Now that we have hard evidence of UFO's

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Show me a real alien corpse. I might change my tune. As for unidentified flying objects, sure those exist. Alien craft with creatures that come to butt probe people and mutilate cattle, not so much. 

Even if I did you would scoff and call it a hoax, it's such an easy position to take as it requires no effort on your part.  What is your explanation for the military signing a research contract with the 'scammers' from the TTSA? just for starters.

I haven't said its little green men and I've offered alternative explanations.  As no one seems able to answer even basic questions posed to them I do wonder why this forum exists at all, other than for the ridicule of those that may differ in opinion from the zeitgeist.

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Even if I did you would scoff and call it a hoax, it's such an easy position to take as it requires no effort on your part.  What is your explanation for the military signing a research contract with the 'scammers' from the TTSA? just for starters.

I haven't said its little green men and I've offered alternative explanations.  As no one seems able to answer even basic questions posed to them I do wonder why this forum exists at all, other than for the ridicule of those that may differ in opinion from the zeitgeist.

Take your complaint up with the hoaxers. They're the one's who ruined the outlook people have on this stuff. Those are the same people who have tainted my view of the paranormal. The fakes, frauds, and down right liars. So why should anyone take this seriously?

Edited August 10, 2020 by XenoFish
really need to proof read my post.

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, XenoFish said:

Take your complaint up with the hoaxers. They're the one's who ruined to outlook people have on this stuff. Those are the same people who have tainted my view of the paranormal. The fakes, frauds, and down right liars. So why should anyone take this seriously?

Well i don't usually count official sources such as the DoD or the Pentagon in the list of hoaxers.  Sure tons of people have spread disinformation, have profiteered off of the topic and have downright lied.  I appreciate the topic is tainted, it's why I'm trying to bring a more scientific approach to the phenomena now that we do have some reliable information to examine.

I'm happy with a terrestrial explanation but I can't buy that the most advanced military in the world can't identify a passenger jet or a weather balloon and that the pilots are so deluded and lost in false memories that their testimony is worthless and should be ignored.  If someone could show a single scrap of evidence to support that position, or if they could give a clear explanation that fits the available data, then I'll be all over it as I said before.

[XenoFish]

Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Well i don't usually count official sources such as the DoD or the Pentagon in the list of hoaxers.

I count them as hoaxers.

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

I count them as hoaxers.

Maybe they are, but what is the agenda here then? Again I proposed the disinformation hypothesis before but I'm struggling to understand what they wish to gain and why China is now funding a global UFO forum to lobby the UN...

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

In fairness I had to point out to you that the videos were indeed linked to the Nimitz incident, something you strenuously denied before leaving the thread never to return.

So when you say all we have is a story that's being disingenuous.  We have eye witness testimony from 7 of the 8 pilots involved, we have testimony from 2 of the radar operators, we have video footage that has withstood any debunk attempt I have seen so far, we have the US Navy confirming they are real videos and that they contain things they failed to identify, we have multiple reports or NOTAM's describing other incidents including near misses, we have a pentagon spokesperson confirming this is indeed the case and incursions have increased in frequency over recent years.  That's before we mention TTSA and the government contract to study something you guys claim is nothing but a hoax.

I would say that amounts to just a little more than a 'tall tale' without corroboration, which is paraphrasing you.

I think you need to wake up. You are clearly nuts. I never stated anything other than the videos were not from Fravor's flight. I keep pointing that out to wingnuts that think the videos show what Fravor saw.

See you tel  us that we have stories: "We have eye witness testimony from 7 of the 8 pilots involved"

See you agree with me stories "we have testimony from 2 of the radar operators"

We ave video footage that shows nothing unusual. It shows distant planes and probably a weather balloon. You've been asked to tell us what is unusual in the videos and you have failed to show that there is anything unusual in the videos.

This tells us nothing "we have the US Navy confirming they are real videos "

And I agree with this " that they contain things they failed to identify," because they did not say to date they can't identify what is the videos.

More stories unrelated to the Nimitz incident: "we have multiple reports or NOTAM's describing other incidents including near misses"

Again not related to the Nimitz incident: "we have a pentagon spokesperson confirming this is indeed the case and incursions have increased in frequency over recent years." And it is stories.

Actually you nothing here but stories: "That's before we mention TTSA and the government contract to study something you guys claim is nothing but a hoax."

 

Yes indeed stories, stories and more stories.

We have videos showing nothing unusual.

We have a hoax from Howe.

You have nothing but tall tales.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

So you go for an ad hominem instead of answering the evidence?  My how the tables have turned eh.

So what is YOUR explanation for all I have presented? Don't leave any bits out now and lets hear your top theory.  This should be worth a laugh at least. 

*Edit* Actually I should credit you with a double fail as it's both a straw man argument and an ad hominem, bravo a new record.

You are repeating tall tales and think that the bigger the pile of tall tales you make that it changes from tall tales to something other than tall tales?

Thanks for all of the appeals to authority and the appeals to incredulity and the sheer gullible nature of your presentation.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Yet you fail to explain why the US military would sign a contract with a bunch of scammers.  Are you saying the CRADA shows how inept and stupid the US military are by signing up with frauds and charlatans? What is your position regarding the public release of those documents?  It's all very well cherry picking your arguments but to be taken seriously they have to fit ALL of the facts and not be your spurious opine on the credibility of certain people .

I don't need to state why anyone would sign a contract with a bunch of scammers although that has already been presented in the form of something other than what you think.

Have you already forgotten the partnership that TTSA signed up to?   It's about active camouflage. LOL. Please don't fall behind so quickly.

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

And I agree with this " that they contain things they failed to identify," because they did not say to date they can't identify what is the videos.

Are you joking? Please read:

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2165713/statement-by-the-department-of-defense-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/

Note the website, here is the quote:

The Department of Defense has authorized the release of three unclassified Navy videos, one taken in November 2004 and the other two in January 2015, which have been circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017. The U.S. Navy previously acknowledged that these videos circulating in the public domain were indeed Navy videos. After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena. DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified." The released videos can be found at the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA Reading Room: https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents.

 

Can you at least get basic facts correct before telling me I'm wrong, thanks.  If you want I will quote you from the other thread where you made your sweepingly incorrect statement.

[stereologist]

56 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Some folks here have eyes wide shut.

Some folks aren't paying attention are they?

Seems some sleepy heads would rather make an absurd appeal to incredulity instead of looking into the matter.

https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/10/army-partners-ufo-researchers-study-active-camouflage-and-other-sci-fi-tech/160787/

Right? How can some posters forget what is happening? Right?

They get their minds so narrowly focused on the tall tales they forget the big picture.

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, stereologist said:

I don't need to state why anyone would sign a contract with a bunch of scammers although that has already been presented in the form of something other than what you think.

Have you already forgotten the partnership that TTSA signed up to?   It's about active camouflage. LOL. Please don't fall behind so quickly.

And I'm the 'conspiracy nut'? 

You're so out of touch here its untrue.  Clearly you didn't watch the video I posted about metamaterials or you wouldn't have been daft enough to post a link to wikipedia explaining what they are.  All of that and much more was covered in the video you didn't watch because it didn't satisfy your confirmation bias.

[stereologist]

34 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

No, I expect people to address the facts with a reasonable explanation.  Given this should be super easy it baffles me as to why people seem to have so much trouble doing so.

It baffles me why you make pretend statements such as you are not relying on just anecdotes. Then you list a string of anecdote sources. It's just laughable.

[stereologist]

28 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Even if I did you would scoff and call it a hoax, it's such an easy position to take as it requires no effort on your part.  What is your explanation for the military signing a research contract with the 'scammers' from the TTSA? just for starters.

I haven't said its little green men and I've offered alternative explanations.  As no one seems able to answer even basic questions posed to them I do wonder why this forum exists at all, other than for the ridicule of those that may differ in opinion from the zeitgeist.

You are clueless. Just irrationally clueless. Look up the contract. You don't need to I posted a link already.

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Some folks aren't paying attention are they?

Seems some sleepy heads would rather make an absurd appeal to incredulity instead of looking into the matter.

https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/10/army-partners-ufo-researchers-study-active-camouflage-and-other-sci-fi-tech/160787/

Right? How can some posters forget what is happening? Right?

They get their minds so narrowly focused on the tall tales they forget the big picture.

You seem confused so let me explain:

TTSA claims to have meta materials of extraterrestrial origin.

TTSA was responsible for 'leaking' the videos

TTSA and the US Military have signed a CRADA to investigate the uses of said materials.

Oh you know what? I can't be bothered to explain to someone who can't get basic details posted numerous times correct.

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Are you joking? Please read:

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2165713/statement-by-the-department-of-defense-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/

Note the website, here is the quote:

The Department of Defense has authorized the release of three unclassified Navy videos, one taken in November 2004 and the other two in January 2015, which have been circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017. The U.S. Navy previously acknowledged that these videos circulating in the public domain were indeed Navy videos. After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena. DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified." The released videos can be found at the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA Reading Room: https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents.

 

Can you at least get basic facts correct before telling me I'm wrong, thanks.  If you want I will quote you from the other thread where you made your sweepingly incorrect statement.

I did. But you seem to want to put words in their mouth.I guess you have to do that when you have failed so miserably this entire thread.

So let me help you out with the words you bolded. It does not say they are unidentified. It says they remain characterized as unidentified. They choose not to say what they know.

[I'mConvinced]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

It baffles me why you make pretend statements such as you are not relying on just anecdotes. Then you list a string of anecdote sources. It's just laughable.

Anecdotal sources such as the defense.gov website? Go away you troll.

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

And I'm the 'conspiracy nut'? 

You're so out of touch here its untrue.  Clearly you didn't watch the video I posted about metamaterials or you wouldn't have been daft enough to post a link to wikipedia explaining what they are.  All of that and much more was covered in the video you didn't watch because it didn't satisfy your confirmation bias.

Yes you are a nut. Metamaterials are not unusual. People have been making them for a long time.

You have no idea if I watched it or not, but your nutter stance makes irrational decisions doesn't it?

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, I'mConvinced said:

Anecdotal sources such as the defense.gov website? Go away you troll.

Apparently English is a second language for you. I did not know that.

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, stereologist said:

I did. But you seem to want to put words in their mouth.I guess you have to do that when you have failed so miserably this entire thread.

So let me help you out with the words you bolded. It does not say they are unidentified. It says they remain characterized as unidentified. They choose not to say what they know.

Dude, just stop.  You look like an idiot with this stuff.  I've never ignored someone before on a forum but you're gonna be the first I feel.

[I'mConvinced]

Just now, stereologist said:

Yes you are a nut. Metamaterials are not unusual. People have been making them for a long time.

You have no idea if I watched it or not, but your nutter stance makes irrational decisions doesn't it?

Yes I do, otherwise you wouldn't be pointing out a fact that is clearly explained in the video as if you've made some great discovery everyone else missed.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

You seem confused so let me explain:

TTSA claims to have meta materials of extraterrestrial origin.

TTSA was responsible for 'leaking' the videos

TTSA and the US Military have signed a CRADA to investigate the uses of said materials.

Oh you know what? I can't be bothered to explain to someone who can't get basic details posted numerous times correct.

You are the confused one who seems unable to grasp even basic English.

TTSA has claimed a lot of things including faking the background of Elizondo. They can tell you lots of anecdotes and I know you will fall for each and everyone of them.

TTSA was not responsible for leaking the videos. One video was out 2-3 years before there was a TTSA. Are you suggesting they time travel. LOL. You are clueless are you?

TTSA and the military have n agreement as I showed.

I guess you like to make things up. You've been doing that this whole thread.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Dude, just stop.  You look like an idiot with this stuff.  I've never ignored someone before on a forum but you're gonna be the first I feel.

You have played the part of the fool this entire thread. The military has not stated they did not know what  was on the video.  You are the fool making that story up. Learn to read and comprehend.

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

You are the confused one who seems unable to grasp even basic English.

TTSA has claimed a lot of things including faking the background of Elizondo. They can tell you lots of anecdotes and I know you will fall for each and everyone of them.

TTSA was not responsible for leaking the videos. One video was out 2-3 years before there was a TTSA. Are you suggesting they time travel. LOL. You are clueless are you?

TTSA and the military have n agreement as I showed.

I guess you like to make things up. You've been doing that this whole thread.

Sources please.

In fact don't bother, others can decide for themselves.  Clearly you haven't researched this and are just googling along as we go. Enjoy your delusions and have fun with the last word.  I don't engage with trolls and your information is so out of date it's hilarious.

[stereologist]

3 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Yes I do, otherwise you wouldn't be pointing out a fact that is clearly explained in the video as if you've made some great discovery everyone else missed.

Please continue to humor us.

Here is what all of this about the TTSA and military is all about.

https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/10/army-partners-ufo-researchers-study-active-camouflage-and-other-sci-fi-tech/160787/

Quote

The cooperative research and development agreement is set to last five years and could ultimately help the Army develop new capabilities for its fleet of ground vehicles.

The funny part is that the agreement lists all of the stuff Puthoff has been rambling on about for years. Some of that stuff is even mentioned in AATIP paperwork.

Since it has gone nowhere in the entire career of Puthoff I wonder if anything will happen in the next 5 years other than another useless pile of paper.

[I'mConvinced]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You have played the part of the fool this entire thread. The military has not stated they did not know what  was on the video.  You are the fool making that story up. Learn to read and comprehend.

Then explain what they are? You are saying the,military knows, which is actually a conspiracy theory backed with nothing but your own opinion, because? 

So your theory must be that these are a secret government project, correct? You have supporting evidence for this or did you pull it out of your backside like your comments on the videos etc?