Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,155
- Location
- Hull
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,370
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Aliens are real, I dont need evidence...
but Pottsey doesn't believe they are Alien, he thinks they are Black Ops or whatever they are called these days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,155
- Location
- Hull
To be honest, I dont know what to believe anymore.... those damn grifters have muddied the waters too much but yeah all genuine sighting I think are advanced human tech, take the triangle things with the light on each end for example, I reckon they are human made and will become common knowledge one day.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
Same. The brothers have a van and hang out at various locations searching for UAPS.................
.. ....Their evidence was to give a slightly different car park location and a slightly different direction so the data didn't line with any planes. That's it. That's their argument.Metabunk folk lined up geolocation based on video, most likely explanation is a plane, which also tallies with the whole reg/green flashing lights, landing lights which was pointed out is recommended for planes to use for added visibly to other planes.
Some people think plane, some people think advanced tech. I asked my sister what she thought and she went 'huh', so I don't think the general public are aware.
Only you are flat out lying because I provided plenty of evidence in all sorts of forms. Everyone can see I gave you everything you asked for. No one else seems to have problems understanding the evidence.
Its the same thing with you every time with you. It tends to go along these lines or similar.
Felon: provide evidence.
Me: provides an explanation
Felon: that's a wall of text its too long
Me: provides a short version
Felon: there's no details, I want it longer with links
Me: Here are links
Felon: Those link do not count (followed by some made up nonsense reason on why they don't count)
Me: ok here is a scientific paper backed up by citations.
Felon: That's just a 20k essay of unreadable alphabet soup
Me: Ok here is a youtube video with a militry expert that explains everything to you in simple terms.
Felon: I am not watching a video
Me: Ok here is the quote from the video which also providers you with timestamps to check I quoted correctly.
Felon: More of the same old guff.
Me: What about your evidence?
Felon: I don't need evidence.
and on and on you go.
My claims have been proven. You can pretend otherwise as much as you like as you opinion changes nothing.
Spot on. Some people are calling the latest whistle-blower Jake Barber and latest video a fraud and scammer. I don’t think that. Everything points to Jake Barber being a real militry helicopter pilot who really did work on crash retravel teams. He did drop off teams and did collect and recover what ever crashed. Which is most likely some sort of militry hardware.
Now I am no expert on PTSD but to me Jake Barber in the interviews comes across as suffering from PTSD or some sort of stress and is calling the object a none human craft as he couldn’t recognise the object. The thing is by his own account he was 150 foot away with that green night vision active while also piloting a helicopter which I am sure takes up a reasonable amount of concentration when piloting at night in the dark. I don’t think he is is trying to scam anyone. I think he genuinely believes what he is saying but is mistaken on what the object is he picked up due to a combination of stress, nightvision, flying a helicopter at night and being 150 foot away. That doesn't make him a scammer or fraud.
Its the same with my recent disagreements with the metadebunk conclusion for the older video unrelated to Jake. I fully agree with metadebunk that the UFO triangle we are talking about is not a UFO but an artefact of nightversion. I just disagree with them on the source of the artefacts. They say its distance stars as night. I say its drones at 1000 yards away. For what ever reason they edited out the end of the video which points to it being drones over stars. Either way we both agree it not a triangle UFO.
Last edited:
Fixed.
'Now i am no expert....." - now there's a load off my mind!....
Let's have it right:
Not long back, you and a bunch of other people were saying how we had to believe the pilots, because they're so highly ranked, and so highly trained - what they see and describe MUST be correct, and anybody daring to question them is an idiot, or has no place to do so, or whatever.
Now we get a highly trained helicopter pilot who says he dropped off men next to an alien egg or whatever, from 150 feet away - and now you are trying to change his story for him, by saying that (despite admitting being no expert) that because he had PTSD, he likely made a mistake, that his account is wrong and this highly trained pilot - is all wrong and is suddenly completely incompetent and is misidentifying things as aliens.
One one hand - you're saying that this new Jake Barber guy is a real helicopter pilot, involved with these crash retrieval programs - then on the other hand, you're saying that he's a complete idiot and doesn't know what he's doing!
Last edited:
Let’s recap
You asked for evidence on why I think Micks conclusion was built on false data.
I gave you
a long explanation
a short explanation
a twitter link with videos
a tweeter link with other people saying the same as myself backed up with there evidence
a scientific paper with citations
a short video
a longer YouTube video with a militry export explaining in simple terms
a quote from the militry expert so you didn’t have to watch the entire thing.
And more
Everyone else has enough critical thinking skills to following my chain of evidence.
Its really simple. Micks conclusion was built on a false or if you prefer incorrect idea of how the FLIR/Gimble system works. The evidence shows the real life way the system works is opposite to how Micks test works. This invalidates his tests which in turn invalidates his conclusion built on those test. Ergo Micks conclusion is built on false data.
If you generally see all that as illiterate alphabet soup that reads like a rambling of a drugged horse. Then its clear the problem is on your side, not my side. No one else is having problems following the reasoning I posted here. They might not agree with my opinion but they understand.
This is one of those classic examples where you make up a fantasy story in your head and start believing it happened. Only back to the real world that never happened. I never said and did those things. I also never called or implied Jake was a complete idiot. He is not and he certainty knows how to do his job as it takes a very high skill level to do what he was doing.
There is this "little thing" called critical thinking and corroborating evidence. There is a major difference between the solo pilot Jake Barber which has all the problems I stated before and say the Nimtz event that has a ton of corroborating evidence with multiple pilots. As for trying to change Jakes story for him. No, I am not changing his story. I am giving my opinion on why I don’t think he is a scammer or a fraud.
Despite your lies. I have always been happy for healthy scepticism and evidence-based debunking and have never said we have to blindly 100% believe every single pilot. Which brings me onto a common theme, its apparently fine for you to spread lies about people, call them fraud, scammers, you lie about them being discredited. You never have to provide evidence as its just your opinion. But if I give an opinion backed up by valid reasoning you go on a mad rant like the past few days and demand evidence.
Why is it every time I say something is not an alien or not a UFO is seems to trigger you? You seem to have some sort of problem with me saying Jake is wrong and its not a alien UFO. OK then, your not happy with me saying its not an Alien UFO. What's your explanation?
This is easy.
What makes you qualified, to dispute his account? How can you sit, many miles away - after the fact and say that this 'highly trained pilot' made a mistake, and is completely wrong about what he saw?
What information, training or experience do you have, to be able to dispute his account and say that he's mistaken?.
What makes you qualified, to dispute his account? How can you sit, many miles away - after the fact and say that this 'highly trained pilot' made a mistake, and is completely wrong about what he saw?
What information, training or experience do you have, to be able to dispute his account and say that he's mistaken?.
You seem adamant that I am wrong in saying it’s not an alien UFO. So, you think he picked up a crashed alien UFO do you?
As for your question I have many years’ experience interviewing people and have been trained on what to look for. As well as many years’ experiences doing 1to1 assessments in the past. I used those life experiences to help form my opinion on Jake Barber.
Plus there Occam's razor.
Now it’s your turn. You often call people discredited, fraud, scammer, Lier without evidence. You often dispute other peoples accounts of the event they are involved in. What makes you qualified to do that and sit many miles away sitting there saying no they are wrong.
I also see you failed to backup your fantasy story with any quotes or citations. I guess that's because its a story you made up that never happened.
The helicopter pilot says it was an alien UFO in the Newsnation interview:
You seem to think he's wrong and mistaken, how can you say he's wrong when you weren't there and he says he was?
I can say what I did by applying basic logic, Occam's razor + critical thinking. I already explained to you what I based my opinion on. At least my opinion make sense, unlike your view which seems to be the pilot isn't wrong and its a crashed alien UFO. First you post delusions about things that never happened and now your defending that the object is a crashed alien craft.
You’re cherry picking.
You’re choosing to believe the part of the story you like (the crash retrieval program), while throwing out the bit you don’t like (it’s aliens)
It’s inconsistent.
Applying Occam Razor is not cherry picking. Learn the difference. There is zero inconsistency on my part. For years I have said I don't think its aliens but militry equipment. For years I have been consistent in saying my personal view is the retrieval teams are real, UAP's are real but its militry equipment not aliens. Not everyone agrees with that viewpoint which is fine. But I have been consistent on that viewpoint for myself.
Perhaps if you stopped making up all these fantasy stories and events that never happened like you did in post 37595759, you wouldn't get so confused and think there is inconsistency.
Saying the militry crash retrieval program is real and not believing the alien bit isn't even inconsistency.
Anyway, your the one who just spent what was it, 2 pages? effectively arguing for it being aliens by arguing against anyone saying its not aliens. I am the one saying its not aliens which you clearly do not agree with.
If this somehow turns out to be aliens, I will hold my hand up and say I got this wrong in thinking it was all militry projects. As of right now you have not convinced me its aliens. Until I see better evidence I am going with the pilot flying in pitch black conditions at 150 to 200feet away from the object which is large distance in the dark, is mistaken on what he thinks he spotted in the dark.
The pilot (Jacob Barber) makes an unambiguous statement; there's a crash retreival program to recover aliens.
You agree with the first part (the retrival program part), but disagree with the second part (the aliens).
This is the very definition of cherry picking, because you're choosing only to believe the parts of the story that suit your chosen narrative, whilst sweeping the bits you don't like under the carpet.
Last edited:
That’s not what cherry-picking means and that is not what I am doing. To cherry pick means suppressing evidence and/or ignoring evidence that contradicts the position taken. I am not doing any of that. I factored in that evidence, not ignored it and none of the evidence contradicts me.
It’s really simple
The Retrieval program for sensitive and normal militry hardware has been verified, confirmed as real, accurate. Jacob being a helicopter pilot who did retrieval runs seems to be true and happened. Why wouldn’t I believe that?
The statement about aliens has not been verified nor confirmed as real, accurate or correct. Furthermore there is a sensible explanation that is reasonable and explains it away as not aliens. Apply Occam Razor.
The first part has been verified as real so I believe it . The 2nd part has not been verified as real and has a reasonable alternative explanation so I don't believe it.
“You agree with the first part (the retrival program part), but disagree with the second part (the aliens).”
That is correct as it’s a perfectly sensible, logical and reasonable position to hold based on current evidence. There is nothing wrong with that viewpoint.
In short. If you want to believe someone looking at an object 200feet away in pitch black night-time while also intensely concentrating on his piloting job, is seeing an alien go ahead. I don't believe your alien story one bit based on current evidence. Given the environmental conditions its more likely the pilot is mistaken. Its clear you don't think the pilot is mistaken and that's your prerogative. You go ahead and believe its aliens, I will keep saying its not unless better evidence comes out.
Last edited:
An interesting thing I learned was that Barber and his team have setup a private entity called "Skywatcher"
They say the aim is to try and gather data in the public domain to prove the reality of The Phenomenon. Sounds like the start of a grift right? But they stated day one they are not looking for any public funding now or in the future.
So who is funding this effort? Turns out to be Alex Klokus and the SALT foundation: https://www.salt.org/
Here is Alex interviewing Col Karl Nell last year at the SALT conference. So there is a definite network and effort going on behind the scenes here to bring former military out into the open on this topic and put them to work in a public facing setting.
They say the aim is to try and gather data in the public domain to prove the reality of The Phenomenon. Sounds like the start of a grift right? But they stated day one they are not looking for any public funding now or in the future.
So who is funding this effort? Turns out to be Alex Klokus and the SALT foundation: https://www.salt.org/
Here is Alex interviewing Col Karl Nell last year at the SALT conference. So there is a definite network and effort going on behind the scenes here to bring former military out into the open on this topic and put them to work in a public facing setting.
Last edited:
It's stupid.
By cherry picking the first part - but disagreeing with the other part, simply makes it look like a very poor story, from a very poor, incompetent and unreliable witness, or the witness is lying outright.
If it was a solid account from a solid witness the story would make sense and add up as a whole, and you wouldn't need to cherry pick the bits you like, because the whole account would add up.
