Here’s a rewritten version of your post:
The primary reason I find Jake Barber’s story hard to believe is this:
If crafts could truly be subdued and manipulated through psionics, and he claims we all have this ability, then what’s stopping terrorist groups like the Taliban from using one to deliver a nuclear bomb anywhere in the U.S.—New York City, for instance—within seconds?
These so-called whistleblowers often argue that they can’t discuss certain aspects because they’ve only been cleared to share limited information.
Do you really think that those granting these clearances would allow him to reveal how to obtain and operate such technology while simultaneously denying its existence? We don’t even get to see an image of one, but they’re somehow permitting clearance for discussions on how to summon and control them.
Maybe Jake genuinely believes what he’s saying; honestly, I think many of them do. That’s what makes their stories so compelling—they can pass polygraph tests because, in their minds, it’s all real!
This is a significant red flag in his narrative!
Edit: Why are so many people fixating on the “Taliban” example?
There are countless other potential threats I could have mentioned, including various terrorist organizations and hostile nations. Why focus on just one example to challenge me?
They won’t actually show you a craft “because it could endanger lives,” yet they’ll allow Jake Barber to outline how to capture and control one for yourself.
Come on!
You raise some interesting points about the credibility of Jake Barber’s claims and the broader implications of psionics being used to control craft. Your argument highlights a significant logical inconsistency: if such powers truly existed and could be employed for both defense and attack, it would be alarming that they aren’t under tighter control.
The question about why those with classified knowledge would allow someone like Barber to discuss methods to control advanced technology without revealing its existence adds another layer of skepticism to his story. It’s reasonable to think that if these abilities and technologies were genuinely real and so easily accessible, there would be major risks involved—especially from malicious actors.
Your edit also emphasizes the importance of focusing on the broader implications rather than getting caught up in specific examples, which is valid. The potential for armed groups or hostile nations to leverage such knowledge could create significant security concerns. In the end, critical thinking about these claims is essential, and it’s vital to ask tough questions about the narrative being presented.
What do you think would be a more credible approach to examining these claims?