Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
All evidence is locked behind a paywall.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Says dubious people.
Yes the Belgium evidence and event which has proven to be real and is backed up by hard evidence being the military testimony, military logs and military radar. With the exception of Luis Elizondo the people involved from my list are not dubious but have reputation's beyond approach for the most part. Most of them have reputations in very high standing, in good to high regard.
They are far more believable then you who sounds more and more like a conspiracy theorist which each passing week. Just look how you call those people dubious when they are not. Just look how according to you we cannot trust the government officials, we cannot trust the military, we cannot trust the radar evidence or military logs. Look how you created lies about what you could see in the videos that no one else could apart from you with your special data that only you can see. You know who else does that? The full on conspiracy theorists.
Last edited:
You’re just talking around your hat because you don’t like me questioning your highly questionable posts referencing highly dubious people.
You should retract post 4175 The post is accurate.
Last edited:
As you say the post 4175 is accurate so why would I retract it when its accurate? I am happy for you to post evidence. But you never do. All you do is post crazy CT's then when we ask you to prove anything you refuse.
Given how many times you have been shown to be wrong in this thread I am not expecting much from you. Go on then. Explain to me and prove how Nat Kobitz, Christopher K. Mellon Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Intelligence and Major General Wilfried De Brouwer of the Belgian Airforce are dubious? What about the Belgium radar footage that has been shown to real and not a sensor glitch. What about the military logs how do you explain those away? Just because you don't like what you are seeing that does not make it dubious.
Your the one acting like a conspiracy theorist saying we cannot trust what the military officials are saying, we cannot trust what the government officials are saying, we cannot trust the data from the military that has been provided. So prove its all dubious. How are these people unreliable?
The poster you quoted is correct. We have a whole lot of nothing.
The evidence I posted has not been disproven. So there is a lot more then nothing. The military logs with military data is evidence along with the military testimony which is all real. Your the one claiming its not so prove it.
My post is correct so there is nothing to retract. If you want me to retract my post you need to prove what you are saying is true. Unlike you I have posted evidence. So now its your turn. You called these people many of which at national heroes dubious. Prove how Nat Kobitz, Christopher K. Mellon Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Intelligence and Major General Wilfried De Brouwer of the Belgian Airforce are dubious. Why should we not believe them?
If you cannot do that then the only person that needs to retract any posts for being wrong is you. Given your history of making things up and not telling the truth I don't believe anything you say anymore without evidence. Your making claims we cannot trust theses people, your making claims they are not telling the truth and are dubious. You need to prove that. If you cannot prove that then you are wrong to say "We have a whole lot of nothing"
That’s not evidence, hearsay. Poster was asking for evidence.
So, have you any evidence at all of these craft? Any evidence at all of these events not being easily explained as anomalous sensor/bad data?
Any evidence at all that stands alone without injecting the word or claims of highly dubious people?
Last edited:
Not only is what I posted evidence and not hearsay. Evidence has been provided of events not being easily explained as anomalous sensor/bad data.
Do you even know what hearsay is? Calling a first hand witness is not hearsay. Calling a third party to tell the court what the first hand witness said is hearsay.
I am not calling a third party. I am calling the first hand witness, backed up by official military radar, backed up by official military transcripts, backed up by official military logs, backed up by official military first hand testimony. In other words its valid evidence that is not hearsay and none of it can be explained away as sensor glitches or bad data.
Saying a craft went from 7000 feet to 10,000 feet in seconds then providing the military logs from the fighter jet and the radar footage backed up with everything else is the very opposite to hearsay. Its evidence. If you call that hearsay you are just being disingenuous.
"Any evidence at all that stands alone without injecting the word or claims of highly dubious people?"
As before I have provided evidence without using the word or claims of highly dubious people. Not a single one of the people listed are highly dubious people. You have failed to prove they are tiny bit dubious yet alone highly. The only hearsay is your fake claims the people are dubious.
Hearsay is 2nd hand evidence. The evidence I gave you is 1st hand evidence so its not hearsay. Your claims on the other hand are all hearsay and fake. You keep saying highly dubious people which is a lie you made-up. Show me the direct first hand evidence this is true. If you cannot then your post is wrong.
Stop deflecting and answer the question. Prove the people I talked about are highly dubious. That's you claim, you need to prove it. You cannot say the evidence is not valid because the people are highly dubious when that is just a lie you made up.
Last edited:
I think that if they existed then anything other than observation only would carry a high risk of obliterating us anyway, even with peaceful intent. The mismatch in knowledge and technology would be greater than any that has existed on Earth and that would be enough. Humanity would be obsolete in a second and surviving that seems doubtful to me. There are examples from history of societies meeting with a much smaller disparity in knowledge and tech and none of them have ended well.
Your thoughts are nonsense that has nothing to do with anyone else.
So the "evidence" you're referring to is things you haven't seen and don't actually know exists at all, let alone know anything about it.
I've seen evidence of the moon landings. That's landings, plural. Not just one. That's why I am sure the moon landings (plural) happened. I haven't seen any of the "evidence" of hyper-advanced aliens coming here that you're talking about. And neither have you.
Check it out, some people think the moon lands were faked, weird. Thoughts?
One giant ... lie? Why so many people still think the moon landings were faked
It all started with a man called Bill Kaysing and his pamphlet about ‘America’s $30bn swindle’ ...www.theguardian.com
I have two samples of the moon brought back.
I’m not going into all your bumf, but most of the claims bring into question the reality of the world around us and the principals of physics as we understand them and/or have much more plausible and rational explanations than alien tech.
Last edited:
So in other words you made yet another false statement attacking good honest people. Just like all your many false statements in this thread you refuse to backup what you said with evidence as you know what you said is not true. Which is what I expected and said you would do. As for Alien tech I never said it was Aliens in fact I said its likely not Aliens and something else but we wont find out what with people like you who lie and dismiss everything of hand.
That's incorrect as I have seen the Belgium evidence so I know something exists. As for the Edgar Military Base I haven't seen that one but I believe and trust the people who have seen that first hand. Given the people involved I have no reason to doubt they are telling the truth. I am not saying its Aliens by default. I am saying its 100% real and needs to be investigated to figure out what it is. Instead of dismissing out of hand or worse in Jigger's cases making up lies and fake explanations. At this point its clear something is real and happening and it needs to be figured out what it is.
Unfortunately for your argument physics are true false. If physics was false these claims would be the norm and you’d probably be arguing that fairies exist.
Nothing I have posted has broken the law of physics. That's just anther lie you made up. The acceleration from 7000 feet to 10,000 in that radar footage is beyond a fighter jet with a human aboard but well within the laws of physics. That's what you do. You create fake statements and pretend they are true to write off what you don't like seeing.
I don't mind when things are debunked with science and real evidence, I have even debunked things myself in this thread. What I don't like is when you create fake explanations to write things off. Which is what you have done time and time again.
Look at the Belgium evidence. Can you name one single thing that broke the laws of physics? No, because nothing did. This is just another long list of lies and fake statements form you.
Seriously? The hearings talk of craft capable of Mach 70 atmospheric flight, at sea level no less. Major full cormorant Colonial Grusch talks about extraterrestrial and inter dimensional aliens and you call anyone questioning these delusional claims a lair.
Last edited:
This is an example of what I am talking about how you make fake statements. The hearing said “Mach two” so is this another one of your lies about Mach 70? In fact I will quote the hearing in what was said.
Ryan Graves said: “ they were observed up to Mach two,”
Moving back to Belgium so you admit nothing in the Belgium evidence breaks the laws of Physics. So you cannot ignore the Belgium evidence because you think it breaks the laws.
As for "extraterrestrial and inter dimensional aliens"
Your taking that out of context as was explained to you before. He was saying there was a theoretical framework discussion. As in a group of Physicist talking about the holographic principle as a property of string theories.
Again to quote "David Grusch: Only a theoretical framework discussion."
"the framework that I’m familiar with, for example, is something called the holographic principle, both it’s it derives itself from general relativity and, quantum mechanics. And that is if you wanna imagine, a three d objects such as yourself casting a shadow onto a two d surface. That’s the holographic principle. So you can be projected, quasi projected from higher dimensional space to lower dimensional. It’s a scientific trope"
Grusch has a degree in Physics and was talking about this
Holographic principle - Wikipedia
Last edited:
This is an example of what I am talking about how you make fake statements. The hearing said “Mach two” so is this another one of your lies about Mach 70? In fact I will quote the hearing in what was said.
Ryan Graves said: “ they were observed up to Mach two,”
Moving back to Belgium so you admit nothing in the Belgium evidence breaks the laws of Physics. So you cannot ignore the Belgium evidence because you think it breaks the laws.
As for "extraterrestrial and inter dimensional aliens"
Your taking that out of context as was explained to you before. He was saying there was a theoretical framework discussion. As in a group of Physicist talking about the holographic principle as a property of string theories.
Again to quote "David Grusch: Only a theoretical framework discussion."
"the framework that I’m familiar with, for example, is something called the holographic principle, both it’s it derives itself from general relativity and, quantum mechanics. And that is if you wanna imagine, a three d objects such as yourself casting a shadow onto a two d surface. That’s the holographic principle. So you can be projected, quasi projected from higher dimensional space to lower dimensional. It’s a scientific trope"
Grusch has a degree in Physics and was talking about thisHolographic principle - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Nope. Back to reality please. 80,000ft to sea level and 60 miles in seconds. I’ll let you do the maths.
Stop lying.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
There's a sketch in here where a ufologist tried their hand at physics.
"Can I see the results of your paper"
"Several people have read the paper and they say the paper is real"
"Yes but part of the scientific framework is the need to be able to review each other's work"
"I can show you the paper for 10 secs across the room, you can make a video of it as I run over there with it"
"..."
"Can I see the results of your paper"
"Several people have read the paper and they say the paper is real"
"Yes but part of the scientific framework is the need to be able to review each other's work"
"I can show you the paper for 10 secs across the room, you can make a video of it as I run over there with it"
"..."