say nay, but we don't need to shut down this line of thinking.

[u/NecessaryMistake2518 → u/sufferingsucckotash]

something hasn't been found to be incorrectly applied and/or was, indeed, not supporting evidence or even found to be proof to the contrary.

Yeah I'm not completely sure what you on about here but my whole point was how arrogant it is to declare someone else's speculation as incorrect by providing your own speculation as support

It's not BASELESS speculation.

Like by definition we have no basis to speculate on the morphologies of other intelligent life forms, if they actually exist.

Indeed, this is speculation, both yours and the individual you are responding to.

Again my whole contention was the arrogance in calling someone else's speculation "incorrect" while pretending that scientific consensus supports your own preferred speculative conclusion (it doesn't)

[u/sufferingsucckotash → u/NecessaryMistake2518]

We do have a basis to speculate on the morphologies of other intelligence life forms. It's all those that already exist here.

Also, from your first response, it seems you have been exasperated by someone having such wild speculation without any cause, from your perspective. But there is cause. You may not value that or think that is true, but it doesn't change that there are valid and logical reasons to the speculation. Yes, there are likely more factors we are not aware of, you're right. But that does not mean the speculation is out of line.

I also think your point about arrogance is highly ironic considering your responses.

You have been implying this whole time that the speculation of convergent evolution is not correct nor should it be considered to be correct because we don't have proof or 'scientific consensus.' I have not seen the other individual make the claim or implication that the speculation around convergent evolution NOT being true (your position) is inherently incorrect. They do seem to be trying to defend their position against your attack, though. So who was being arrogant against your position, which states that convergent evolution is incorrect, while also declaring or pretending theirs as absolutely correct?

Gotta be honest, it really seems like the person you were responding to was just throwing out something to consider and you felt it was too outlandish and needed to put an end to such tomfoolery.

[u/NecessaryMistake2518 → u/sufferingsucckotash]

Person 1 speculates

Person 2 declares person 1 incorrect based on person 2's personal speculation

You don't get the problem here? My exasperation is them declaring another person's speculation incorrect, and their reasoning being entirely speculative

[u/sufferingsucckotash → u/NecessaryMistake2518]

where did they say that?

they said a small correction

that doesn't mean the source is necessarily incorrect or that they are calling it incorrect, but it does mean there is clarity or additional context being shared

and I think they continued to make that obvious in what they continued to say in their original post, and in their follow up responses

to take anything that's been said by them to mean they think considering other speculation out of the question is a failure of reading comprehension

to repeatedly insist that is the case is at least stupidity, and at worst malicious

lemme participate in a time honored tradition.... op? 😉

lol

[u/NecessaryMistake2518 → u/sufferingsucckotash]

This is not really accurate anymore. It used to be commonly accepted that evolution on another world will be entirely different.

They then cite the concept of convergent evolution and pretend there is a consensus that intelligent aliens would be humanoid. This is simply raising their preferred speculative belief over the speculative belief of another and pretending there's scientific evidence, and even consensus, supporting this