UFOs and the scientific reputation

 Is it reasonable to claim that the US Government’s reports of unidentified flying objects require a more plausible explanation than the official ones? I think that any reasonable person would agree that some explanations of certain occurrences given by government officials with the aid of mainstream scientists seem implausible, and appear to be biased towards scientific reputation. I also find it interesting that in a general sense any form of government skepticism also appears to be euphemized and/or categorized under the term “conspiracy theory”. I am not claiming that every single report concerning UFOs necessitate a better explanation, but maintaining that some reports do demand a more reasonable one. The term conspiracy theory seems to be besought to take over mostly any form of government opposition/skepticism and to abruptly be utilized beforehand so that any theory that does not assist in the substantiation of government power becomes inevitably concealed.

As a result of its concealment, the term conspiracy theory itself becomes intelligently conspired, concealed, and camouflaged under its own definition to be standardized as a legitimate hyponomy with an automatic function without even really having been hypothesized. The closest way to really understand the bias within the term that supports the uphold of scientific reputation is to correlate it with an analogy of a term with similar make-up but with distinct nature. I will, for that matter associate the term conspiracy theory with the term reality. Reality is, strictly speaking, an umbrella term for whatever it is that it renders; physical objects or elements within it, 3 dimensional entities, everything perceive as independent.

Now, with that being said, the term conspiracy theory seem to have a reality of its own, portrayed with homogeneous parts: It’s either true or untrue, and whatever falls within it will be more likely seen false due to its embedded reputation that continues to reinforce its aim, which is really a confirmation bias because it’s been already settled to prove its falsity,  but a few will see its truthfulness. I know this analogy does not follow consistently in terms  because in reality people tend to have hold belief to their perceptions as objections and those objections as truthfulness, and that is the opposite with the term conspiracy theory; its objection will be more doubtful and false.  To clarify this abstraction, people is more likely to believe what they see than to remain skeptical and doubtful about what they see or perceive.


I choose to exist but I wish I was dead.

Honestly, sometimes I wish I was dead, better yet, I wish I hadn’t had existed in the first place. If only there was a way to dismantle the true nature of reality, and be enlightened with certainty of what might be the absolute truth of my existence: A solipsistic reality; to commit myself to suicide seems to be the best deed. But I don’t know, and that’s a problem. On the contrary, what if empirical evidence is the truth of the ultimate reality?  – I guess I am a metaphysical agnostic.

When I die I don’t want any physical evidence to be found, still less procured. Of course there are ways to avoid such dilemma by utilizing a somewhat creative implementation to the action, but if the final choice of my determination falls in the views of a scientific reality then I rather maintain a metaphysical agnostic perspective and continue to put up with life’s miseries.

Due of this uncertainty, I choose to exist and the reason why I wish I was dead may look like a contradiction, which explanation I don’t have. A friend named Nate killed himself recently – by jumping off the Bay Bridge, to address one’s curiosity – and it reinforces my level of skepticism within me, a skepticism that places uncertainty in my thinking. Such uncertainty put me in an agnostic view of reality. Soon I will attend an open casket funeral of the aforementioned friend which claim to amount to “evidence” of what it means not to exist or to support the thought that reality is independent of one another. If I follow his path, will everything that “I” sense be the same? I wish I knew the answer to this unknowable question, any given answer or to be more precise, any given interpretation of this philosophical problem will never be known.

Am I the only one who exist? If so, what does it mean to be me and to exist? well, I suppose that if the “I” which means me is the only thing that “exist” then my sense of existence must have an underlying reality. And if I happen to be the only one to exist, do I have a body? is the body just another type of entity like another person that I label as some sort of imagination because it doesn’t exist independently? if I am the only one who exists and everything I perceive is just an interpretation of what I as the self sense to be reality; in a nutshell solipsism. I assume that it doesn’t exist independent from whatever it is that I sense as my own reality.