That's irrelevant. You posted a thread that claimed Podesta answered a question about UFO's in a serious matter. He did not. You posted some guys ramblings that cite a Hitlary appearance on a late night comedy show as evidence to buttress that argument. It is all bullshit. The entire premise is faulty. It's all wishful thinking on the writers, and apparently your part.
Podesta has been sourced multiple times by multiple media orgs and others saying serious things about UFO's.
If your faulting this example helps you sleep better, be my guest.
= = =
I have an engineer friend . . . a very sharp Christian bloke. Has earned a very high income most of his adult life.
He's terrible at details. He won't remember much detail at all.
He remembers feelings. How did the event, narrative, statement, incident, people leave him feeling. That's just about all he will typically remember. He has to refer to notes or transcripts etc. for the details.
I'm a bit different. One of my friends told another friend that I had a mind like a steel trap for incredible detail--particularly details of conversations. That's helpful for a psychologist, BTW.
I don't give much priority to checking sources out much at all. I'm interested in the content and how it compares or doesn't compare with what I already know of the topic.
To state again what my boss said--who had the world's best private collection of pre-Hitler materials--it was the flakiest groups, the most fringe groups who
most accurately and earliest declared who Hitler was and what he would do.I realize you are highly likely to continue to maintain your death grip on a kind of fierce automatic skepticism--virtually regardless. At some not toooo distant point, that will no longer be functional. To see the look on your face then, could be interesting.
It may be that I'm more chronically open to flaky inputs because I've learned that I can learn something from virtually anyone. I discovered fairly early in life that a stance and attitude of my knowing it all was not very functional, practical or true--and it was hazardous.