Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
Exactly.
You've proven you don't understand the analogy. Which with retrospective foresight is purposefully what you have been proving.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Exactly.
You've proven you don't understand the analogy. Which with retrospective foresight is purposefully what you have been proving.
lol,
If you're going to make an analogy, it has to be applicable - in the case of your 400g tin of beans, it assumes that something is known, or 'fixed' - there's a specific point we can work backwards from, to figure out the problem.
But in the world of UFOs and aliens - none of the values, or things, or stories or allegations are fixed and known - it's all conjecture.
So your analogy is broken.
Last edited:
Soldato
Regardless of your own opinions on Dr Greer, this guy is a Brigadier General...and I believe him when he talks about this stuff. You don't get to be that rank if you're an idiot.
youtu.be
Project Blue Book: An Insider Speaks -- Brigadier General Stephen Lovekin, Esq.
Brigadier General Lovekin entered the military in 1958. In 1959 he joined the White House Army Signaling Agency and served under President Eisenhower and the...
youtu.be
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
Exactly, you keep empirically demonstrating what you are asking people to prove, which doesn't need to be proven since you have proactively proven your ask.
The analogy is the conversation that you have proven you aren't in.
Last edited:
It doesn't need to be proven, but if people want to have their claims taken more seriously (which would be nice) - they need to be able to put forward something a little more convincing than flying semen stains, floating tic-tacs, secret meetings behind closed doors, or a story plot stolen from season 1 of the X-files.
Slipperly slope fallacy again,
Do you not think it creates a problem, if we just start believing in fantastic highly improbably things - simply because someone with a fancy job title says so?
I mean you're entitled to your opinion, I have no issue if you believe what he says - I'm more interested in the logic behind forming that belief, in the absence of any evidence.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Chances are the Brigadier General also believes in God
I dunno, I mostly agree but the way both sides communicate is wildly unhelpful at times. I'd rather we all move on and agree to disagree
- it feels like some bizarre alternate reality where people are incapable of understanding that other people perceive the world differently and just deal with it.Your bean analogy works for me but your explanation doesn't (for me), to me this thread demonstrates that:
There is a 400g can of beans (some UAP footage)
Half the observers say it contains 1000 beans (it's a balloon)
Half the observers say it contains 1001 beans (it's a UAP/Space traveller)
And we're never going to get the evidence to convince all the observers that there are 1001 beans because we can't find the can opener. One person that supposedly does have a can opener keeps saying they have a can opener, but hasn't provided it yet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
The analogy isn't about the beans, whether they are beans and how many there may actually be.
The analogy is that the conversation is about beans but Screeeech is asking others to prove if his carrot is a cabbage.
The test however is in reading the syntax correctly in complicated language through natural conversation phrasing.
Which is why you’re confusing yourself and others.
Because that isn’t what’s happening.
Soldato
Years long, multi person, multi agencies etc etc con. That’s what you believe this all is?
When you say it like that you sound as mad as the ‘it’s defo aliens’ brigade!
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
Of course and that's because the detail redacted in the analogy is not the proof but the proof is from the test of interpretation in the tautology.
Associate
Anton Chigurh: The evidence shall be presented to me beneath my feet.
If the evidence isn't forthcoming, that's not my problem.
If the evidence isn't forthcoming, that's not my problem.
You sound like Bob Lazar.
Sort of,
The premise is a bit wonky though,
I don't think there has been a years long multi-person, multi-agency anything - I think a few brazen individuals (David Grusch, Ross Coulthard, Leslie Keen, et all) have tried to dress it up as though there has been, when in fact - it's just a scam to get traffic, clicks and interview time, for the likes of Newsnation, The debrief and a few other tinpot media companies.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,052
Have you established yourself correct in this supposition?
I don't think anyone is debating you on your conjecture.
In your opinion, what happened to the whole driver for this set out through the original bill which appeared to have bipartisan support at that stage and if that was indeed the case the final version (not necessarily as currently presented), as ammended (S.Amdt.797 to S.2226), was passed by the Senate.
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/senate-amendment/797/text?s=a&r=10
This forms part of the S.2226 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 so it had to be passed by the Autumn.
Progress of this can be tracked here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2226
The above links are direct to the official documentation. No conjecture or miss representation.
The wording on the ammendment was very precise around UAPs and the processes for disclosure or non disclosure.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Highly recommended listening as it's on topic, interview with John Gertz.
Last edited:
Soldato
Dude, read back what you’ve written - it makes you sound like a proper tinfoil hat crazy. It’s a likely to be ET and his cousins as it is your theory - both are as mad as each other.
LOL.... you get so invested in a bunch of nonsense that has 0 proof to back it up and then say HE sounds Tinfoil hat crazy?
Get over yourself.
Soldato
I’m not invested in anything. You’ve literally posted for no reason other than to antagonise. Perhaps it’s you needs to get over yourself.
Edit: you might want to actually read my post before trying to come across as a smart arse. Else you end up looking like a clown.
Last edited:
Incorrect.
I posted to mock you, not to antagonize.
You're so sure he sounds like a tinfoil hatter, when we have the likes of Pottsey in here spouting nonsense in every post they write, yet you don't call him a tinfoil hatter.
Why is that?
Could it be because you are, in fact, invested in this nonsense?