Anything coming from outside the solar system to earth's radius is picking up over 100,000 miles per hour plus whatever speed it was approaching at, plus or minus another 30,000 miles for the earth's orbital speed.

The idea that something traveled for aeons, but by accident only managed to slow down by 129,900 to 129,500 miles per hour and lightly crashed into the earth seems kind of silly.

Like driving at 130 miles an hour towards a person, smashing the break, and grinding to a stop so perfectly the bumper just boops them.

if it pleases the court, here is an artist's rendition of the feted silencing of Trotsky by Stalin mere hours before Trotsky was to announce to the world that the USSR was in contact with extraterrestrials.

I think my only beef with your point is that it is nonfalsifiable. I don't think it's wrong necessarily, because sure, aliens are alien, but then we can speculate anything.

'Alien' simply means 'extraterrestrial life form'. We can debate what we mean by 'life-form' until a new pope comes over the moon but intentional, intelligent, interactive and to some degree autonomous behaviour, self-maintenance of its own structure, homeostasis, seem pretty essential. That it's evolved is not essential but seems very likely (unless its more likely that to reach such a level of technological advancement the species would normally be a superintelligent, designed type of entity).

It does not mean, as you're using it, sophistically, 'absolutely unknowable'. It would be an organism, likely evolved, and evolved functions likes intentions, desires and so on, or whatever you want to call the mechanisms that determine its behaviour, are going to reflect the fact that they are evolved. It must have basic survival mechanisms or instincts, eitherwise is would not have propagated and continued to exist. This of course changes once we consider culture, if they have something like culture (which they may not). Culture, especially if they have superintelligent control over their own biological and cultural evolution, is something which makes it more difficult to predict an alien's behaviour, I agree.

Nevertheless, saying that we 'by definition' can't know anything about something is effectively saying nothing at all about it. You might as well call it the noumenon and be done with it. Even if we just consider motivations, you seem either to be assuming that they do not have motivations, or that we cannot know if they have something like motivations, or that they perhaps do but even if they do we cannot know what any of those motivations are. Motivations are simply a way in which an organism causes behaviour in itself, in a relatively targeted and coherent way. To an extent you are correct, but if something is going to claim intelligent life exists, then we need evidence that it is life, that it is intelligent, and we need to have an idea of what that intelligence consists in, and we have no way of doing that but on the basis of our own intelligence. I haven't seen any explanation for why the claimed behaviour of these UFOs would indicate intelligence-wise, other than surveillance, but they don't need to be here to do that if they're that advanced. The only basis I have at the moment is this 'testimony'. Bar actual hard public evidence to the contrary, I'm not going to buy it, though I'd love to be proven wrong. The best explanation, if these are legit (big doubt) is that it's a kind of social experiment against us. But why would they do that?

This brings us back to Posadism: is it necessary for a space-faring civilization to be communist? A communist society implies a certain kind of morality or sense of ethics, a common basic set of agree rules for behaviour. If such a social formation is necessary for higher levels of technological advancement, then I do not think such a society would just fuck with us like this. Then again, perhaps very differently evolved intelligent species undergo completely different sets of stages of social development, and never pass through anything like feudalism, capitalism or socialism. Perhaps they have a hive-mind.

We keep on coming back to the same issue of what can we say about alien behaviour. The only behaviour we can go on empirically are earth's own. We can do that with very different species to ourselves. On that basis I do not understand their behaviour givent he testimony. Just saying they 'might, hypothetically, because we don't know' we so different that this testimony is coherent with some form of motivations is trivially true, but strikes me as bad reasoning. It makes for good science fiction and we have to think about it and be open to it, but I think there is likely in principle a way to read into behaviours what the intentions are over time when observing a social organism. Maybe we actually just have to wait to we actually encounter such life. If these testimonies are legit, then they are historically important evidence in beginning to describe and analyse the behaviour of other forms of life.

The amount of evidence these kind of 'whisteblowers' cite is often based on the idea that there have been alot of crashes and alot of acquisition of material from extremely technologically advanced extraterrestrial life forms.

I'm pointing out something very basic: consider how technologically advanced you have to be to travel from any other star system in the galaxy, let alone beyond it, to here. With current human tech, it would take around 73,000 years to get to the nearest star, Proxima Centauri.

It is literally beyond our capacity to understand how that is technically feasible. It is another or several levels of technological advancement beyond us. We might seem like dumb animals to such a species. I'm just personally not at all convinced that such a mind-bogglingly advanced species would allow itself that amount error on missions where it would crash or allow itself to be studied that often. Otherwise it seems to me that you're implying that their spy ships crash more often than our own planet's countries' spy-planes in enemy territories. I'd assume that they can travel at light-speed. If they cannot, they can still travel at such speeds that their level of technological and economic development has to be astouding. Like literally practically and technically inconceivable for us at our current level of development. I don't see how its reasonable to assume that such an intelligent species is going to be crashing all over the place, given the amount of precise planning and technical knowledge you need to get here in the first place.

Also: why is it only Americans who seem to be claiming all this shit?

Also, we are also an extremely violent species, hopefully still in the infancy of our civilizational development, so I don't see why another species, who have decided not to fuck us over when they could easily annihilate us, would think it desirable, wise, or whatever, to give us access to their tech.

Also: WTF would the US government announce that there were aliens? Why would a government, which has killed countless people over far less, allow a whisteblower, to reveal to the world, in front of Congress, information that would fundamentally alter our conception of ourselves and our place in the cosmos, of the same cultural importance as the Copernican Revolution or the theory of evolution by natural selection?

But what if I think they're funny

Or that earth would be stationary to said bubble, we're rotating around a star, rotating around a galaxy, rotating around a super cluster with another galaxy about to crash into us.

There is no known evidence to support that hypothesis.

Nope, but it has been speculated.

There are a few people like Harvey Matusow, an anti-communist snitch in the 1950s red scare who was convicted for naming a couple hundred bullshit communists in a congressional testimony. The thing that gives me any value here is that it's humiliating to the politicians who've supported him if it turns out this is a completely empty LARP. Even if I don't like most/any of them they're people who face re-election as a crank.

Psyop is also plausible but there's so much general background confirmation from different parts of the state that I just see that being overly complex, like when people say 9/11 was some kind of government conspiracy instead of an accident. If the feds instead prosecuted him immediately it'd be de facto confirmation of at least some part of his story and that story is really incriminating for them. I see that being a huge Streisand effect while him testifying can be brushed off for the reasons listed in this thread.