> The Joe Rogan Experience video is such speculation that I cannot take any of it as fact. He jumps around in speculative ideas, descriptions and theories. Using titles or rank as a means of factual integrity is thin. It's still hearsay

Speculation is speculation, but he also methodically goes through exactly what he and others saw on the day the video was recorded.

> People want to believe, but the fact remains there is zero undisputed evidence for off-world UFOs.

I agree, but this is a compelling case of something, that according to multiple witnesses, seems to defy the laws of physics as we understand them. Saying it is aliens is speculation, saying it is something we do not understand is not.

What is the scientific meaning of "undisputed evidence"?

People are paychologically inclined to dispute, dismiss and deride things conflicting with their convictions.

The crucial point is, few are distinguishing between "sombeody is against this" and "somebody has a rational argument against it". Arguments do not count more just by many repeating them. That is, they shouldn't.

> zero undisputed evidence

Why would this ever be a useful qualification for any kind of evidence?

Seems like a simple troll with questionable intentions could in such a case easily undermine useful evidence of any quality.

yeah, Joe Rogan's video on it was just pure entertainment. No value. By definition, it's an unidentified flying object. So by nature, it's alien, but not in the little green men sense. It's unknown. Could be man, could be hallucinations, could be drones, could be meteors, each case is unique. However, my family was involved so I know some things the public doesn't. I'm a believer. Without a doubt.

So… they couldn’t keep Clinton‘s blowjob a secret for a few months, but somehow manage to do that for a super-secret report on extraterrestrials visiting earth, for almost 80 years and going?

I doubt it :)

So, you think it's impossible for the US to have maintained the integrity of any of its classification levels above public, for more than a few months, and also impossible it could have done so for decades for anything secret at all?

UFOs are the sort of the thing that you could easily leak for something like "street cred," and as we just saw last month, there's a lot of people who would be willing to leak something just for the street cred.

I think the government has been working hard to maintain that aura of superiority, of being the omniscient power that rules it all.

But despite this, there’s budget planning, whistle blowers, leaks to the press, corruption, and political struggle. I’m completely positive that no human organisation can keep something so far reaching secret for a prolonged amount of time.

The problem is that leaks prove, every time they happen, that there definitively is a given amount of successfully-hidden information, up until that time. We may also safely assume leaks are the exception not rule, and so not complete.

It'd be interesting to see a "time to disclosure" metric, of average times from classification to leak, to get a lower bound on secrecy, but it could only be reasonably considered a lower bound, the upper could be anywhere.

It's also possible agencies responsible for secrets may have worked hard to maintain an aura of being incompetent at keeping them, in order to hold an advantage over their adversaries by misdirecting efforts to the wrong areas.