The Disclosure Project

[awdsci]

Thank you for getting straight to the point. Can you give a couple of examples of what you mean, demonstrating that said postings are indeed under informed.
Really. That sort of statement seems to me entirely foolish. Where does that leave us? Shall we start again? Seems best.

What makes you believe the background to these types of phenomena has not been studied in depth by one or more of the posters?

Note that many of the individuals who are speaking out are retired: they have no career to protect, but a knowledge of human nature tells us some of them may have an axe to grind.

An earlier poster said they had the complete CD of interviews. Perhaps they would like to select the best example they found in that and offer it up for objective analysis. I should prefer to deal directly with solid material than the emphemeral nonsense available on the public portion of the site.

Ophiolite,
I meant that not all posters may be aware of the long history of the subject,as it is not widely known as a " serious" subject.
Now I feel a bit stupid because having looked up some of the posts of years ago,there is a lot of information already in this forum`s history.
Excuse my crassness, I`m getting on a bit ,the brain`s throwing wobblies!

Regards ,Awdsci

 

[SkinWalker]

Don't let that keep you from chimming in with the discussion, awdsci. You seem to have an opinion, which may be of interest to the discussion, regardless of whether others agree or not.

 

[Gustav]

That's always a possibility. But your past behavior and lack of content in over 1300 posts is sufficient empirical evidence to conclude that your goals do not include actual discussion.

your "empirical evidence" notwithstanding....

here is how it could be.

i will not indulge in any useless rhetoric towards you
you will refrain from making any emotional considerations, ie: geting caught up in battles not your own.

i find you a fair person. i like that you acknowledge stuff
the truce is there for the taking
your choice

i meant what i said. perhaps it is unfortunate i prefer debate over discussion but i am sure i can make the accomodation quite effortlessly. all you gotta do is to disallow past considerations to taint the present.

new thread it is
when sufficiently motivated

one of the talking points....

But the anthropogenic/anthropomorphic idea of space aliens in popular culture is clearly terrestrial in origin in the same way as "ghosts" and "goblins."

suit up...just kidding

 

[Ophiolite]

Window glass is quite transparent. Are other things equally transparent? Just an idle thought.

awdsci - think nothing of it.

 

[duendy]

Skinwalker---yeah, why ae you resorting to callin Gustav by a past username?
thaqt's childish. he is NOW 'GUSTAV'

also, he is very MUC contributing to the degbate. so much so, he shows you'll up/ the chinks in your 'logic'--you know who i mean. THA is why he disturbs you, know why?? cause you invest EVEYthing in 'logic' is why. so to haveyour shaky founations juddered ...ooooo it hurts. i can feel it.
btw, the reference to a past rant of yours. sheeit, i'd already answered it. please keep in presnt time. more fun

Ophiliolite--says, 'eye witness testimony is unrelible'---ie., your reasons for interpreting the Disclosure prokect testimonies 'dangerous'. well. for WHo are the unreliable? for te one's who dont believe them? i wold say yeah to that. i would add that your irrational accusations against these people are unreliable, taboot.
and Oph yu said: "you previously dismissed my shared experiences of seeing ghosts on two occassions-----eh what? that dont seem ME. where?

 

[Ophiolite]

and Oph yu said: "you previously dismissed my shared experiences of seeing ghosts on two occassions-----eh what? that dont seem ME. where?

Cut me some slack Duendy. I don't know where. I have mentioned my ghost sightings on a number of threads over the past one and a half years. I have no idea which one or ones you made disparaging comments. I recall thinking at the time that if I had waxed lyrical at this strange mystical experience and not been called Ophiolite you would have been all over me and thrusting my experience in skeptics faces as another example their materialism would ignore.
Instead, because I accepted them as hallucinations, with susbtantiating evidence, you just berated me for being a materialist. Some days it really does get old, Duendy. When one is trying to be honest and direct, then you just get kicked in the gonads.

 

[duendy]

Cut me some slack Duendy. I don't know where. I have mentioned my ghost sightings on a number of threads over the past one and a half years. I have no idea which one or ones you made disparaging comments. I recall thinking at the time that if I had waxed lyrical at this strange mystical experience and not been called Ophiolite you would have been all over me and thrusting my experience in skeptics faces as another example their materialism would ignore.
Instead, because I accepted them as hallucinations, with susbtantiating evidence, you just berated me for being a materialist. Some days it really does get old, Duendy. When one is trying to be honest and direct, then you just get kicked in the gonads.

ohhh myyyy daaays, SEE the irony HERE! you call others dangerous etc, and nutters, who give eye-witness testimony, yet..... OUT OF THE BLUE you accuse ME---not a likely canidate--as somehow discounting your ghosty mystical experiences, and yet---wait for it, have NO EVIDENCE to support your accusation.....?

mwhahahhhahHAHAHHAhhhhaahahahaha...till i puke.......heheheheh

 

[Ophiolite]

The evidence is there. I'm not too happy about having to spend several hours to locate it, since google no longer works within sciforums. I thought you might, in line with your declared principles, be willing to accept my description of events. Apparently not. Is there a touch of hypocrisy in your approach Duendy? No, surely not.

Let us get something else absolutely clear - several things.
I do not call anyone who give eyewitness testimony a nutter. I call people nutters who choose bizarre explanations over the mundane, either because they lack intelligence, education, or discrimination.
I call the the unscientific approach to UFOs dangerous because it delays a more widespread scientific approach.
I did not have mystical experiences - I saw ghosts. I said that had I claimed them as mystical experiences you would have clasped me to your bosom, figuratively I trust.

 

[SkinWalker]

Skinwalker---yeah, why ae you resorting to callin Gustav by a past username?
thaqt's childish. he is NOW 'GUSTAV'

Nostalgia. I remember him as 'Spookz.' He made an impression upon me then. Perhaps it was the same quality that got 'Spookz' "forever banned" by Porfiry. Who knows... but he *is* Spookz.

also, he is very MUC contributing to the degbate.

I'm not sure if you mean 'muck' or 'much.' Surely you mean the former, to which I agree. He serves only to muck a conversation. And if you notice, I only interact with him when he interacts with me. Such is the nature of the agreement we arrived at which he posted above.

btw, the reference to a past rant of yours. sheeit, i'd already answered it. please keep in presnt time. more fun

You responded, but you certainly didn't refute it. My 'rant' stands. The data I cited are valid and have not been refuted. The link I provided is also relevant and provides the answer to the question you posed. Though it seems likely that the information in that thread was not objectively reviewed by yourself, since it appeared contrary to your belief system and was thus dismissed out of hand. Not that I expect objectivity from you, though it is my hope.

But in the interest of keeping the thread more about the topic and less about each other, which of the witness accounts do you see as credible in the document? Some? All? If all, do you operate under the assumption that every single account is accurate and true without embellishment (intentional or unintentional) or deception? Or do you accept that some of the accounts (there's a total of about 400) are inaccurate? If you do, which ones do you feel are the most inaccurate and why? If some can be accepted as inaccurate, why not all?

How does one answer the problem of the demographic of the "eyewitnesses?" How does one answer the hypothesis that this is a function of belief rather than objectivity when the "testimonials" of other, questionable claims are considered? Do we accept that all testimonials of questionable claims validate the claims (new age cures, pyramid power, individual relgious cults, etc)? Or do we accept that people can allow their belief to override their critical thought processes and side with what they hope or want to be true? Do we accept that people of some perceived high status or rank in a society worry about their reputations while the rest of us are less concerned? Is the reputation of the individual who works a 9-5 job and lives pay-check-to-pay-check less important that that of the individual in the military? Or do we accept that those of elite status (of which there really aren't any in the 'disclosure project') are as capable of being as passionate or devout in their beliefs as the rest of us?

The so-called 'disclosure project' discloses only the beliefs of its membership. Its 'congregation' if you will.

 

[Light]

You responded, but you certainly didn't refute it. My 'rant' stands. The data I cited are valid and have not been refuted. The link I provided is also relevant and provides the answer to the question you posed. Though it seems likely that the information in that thread was not objectively reviewed by yourself, since it appeared contrary to your belief system and was thus dismissed out of hand. Not that I expect objectivity from you, though it is my hope.

But in the interest of keeping the thread more about the topic and less about each other, which of the witness accounts do you see as credible in the document? Some? All? If all, do you operate under the assumption that every single account is accurate and true without embellishment (intentional or unintentional) or deception? Or do you accept that some of the accounts (there's a total of about 400) are inaccurate? If you do, which ones do you feel are the most inaccurate and why? If some can be accepted as inaccurate, why not all?

How does one answer the problem of the demographic of the "eyewitnesses?" How does one answer the hypothesis that this is a function of belief rather than objectivity when the "testimonials" of other, questionable claims are considered? Do we accept that all testimonials of questionable claims validate the claims (new age cures, pyramid power, individual relgious cults, etc)? Or do we accept that people can allow their belief to override their critical thought processes and side with what they hope or want to be true? Do we accept that people of some perceived high status or rank in a society worry about their reputations while the rest of us are less concerned? Is the reputation of the individual who works a 9-5 job and lives pay-check-to-pay-check less important that that of the individual in the military? Or do we accept that those of elite status (of which there really aren't any in the 'disclosure project') are as capable of being as passionate or devout in their beliefs as the rest of us?

The so-called 'disclosure project' discloses only the beliefs of its membership. Its 'congregation' if you will.

Duendy is a classic example of hypocrisy and someone who repeatedly argues against the very things she claims to stand for!

On one hand, she considers all science to be "materialistic" and distrustful. Yet she turns right around and is quite willing to take the word - unquestioned, even! - of a bunch of people who say they saw something and since they don't know what it was, why then, it must have been alien craft!!!

She also is opposed to ANY religion, yet as you've just pointed out, these people practically have their own "CHURCH of UFO BELIEVERS." No evidence of any kind, no real facts that can be examined - nothing but pure belief and belief alone !

Talk about confused, irrational thinking! She tops the chart in that category. (Her little tinfoil hat needs serious realignment - things are leaking out as well as in.)

 

[duendy]

Skin, the gist I personally got frm your latest post issss: how does one differentiate between bogus new age scams and whats going down at the DP?

without evidence.....solid

alright , in one of your critiqes you mentioned i think, Reiki.

two years back i was on holiday with a young woman friend. she had been--a year back--in a bad road car accident and her leg was shattered. there was threat she might have to have amputation

Her sister is a Reiki Master, and had learned it from her. she claims she healed it, and on holiday wa walking around this really frisky duns like any normal person, just needing a natrual stick for a sight crutch when it got dark one night and we were shrooming

Nw. i intuit how you look at this event. you throw out 'reiki'--but ALSo throw out te ACTUAl healing she has somehow happened for herself

altho not a Chaos magicikan. i dabbled once and have read a bit about it. they would interpret whats going on as this: 'reiki' is a MODEL. it is not 'the truth', but A way of --in this case--self-healing. and tat other ways could be used to just a adequate. including of course modern medicine if you so need/desire it....and of course in some cases, modern medicine is VERY much needed. yet not THE only way

 

[heliocentric]

Those trying to understand UFOs and "where they come from" refuse to accept any balanced or objective view of the topic. Rejected out of hand by those that readily accept the ETI explanation of UFOs are the more prosaic, mundane and anthropogenic explanations. It would seem that the unproven, undemonstrated and untestable is preferable to that which has been demonstrated and tested time and again.

It sounds like your problem with the disclosure project is in reality a problem you have with the ufo community in general. I think its a unfair blanket statement to claim that anyone interested in ufos has no interest in objectivity.

Then there is the UFO apologetic that seeks to give the air of objectivity by maintaining a plausible deniablity in their belief that UFOs are ETI based. This, they realize, is an outlandish and hokey concept and, rather than defend the position with any rationality, they respond to critics with things like, "you're the one assuming UFOs are alien, I'm saying they're simply unknown." This thin veil of intellectual dishonesty, while transparent, provides that "plausible deniability" in the face of reason.

I cant see what basis youd have to believe that people who are talking about ufos are simply using it as short-hand for 'alien spacecraft' unless you can read the mind of anyone talking about or professing an interest in ufos.

Others are simply repeating the second-hand stories of someone they know.

I havent come across any witness accounts recounting other people's stories unless youve come across any and can copy and paste some quotes for me.

Some may even believe what they are saying.

thats a rather strange thing to say, that comes across to me as 'anyone who sees a ufo must have a delusional belief since ufos dont really exist'
Reading between the lines in some of your posts thats the increasing impression im getting.

But none are credible. Rank and status does not imply credibility. Indeed, the trend I noted in a post above is a valid question: why is the demographic so consistent. If these were credible claims, we would expect to see the demographic of the "witnesses" reflect the true demographic of the military they come from. It doesn't. How many African Americans or women are represented? Are these people not employed by the military? Was not the military one of the earliest American institutions to de-segregate?

I dont think the project goes as far as to disclose information about race, its really irrevelvant i think and a complete non-issue.
But yes there does appear to be more male witnesses than female, prehaps due to the fact that some of these reports stretch decades back, before equal opportunities were as championed as they are today.
As for rank it certainly holds alot more weight to hear someone with status/position than without, who would you be more inclined to believe someone with nothing to lose or something with everything to lose?

Eyewitness testimony is useless and suspect without cooborating physical evidence. Of which there are none. No photos. Not one captain's log (from either a spaceship or a military source). Not one spaceship hood-ornament. No DNA samples. No alien implants. Nothing. Just fantasies of believers rallied around a cause. You can see that bullshit at any Pro-Choice/Pro-Life rally.

Eye-witness testimonies can always be suspect yes, that is if you have can think of a reason to suspect youre being lied to. If you cant think of a good enough (plausible) reason then suspicion starts to become a little baseless and more of trait within the person scrutinising the data.
As for testimonies being useless... definitely not, eye-witness testimonies are used every day in hearings and in courtrooms. Which is presicley the context that greer seeks this information to be used.

I was assuming you actually

read the document you claimed to have obtained. It is replete with the belief of others. Do a text search for Clifford Stone. Read about belief.

The pdf ive obtained mostly contains witness accounts of what someone saw, ive come across few accounts where the witnesses delve into their ideas of where these things might be comming from. People like clifford stone seem to lie on the extreme end of the spectrum, even if he does believe or think/suppose what he says im not even sure that bares atall on his experiences or the experiences of others.

You couldn't be more wrong. It is ALL about belief. Indeed, Greer is a prophet or cleric of sorts. A cult leader within the religious framework of the ETI-UFO culture, albeit a proto-religious framework. In the absence of physical evidence to support the ETI-UFO hypothesis, it is exactly faith that one needs in order to maintain it. It would be erroneous, even intellectually dishonest, to discount belief in the argument for this hypothesis.

I never suggested we should discount belief but we should differentiate between an 1. 'experience' - which doesnt have to say anything tell us anything beyond whats been expeirenced. 2. An idea/theory - i.e. 'i had an expeirence i think xyz may be possibilites worth considering when trying to understand what i saw.' And 3. belief - 'i had an experience im now convinced that i have an explaination that fits what i saw despite not being in possesion of any full clear evidence.
You cant simply lump everyone whos seen a ufo into the third catagory and presume and that all ufo-witnesses have ended up as quasi-religious ufo nuts.

Particularly when it is followed with phrases like "we already know they exist." I'm sure this will invoke the plausible deniability argument where you cry foul and say you "only meant unidentified flying objects." But this, again, returns us to the intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual honesty or dishonesty is neither here nor there if youre when youre going to take a statement like 'we know ufos exist' and spin it in your head so youve heard what you want to hear. I could be as honest with you as is humanly possible but youd still convince your self youve heard something else. I sounds like youve created a fully fleshed out idea in your head of a generic ufo cult member, and if my ideas dont fit with the self-created charactrure then you'll make them fit anyway!

we all know what we're really talking about with regard to the so-called Disclosure Project is space aliens that the government is keeping secret. We aren't talking about UFOs as some unknown phenomena, we're talking about Greer's version of space aliens who are visiting the planet with full knowledge of world governments.

apparently thats what greer thinks yes, although most witnesses ive read dont even seem to believe in anything either way, be it government black projects, aliens, or natural phenomenon. Most are just there to report what theyve seen and heard. When it gets beyond that (which it does sometimes) then yes i think the reports tend to lose their purpose and impartiality.

Finally, it is completely appropriate to compare space aliens visiting in UFOs to the supernatural. This is because they are. They are said to appear/disappear; abduct in the night; speak with their minds; fly with/without machines; move through walls/ceilings; etc, etc. These space aliens cannot be measured or quantified and are completely incorporeal. They exist, to date, only in stories and myths. They are as every bit supernatural as ghosts, goblins, pink unicorns, Ba'al, Yahweh, and astral projection. Indeed, UFO nutters like Whitley Streiber are fond of including supernatural feats like astral projection with their 'visitations.' They are supernatural. If they aren't, where is one that can be empirically examined or measured?

supernatural means something that exists beyond the realms of nature or at least our understanding of it, if aliens do exist then theres absolutely nothing 'super'natural about them atall, they would be living entities with genes, dna, cells etc...they would be more than comprehensible to us.
As for empircal examination who knows, if aliens are visiting this planet then an examination may well have occured but i certainly wouldnt expect it to be publically available information.

The answer is as simple as the comparative links I gave you: belief. They believe in something bigger than they. Status and station, rank and position mean little with regard to the validity of evidence when it comes to eyewitness testimony. If either of these conditions validated belief or offered credibilty to claims, our world would be a quite different place. There are world leaders and dignitaries and people of high status all over the world who believe in the hokey and supernatural. Tom Cruise & scientology; Reagan &astrology; Hitler & eugenics; Bush & xianity; etc. I had a battalion commander when I was in the U.S. Army that I used to read tarot cards to (1992). He was a Lieutenant Colonel then and now a brigadier general. He bought every word I 'read' to him and even based some minor command decisions on it. I spent over 12 years in the military and have met soldiers of all ranks who believed in all sorts of things. Their ranks and status within the military did not validate their beliefs.

someone whos seen a ufo or had an experience of one doesnt have to 'believe' anything atall which is the point i keep making.
For example if im walking in the amazon and i see an insect ive never seen before, and describe to my friend the 'long translucent wings' the.. 'thin tapered blue body'. I dont suddenly have a belief in an exotic insect, im not a believer in small flying creatures with wings...ive mearly described my experience, nothing more nothing less.

This is the plausible deniability fallacy that I was talking about with regard to the ETI-UFO hypothesis. We aren't talking about the strict definition of UFO as Unidentified Flying Object, where there is something in the sky and we all agree it is simply something that has yet to be identified as plane, bird, star, cloud, delusion, etc.

No most (or at least a lot of ufos) that we're talking about in this context are offen spherical, saucer shaped, or triangular with a metalic smooth quality and seem to use a propulsion method relying on something entirely different from jet engines or what would normally be used to enable flight. We have plenty of these types of craft on film, long long gone are the days where a ufo is probably a weather baloon or a hallucination, or venus on a clear night. We know these types of craft exist, so its not simply a question of attaching the old labels wed useally attach to something we see in the sky. Its pretty clear theres a new type of technology in use in the form of these types of craft, and it has to be taken into consideration that someone may be seeing one of these when describing a ufo. Although yes some of the older more traditional explainations are still relevant when there is a ufo sighting.

He has indeed been accused of that by one of the people whom he listed as a 'witness' no less. I'll have to dig for that reference, but I have a clear recollection of it. The individual was a high-ranking official and was misquoted in a clearly dishonest fashion.

Yep post it up if you find it id be interested to see it.

Moreover, his 'testimonies' fail on other grounds as well: many of the 'witnesses' simply have too much emotional and intellectual baggage to be taken seriously. Stone and Daniel Sheehan are two off the top of my head. The 'testimony' of Gordon Cooper is another. James Oberg has written a very good article on Coopers account in which he concludes, "Cooper has found himself on the receiving end of frauds and fabrications attached to his name. His usefulness to UFO proponents is based on his honest advocacy of serious UFO research (a desire shared by many serious researchers in the field, including myself)."

If someone concludes that it must/or might be extraterrestrials then i dont think we suddenly have to disallow their experience. The conclusion isnt the experience, so id still be wiling to listen and take seriously a testimony even if the conclusion was 'aliens'. Although as ive mentioned i dont think this applies to all witnesses by far, the vast majority of witnesses simply describe their expeirence and shed no light on their beliefs theories either way.

As I've pointed out in a previous post, there are many people who have demonstrated the ability to collect testimony. Such is the function of belief not reality. In much the same way the devoutly religious believe in their god(s) and ritualize their lives accordingly, the devout ETI-UFO believer does the same. And, in much the same way individuals within religion use the beliefs of others to gain status and position, so, too, do individuals within the ETI-UFO culture.

As ive pointed out its entirely wrong to assume that everyone within the ufo community or has simply seen one is a believer of extra-terrestrials.

 

[Ophiolite]

For example if im walking in the amazon and i see an insect ive never seen before, and describe to my friend the 'long translucent wings' the.. 'thin tapered blue body'. I dont suddenly have a belief in an exotic insect, im not a believer in small flying creatures with wings...ive mearly described my experience, nothing more nothing less.

On the contrary, you have implied some very definite beliefs in the way you have described the object.
You state that is had wings: today we find wings on birds, insects/bugs, aeroplanes. In each case they are associated with flight. Stating that the object you saw had wings clearly implies your belief that these wing-like objects were related to flight.
In a similar way the body suggests a life form, or a constructed device that contains something. Again, belief is very clearly implied.

I have no problem with you saying you saw something with long translucent features that looked like wings. Or, that the thing you observed appeared to have a body. Then you would be describing your experience. This is precisely what most reported UFO observations fail to do: objectively describe what they have seen. Instead, from before they begin to vocalise the experience they are already interpreting what they see and assigning provisional meaning. That's what humans do.
That is why eye witness testimony is so unreliable, not because people knowingly lie, but because they make the same error that you did in relation to the 'novel' insect.

 

[Giambattista]

No most (or at least a lot of ufos) that we're talking about in this context are offen spherical, saucer shaped, or triangular with a metalic smooth quality and seem to use a propulsion method relying on something entirely different from jet engines or what would normally be used to enable flight.

Spherical or saucer-shaped, like what I witnessed that one time. As it has been for quite some time. Propulsion? Silent? Capable of propelling something to extremely high speeds, back and forth, barely giving time for it to change trajectory, yet seemingly not skipping a beat?
Brava, Mrs. Blank, BRAVA!!!!

We have plenty of these types of craft on film, long long gone are the days where a ufo is probably a weather baloon or a hallucination, or venus on a clear night.

All extremely tired explanations. YAWN! What?!?! ANOTHER UFO??? I don't have to get up for this one! It's Venus, obviously! After all, Occam's Razor tells us this!

I believe dear Gustav once said this not too long ago:

Veteran Japan Airlines 747 Captain Kenju Terauchi reported a spectacular, prolonged encounter over Alaska in 1986. "Most unexpectedly two space ships stopped in front of our face, shooting off lights," he said. "The inside cockpit shined brightly and I felt warm in the face." Despite the FAA determination that he and his crew were stable, competent and professional, he was grounded for speaking out.

No kidding?

From a short article about that case:

"Either there's something there or there isn't," says former FAA division chief John Callahan. "Is it a spaceship or not? Why would they say it's a spaceship if it's not? The radar ain't lying."
Radar reports were part of what Callahan investigated while working for the Federal Aviation Administration in 1986. The investigation stemmed from a report by a Japan Airlines 747, as it flew about 50 miles from Anchorage. An inexplicable image appeared on air traffic control and military computers, and the three pilots flying the plane claimed they saw a UFO.
"The pilot has it on his radar, and then the pilot and the other two guys in the cockpit look out the window, and they see him over here, and they see him over there, and they see him over here, and for 31 minutes," Callahan says.
The FAA said the incident was due to a radar malfunction. The CIA believed the pilots, Callahan says, but it buried the story. "The CIA said it was a UFO. The CIA said we're not going to tell the public, because it would scare the public. They told me that."

Of course, Occam tells us that Mr. Callahan is probably an exaggerator (Irish too? Probably a drunk!!!). Thanks, Ockham. You're such a knowledgeable guy!
CASE SOLVED! No need to look at the radar records! No need to take the pilots' accounts at face value! Let's just rest easy, shall we, knowing that ALL PEOPLE are either deceiving, or being deceived.

Again I say, CASE CLOSED on this one, folk!

 

[duendy]

Oph...what thelivin hell is you goin on with? do you write yur own scripts or what?
looook. WHEN a person sees something so extraordinary as a 'UFO' rst assured their percepive capcity will also be extraordinaly attuned

tink of some vital incident. you may haf eexperienced it, read about it, whatever. climbing---the prson is nearly on life's edge. and suddenly seems to acquire strength didn't know about, acuity of vision etc.THAT

what really pisses me orf about your camp. is your ptronizing attitude.............
you have he NERVE to say to people, eg: 'you didn't really see/experience what you did, cause xyc' if you could know how fukin annoying that stance is. not annoyng as in, there may bedoubt felt the annoyed. but annoying as in beneath contempt and wantin to strangle the silly dipstick who doesn't know the fuk what they is talkin

 

[Ophiolite]

Absolutely. Just like you said.

 

[leopold]

i have seen video of of radar images that defied description

there are only 2 conclusions i can make about what i saw
1. it was a actual ufo
2. it was a simulation to detirmine the controllors reactions

now i ask which is more plausable?

 

[Giambattista]

you have he NERVE to say to people, eg: 'you didn't really see/experience what you did, cause xyc'

He follows in the steps of the "GREATS"!

"I wasn't there, I didn't see it! But they couldn't have seen what they say they saw, so here's what they REALLY saw, even though I wasn't there."

Pseudoscience? Does it apply?

You be the judge of that.

 

[Ophiolite]

On the other hand what is so extraordinary about a UFO?
Duendy, I don't trust what people say they have seen because people are crap at understanding what they have seen.

In a somewhat earlier computer age, where an HP2100 with 8k of memory was the bees knees, cost several thousand dollars and whose only output and human input was via teletype I witnessed repeatedly a simple example of this.

Training people to use software on this beast I would hand them typed instructions. The typed instructions would tell them exactly what to type and note, in large bold letters, to type exactly that. I would back this up with strongly worded direction.

Despite this, time after time, they would fail to get the program to run. They would claim that something was wrong with it. I would look at their input, there for all the world to see on the teletype output, and it would be wrong. I would simply say its wrong, you've not typed it exactly as required. Look.
They would look and swear it was correct until I would point out the missing space, or the colon that had replaced a period.

Time after time this happened Duendy, with educated individuals, trained to look objectively at the world and many of them, consistently got it wrong. I don't trust eye witness testimony. It is not patronising. It is not dismissive. It is realistic.

 

[Giambattista]

Maccabee's First Rule of Debunking:

any published explanation is better than none.

In layman's terms?
As long as it sounds scientific, and it doesn't stoop to saying that something is truly inexplicable, then it's ALRIGHT!!!