1012 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

The Sky Scanner, on 13 October 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

I know, I am following it all. All i'd say is your posts that deal directly with the subject stand on their own merit - i'd be tempted to stick with that, people have no other option to debate that if you give them nothing else to go on

Thanks Sky Scanner.  Your balanced diligence is appreciated.

[TheMacGuffin]

The Sky Scanner, on 13 October 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

I'm going to try the polite route one last time.

If someone gives a summary/view of a transcript from an external link, and you disagree with that interpretation, then debate the transcript, not the character of the person who gave it. Similarly, comments relating to a person state of mind, whether they're under the influence etc simply because they're post differs from yours are of no use whatsoever.

Basically, debate the topic, not the person.

Mac G - replying to a post that wasn't directed at you, simply so you can say you didn't bother reading it as it's "typical of Boon" is baiting someone, knock it off please.

booNyzarC, on 13 October 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Thanks Sky Scanner.  Your balanced diligence is appreciated.

Goodbye.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 14 October 2012 - 12:03 AM.

[badeskov]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

It isn't about proof and evidence with them--never was.  It's all about how to spin this story, dismiss the UFO witnesses and throw out various smokescreens and phony "explanations" so no one will take any of it seriously.

The last thing the "skeptics" care about is what's true.  LOL.

By all means of respect, but that is utter toss - patently false. If the evidence was as tangible and incontrovertible as you claim, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. The mere fact that you suggest that it could be done away with by spin only emphasizes that it actually doesn't exist and you are well aware of that. Incontrovertible evidence can't be done away with spin, the mere notion is laughable. It would have been shouted from the roof tops and you yourself would have triumphantly been parading it.

In the end, what you have is a patchwork of disparate data points woven together using an invisible thread of make-believe. If we could stick with the facts and the facts only, I am sure every skeptic here would be more than happy to debate you. The way you currently behave in a debate is not in any way furthering the discussion, rather the opposite.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 13 October 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Goodbye.

Don't be like that MacGuffin.  We're here to discuss the topics at hand, not each other.

If you go and get yourself kicked off over something silly, that isn't going to do anyone any good at all.  You have a valid point of view and bring much of value to the table.  Don't deprive yourself of the opportunity to share what you have to offer, and don't deprive those who appreciate your contributions either.  Count me among that lot, by the way.  I do appreciate a lot of the information that you bring up even if I disagree with a lot of the conclusions you draw from that information.

Isn't it possible for us to respectfully disagree on these matters?

[badeskov]

booNyzarC, on 13 October 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Speaking of that horrid documentary by Larry Lowe, I had begun a critique of it when I first watched it but never got around to finishing it.  I took the time today to review what I had put together previously and add to it.  This is related to the first part linked by The MacGuffin today.  My commentary is in blue text.

<snip>

Great post, Boony. Kudos for the time and effort you have put into this event, it is indeed a very informative read

Cheers,
Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

badeskov, on 14 October 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

By all means of respect, but that is utter toss - patently false. If the evidence was as tangible and incontrovertible as you claim, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. The mere fact that you suggest that it could be done away with by spin only emphasizes that it actually doesn't exist and you are well aware of that. Incontrovertible evidence can't be done away with spin, the mere notion is laughable. It would have been shouted from the roof tops and you yourself would have triumphantly been parading it.

In the end, what you have is a patchwork of disparate data points woven together using an invisible thread of make-believe. If we could stick with the facts and the facts only, I am sure every skeptic here would be more than happy to debate you. The way you currently behave in a debate is not in any way furthering the discussion, rather the opposite.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I have nothing more to say about it.

[booNyzarC]

badeskov, on 14 October 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Great post, Boony. Kudos for the time and effort you have put into this event, it is indeed a very informative read

Cheers,
Badeskov

Thanks Bade, it took a lot of effort to transcribe manually.  There are many other points to be made, but frankly I got tired of the listen, pause, type, backtrack to verify which is required for such an effort.  Plus it forced me to listen to that nonsense over and over and over again.  It's enough to drive anyone crazy I say.  

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

Don't be like that MacGuffin.  We're here to discuss the topics at hand, not each other.

If you go and get yourself kicked off over something silly, that isn't going to do anyone any good at all.  You have a valid point of view and bring much of value to the table.  Don't deprive yourself of the opportunity to share what you have to offer, and don't deprive those who appreciate your contributions either.  Count me among that lot, by the way.  I do appreciate a lot of the information that you bring up even if I disagree with a lot of the conclusions you draw from that information.

Isn't it possible for us to respectfully disagree on these matters?

I have nothing more to say on this thread.  You can all feel free to talk to each other.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 14 October 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

I have nothing more to say on this thread.  You can all feel free to talk to each other.

I think you forgot a couple...






I am of course just joking with this obscure 'take my marbles and go home' reference.  I hope you can appreciate the humor of it.  



I also really hope that you change your mind McG, as I'm sure that many others would agree.

[badeskov]

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

Thanks Bade, it took a lot of effort to transcribe manually.

You are most welcome Boony, credit should be given where credit is due and you definitely deserve it!

Quote

There are many other points to be made, but frankly I got tired of the listen, pause, type, backtrack to verify which is required for such an effort.  Plus it forced me to listen to that nonsense over and over and over again.  It's enough to drive anyone crazy I say.  

That would drive me utterly nuts, I am sure. You are one resilient person That said, for those with a genuine interest in this event I think the effort you and others have already put into this speaks volumes and cannot be dismissed.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

I think you forgot a couple...

I am of course just joking with this obscure 'take my marbles and go home' reference.  I hope you can appreciate the humor of it.  

I also really hope that you change your mind McG, as I'm sure that many others would agree.

Very funny, but as a former military man I know when I'm outnumbered and outgunned, so I have to make a strategic retreat here.

[booNyzarC]

TheMacGuffin, on 14 October 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

Very funny, but as a former military man I know when I'm outnumbered and outgunned, so I have to make a strategic retreat here.

If this were a war, Sun Tzu would be proud of that kind of decision.

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.

(The Art of War by Sun Tzu)



But this isn't a war.  This is a discussion.  We should be able to have one of those without all of that.

Are you willing?

[TheMacGuffin]

booNyzarC, on 14 October 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

If this were a war, Sun Tzu would be proud of that kind of decision.


But this isn't a war.  This is a discussion.  We should be able to have one of those without all of that.

Are you willing?

I spent a lifetime learning things like that, for as long as I can remember.

So, were you ever in the military?

[TheMacGuffin]

Don't you know yet that they were playing a joke on everyone using the term "Project Snowbird" or "Operation Snowbird".  If it wasn't Richard Doty then it was someone like him.  

I knew that all along too.

[TheMacGuffin]

Project Snowbird:

An alleged ongoing 1972 Top Secret project that researched, developed and implemented alien spacecraft technology and test flown recovered UFOs. It is possible that the UFO involved in the CASH/LANDRUM CASE was built by the Americans as part of this project, however another "Project Snowbird" has been found described as a "Joint Army/Air Force peacetime military exercise in the sub-arctic region in 1955" in the 1963 Gale Research's Code Names Dictionary. Project Snowbird is another project that was only revealed in the Project Aquarius Briefing Document.

Maybe it existed, maybe it didn't, or maybe it's just one cover story hiding another cover story.