Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
I'mConvinced

Now that we have hard evidence of UFO's

359 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, khol said:

Thread might be beyond reviving...but lets step outside the box for a minute and assume these naval pilots and other personel have seen exactly what there describing

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-a-believable-explanation-of-those-ufo-videos-released-by-the-navy-2019-10-15

I havent researched any of the claimed science and its from last year so many have possibly read it

But it goes without saying technology like this would be a game changer in so many ways. How would it be presented and what kind of politics involved would be the interesting part

 

I'd be happy to look at the data and then the associated maths, but the problem is that as Stereo rightly points out, NONE of the video footage shows anything in the way of high-g maneuvers.  They don't even show abnormally high speeds in a straight line, or even any unusually tight turns.

The high-g claims are based solely on anecdotes (NOT data or screengrabs or anything in the way of actual hard evidence), so even if we accept the stories 100%, there is no way to verify the claims or determine if these radar operators may have mistakenly linked individual returns as being from one craft, rather than multiple craft or other phenomena.  I would note that it appears that much of this was happening during training exercises or testing of new equipment that the operators may have been unfamiliar with, or that may not have been proerly calibrated....  Radar interpretation is quite different from looking at visuals  - it's a high level artform, and there are *many* ways in which it can give a false positive, or can think it has locked onto something when in fact it is a different object on the second/subsequent return/s.  Now I'll happily concede that I haven't dug deeply into this particular type of radar to look at it's potential weaknesses.  But the reason I have not done that is that NO-ONE has supplied any raw data and shown the full process by which the claims were made, including the associated maths from which they worked out these alleged high-g figures.  If there IS actual data that we can look at to verify the claims, I'm happy to do so, but all we have is assurances and promises.  The actual data has never been presented.  I'll be delighted if that changes, but I'm certainly not holding my breath, given the dismal history of this thread.   

BTW, patents are often speculative and may have no basis in reality.  The high-g protection system outlined in that article doesn't make sense to me.  You simply can't avoid high-g unless you can 'spread it', and that is simply not physically possible in a small craft.  But the more idiotic part of this is - why on earth (hahah) would you put a pilot in a high-g craft in the first place? - why not simply have it remotely controlled?  The whole thing is a moot point unless you must, for some reason, have a biological life-form aboard.. so DON'T put a life-form onboard....  Duh..

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khol
7 hours ago, stereologist said:

Look at this false statement in the article.

No video sows any such maneuvers. The pilots claimed tey saw amazing maneuvers, but none of the videos show the maneuvers.

That article is nothing more than a joke. It invokes all sort of fantastic ideas based on a gigantic mistake - that the videos show any amazing maneuvers which they do not. There are  more 'what if's in that article than in an episode of ancient aliens.

Thanks but I should have stated I wasnt putting much credence in the article itself. More curious on how terrestrial technology like this would be presented to mainstream culture and how it would affect our daily lives if it was true. 

Some sort of terrestrial based technology is all speculative. As are birds and balloons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Last night I listened to an interview with Tim McMillan that was about the Nimitz incident and I have to say his arguments were so so.

He agrees that the videos show nothing unusual. He tried to make the argument that the military does not know what is in the videos, but had trouble addressing Mick West's suggestion that if the military sees a distant plane and can't figure out if it is a Chinese plane or a Russian plane then they might characterize it as unidentified. I see the same situation in which there is a generally known object but it cannot be identified as to a particular one.

McMillan's main source of interest was in the stories. He suggests all of the interesting parts of the situation are in the stories and not in the videos.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On 8/12/2020 at 6:44 PM, ChrLzs said:

Answer the questions.  No more video links that are just as likely to have the wrong timings, given your last effort...

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

Lol you ignore 99% of what he posts, then demand he answer you? Wow

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
32 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Lol you ignore 99% of what he posts, then demand he answer you? Wow

point out the 1% he does not ignore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
On 8/10/2020 at 10:30 PM, I'mConvinced said:

Hey its not my fault you don't get it.

no one gets it, so who's fault is that? i don't get it & i'm one hell of a clever MF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
On 8/14/2020 at 7:38 PM, Dejarma said:

point out the 1% he does not ignore

No thanks. Far to much negativity And insults to weed through to get to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

It seems that the claims of hard evidence of UFOs was not correct. Still waiting on that.

Surprised that no one included Greer and his telepathic summoning or whatever he claims to lure in UFOs was not listed.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
51 minutes ago, stereologist said:

It seems that the claims of hard evidence of UFOs was not correct. Still waiting on that.

You mean like the pentagon saying this is hard evidence of UFO’s? People who basically on any other subject you would believe whole heartily? I’m still waiting for people to stop pretending that doesn’t mean anything. 

51 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Surprised that no one included Greer and his telepathic summoning or whatever he claims to lure in UFOs was not listed.

I’m not surprised you are trying to throw a turd in the punch bowl by bringing this up. We don’t need Greer for anything. We have the most advanced military site on the planet confirming it’s so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

You mean like the pentagon saying this is hard evidence of UFO’s? People who basically on any other subject you would believe whole heartily? I’m still waiting for people to stop pretending that doesn’t mean anything. 

I’m not surprised you are trying to throw a turd in the punch bowl by bringing this up. We don’t need Greer for anything. We have the most advanced military site on the planet confirming it’s so. 

The title of this thread is "Now that we have hard evidence of UFO's". There is none in this thread.

And the military is not confirming hard evidence.

What hard evidence do you suggest there is? Is it the videos which show nothing unusual or are you elevating stories to hard evidence?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
22 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The title of this thread is "Now that we have hard evidence of UFO's". There is none in this thread.

And the military is not confirming hard evidence.

What hard evidence do you suggest there is? Is it the videos which show nothing unusual or are you elevating stories to hard evidence?

The military saying they are encountering UFO’s for the first time in our history, after decades of denial is huge. Regardless of you folks insisting it isn’t. 
 

Personally it doesn’t mean much to me. I don’t believe half of what comes out of our government. NTM I saw one with my own eyes, so I don’t need anyone. 
 

What’s so funny though, is you guys have thrown your full support behind these people back when they supported your world view. For years. The second they didn’t you throw even them in the trash. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

The military saying they are encountering UFO’s for the first time in our history, after decades of denial is huge. Regardless of you folks insisting it isn’t. 
 

Personally it doesn’t mean much to me. I don’t believe half of what comes out of our government. NTM I saw one with my own eyes, so I don’t need anyone. 
 

What’s so funny though, is you guys have thrown your full support behind these people back when they supported your world view. For years. The second they didn’t you throw even them in the trash.

The military encountering UFOs for the first time in our history? Not true. Far from true.

So you have a story. You are like this thread. It is based on the stories and not evidence.

Again you are so mistaken here. I can't speak for anyone other than myself and my stance has not changed.

You missed answering any of the question which boil down to where is the hard evidence? Your lack of telling us suggests you know there is no hard evidence.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
44 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The military encountering UFOs for the first time in our history? Not true. Far from true.

 

No, it’s the first time our military has admitted to the public that they encounter UFO’s. 
 

And we do not just have a story. We have a story from individuals that is confirmed by the pentagon. Not even close to the same thing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
24 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

No, it’s the first time our military has admitted to the public that they encounter UFO’s. 
 

And we do not just have a story. We have a story from individuals that is confirmed by the pentagon. Not even close to the same thing. 

That makes it a story. It's just a story without hard evidence to back up the story.

Actually, the military investigated foo fighters in WWII.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
On 8/11/2020 at 4:36 PM, stereologist said:

There is no hard evidence. There are lots and lots of stories and it took collecting stories from events other than the topic of the thread to make even a small pile of stories.

About all we have for possible actual evidence is some materials that were sold to the TTSA that appear to be nothing more than slag. This would not be the first time that a piece of metallic junk had been claimed to be extraterrestrial in origin.

Here are some of the cases of fake ET materials:

  1. So called implants found in people from one and only one pediatrist named Leir.
  2. Maury island slag
  3. Falcon lake hoax metal pieces
  4. Lazzar's chunk of 115
  5. Colin Andrews' metal
  6. Bob White metal - the best UFO evidence for a quarter century or more

Art's Parts are in good company aren't they? 

 

In your opinion.  Sounds like a gish gallop to me, using various completely unrelated cases to try and say this one is false by proxy is a logical fallacy.  Which bits of evidence are you having trouble with? 

It isn't the first time a piece of metallic junk had been claimed to be extraterrestrial in origin, however it is the first time the military have signed a publicly available CRADA with the US Military.  So if it's a scam company with scam materials then explain why anyone would be interested in partnering with them? What is your theory regarding TTSA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
Posted (edited)
On 8/11/2020 at 6:39 AM, ChrLzs said:

HOW SO?  Define this precisely.  And stop trying to change the subject - that was your first chosen topic and you say it's hard evidence.  So COMMIT - in your own words, how, in precise terms, do the engine spikes look 'different'?

And I have to ask, are these engine spikes the ones that you first said WERE NOT in the Gimbal video?  Please admit your errors, it's how we can start you on the brand new path of learning.

 

You don't get to ask me a whole pile of questions when you haven't answered the VERY FIRST one posed to you.  I'll just keep asking until you pony up with explaining the 'difference'.  Also explain why you first said there were no heat spikes in the Gimbal video.  Are 'heat spikes' different to 'engine spikes'?  And what do you think causes them?  Do all videos of this type have them?  If so, why are you having such a problem simply showing an annotated screen grab, and with little arrows pointing EXACTLY at the 'problem'.

You are just avoiding coming to a simple point, because you don't have one.

Again, I invite anyone who 'gets' what I'mConvinced is claiming, please do what he can't, namely show this 'difference and explain what it means.  I'm all ears.  Sadly, I'mConvinced is all mouth, except when it comes to explaining himself.

Good grief are you incapable of watching a video from an expert who explains this quite clearly? OK let me show you exactly what a jet engine 'glare' looks like and address the glaring flaw in your argument regarding a better camera.  The following footage was all taken with the FLIR1 camera by Dave Falch.

 

1. 'Black Hot IR' with the 'wobbly' and inconsistent glare caused by the uneven distribution of heat from the exhausts.  A better image quality would simply show more of this inconsistency, not less as you theorize..

wV4Ykz.gif

 

 

2. 'White Hot IR' with the inconsistent glare - Note that you can see the wings in both cases, albeit less so in black hot.

vl4XZL.gif

3. The gimbal footage in Black hot IR.  There is little to no inconsistency in the engine glare, no spiking can be seen and no wings are present.  Note the angle of the F18 recording the footage relative to the target.  In his latest video Mick West claims that all you see is glare, in both white and black hot IR, as otherwise he has to admit that if it is a solid object then it is indeed rotating.  Somehow the technology must have gotten worse, eg blurrier and harder to use, between 2004 and 2015 if we are to believe Mick West or Chris.

5QGqRq.gif

4. White hot IR of the gimbal object:

nx4MzY.gif

And in motion:

oV4NOk.gif

The white hot IR above shows no sign of the telltale glare at all, you see no wings and its heat signature does not change.  In black hot IR we see a very consistent halo around the object, Dave Falch explains that this is far too smooth for it to be the exhaust of a jet as Mick West claims. 

Here is Dave Falch rebutting Mick West in public and Mick West just makes false claims that Dave Falch has never presented any evidence.  Bare in mind that Mick West, who earns money from clicks and views,  went to Dave Falch as the expert and worked with him for months before deciding to publish his own, incorrect, conclusions and misrepresenting them as those of Dave Falch:

Well I posted Dave Falch rebutting Mick West above and so I would call a 'lab demo' of how the derotation mechanism works 'evidence' and 'technical'.  Mick West has an agenda from which he makes his living, you decide who has something to gain by lying.

So now, engine spiking.  This looks different to the inconsistent glare but is visible in most clips that aren't looking directly into the tail pipes of the jet:

k84J6v.gif

We see none of these type of characteristics in the gimbal footage.  Mick West would have us believe that the object in the gimbal video is banking with the F18, at the exact same speed, and that we are viewing it flying away from the F18 as there are no changes to its heat signature.  This of course makes no sense when applied to the wider picture and is something likely to be ignored by Chris and his 'type'. A change to the heat signature is best explained by footage of the jets banking relative to the observer.  The glare visibly changed in size in appearance with a stationary camera looking directly into the jet exhaust as the plane banks relative to the observer.  We do not see any of this in the gimbal video.

VAM80o.gif

I will address the rest of your drivel in another post.  

Edited by I'mConvinced
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

I finally got a little time to get to this

I can imagine you're busy so how blessed we all are by you stopping by this thread, in your spare time between browsing other threads no less.  Pity you didn't have more time but this probably explains your ignorance of this case and the people involved in it.

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

I would first remind readers that when "I'mConvinced" first posted this link, he embedded the wrong time - he did apologise for that, but I repeat, that sort of lack of attention to detail is why I don't break my back responding...

I would remind Chris that he recently thought the wild wild winds of mars would be wrecking our equipment and such until I pointed out that his source of 'The Martian', yes the film, wasn't factually correct.  So on one hand you have a guy who posted the wrong section of a video whilst making multiple posts from a phone, and then correcting himself, and on the other a guy who calls people out for that fact whilst spouting pseudoscience from a movie as factual information to 'debunk' an idea.  Yeah, I rest my case.  

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

Clearly that system has different optics, was zoomed to a different level, was at a different exposure setting - it also appears to have some sort of optical flare effect that produces that ring around the heat bloom.

No way! You genius...oh wait no, we were all aware they are different but lets see you produce a video where it looks like the gimbal video regardless of the type of FLIR or ATFLIR used.  Please go ahead as you have made previous claims that there is so much footage out there, of exactly the same thing, that isn't being claimed as unidentified.  The experts disagree and Mick West has never operated, worked with or repaired a FLIR system in his life.

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

You'll notice that I can draw arrows and point out exactly what I am referring to. 

Congratulations, you're ready for big boy school.

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

an anyone explain what IC and dave mean by heat spikes, if those aren't it?  Naturally, no reply from "I'mConvinced".

Naturally you're wrong once again. 

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

a quite close aircraft, on a completely different system, at much high resolution.  What an utterly ludicrous comparison!  But that's what Dave, self-proclaimed expert, used as his best choice for comparison.  Then, in IR:

Yet it is fine when Mick West does the same? He used Dave Falch's footage you doofus and that's called being a hypocrite.

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

Anyway, I did look at IC's highly recommended video.....  Just look at the image above - note it is low-res, fuzzy as all hell, and that 2.0 in the top left means it is digitally zoomed (hence even more loss of resolution) - that's why it's a largely amorphous blob

Whereas the low res, zoomed, cropped and blurred screenshot used by yourself, and Mick West is totally fine in comparison? What a joke.

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

He DOESN'T, at least not in the section I listened to.

So you haven't even availed yourself of all the evidence before making your conclusions? This, ladies and gentlemen, is called confirmation bias and is as fine an example as you'll see.

On 8/13/2020 at 5:51 AM, ChrLzs said:

I'm not wasting any further time on your ramblings, IC.  And don't expect any replies as you're onto my Ignore list - congrats.  Get one of your many supporters (hysterical laughter) to post any refutations....

What a child, I guess big boy school was too much and now you're taking your toys home with you? Nevermind, I'll get the pram.  

Edited by I'mConvinced
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
On 8/14/2020 at 5:57 AM, ChrLzs said:

I'd be happy to look at the data and then the associated maths, but the problem is that as Stereo rightly points out, NONE of the video footage shows anything in the way of high-g maneuvers.  They don't even show abnormally high speeds in a straight line, or even any unusually tight turns.

What a heap of BS, you won't even watch a few short videos, make conclusions without all of the facts and the only math I've seen from you, on this topic, is that which you have linked to from Mick West.  There's a reason you can't address all of the problems I've raised with the debunk videos and why you then hide away like some wounded coward, but as you won't be replying or reading any of this I'll leave it to the imagination of our dear readers rather that waste more time explaining your inadequacies to them.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
7 hours ago, stereologist said:

It seems that the claims of hard evidence of UFOs was not correct. Still waiting on that.

Surprised that no one included Greer and his telepathic summoning or whatever he claims to lure in UFOs was not listed.

Another attempt to link this to other cases or people in order to discredit it.  Do you have a valid, fact based argument for any of the points I have raised? I hear a ton of 'in my opinion' but absolutely nothing that addresses the problems raised.  You're no different to Chris, you spout off like you know everything but when challenged you just cry about being misrepresented, before failing to explain exactly how this is so or what your actual views are.  Frankly it's pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
Posted (edited)

Please listen to Mick West try to explain why yet another expert disagrees with his point of view.  Remember Mick West hasn't ever worked with one of these cameras.  Linked at the time Mick West tries to explain it away as an artifact in the camera (again ignoring all of the audio explaining these appear on the SA (situational awareness) page and the consistency of the glare/spikes).  Mick doesn't actually seem to understand what a strawman argument is nor the difference between spikes and glare:

*Edit* For clarity I think Jeremy Corbell is a douche and I dislike his style immensely.  However, I won't dismiss everyone he touches without listening to the evidence as that is confirmation bias.  I find it interesting that two experts, one who works directly with the ATFLIR version, completely disagree with a paid debunker who, in his own words, hasn't ever worked with one and didn't perform his experiments with one.  They disagree so strongly that Mick West is forced into saying they are both independently wrong because of a torch in a garage on a stick. Decide the truth for yourself as none of them are ever likely to admit their mistake.

Edited by I'mConvinced
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
5 hours ago, stereologist said:

No, it’s the first time our military has admitted to the public that they encounter UFO’s. 

That's just a silly claim, and makes a mockery of what UFO (or UAP) stands for.   So, citation required.

Otherwise, like Stereo, we are entitled to call you a liar at worst, or spreading misinformation and misinterpretations at best.

So, you will now provide a CITATION including context, so we can look at what was ACTUALLY said..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
On 8/15/2020 at 12:41 AM, Dejarma said:

no one gets it, so who's fault is that? i don't get it & i'm one hell of a clever MF

I have no doubt you are, yet I need specifics of what you don't get before I can help clarify.  I could summarize once again but why? The main people who argue against the evidence don't even consider the evidence before passing judgement.  Worse, they use the ignore button as an excuse to leave the discussion, whilst trying to push their narrative of me not having presented any evidence all whilst they freely admit to having not watched/listened to half of it.  I will happily and politely engage with anyone who has a true interest in finding out more regarding these incidents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

In your opinion.  Sounds like a gish gallop to me, using various completely unrelated cases to try and say this one is false by proxy is a logical fallacy.  Which bits of evidence are you having trouble with? 

It isn't the first time a piece of metallic junk had been claimed to be extraterrestrial in origin, however it is the first time the military have signed a publicly available CRADA with the US Military.  So if it's a scam company with scam materials then explain why anyone would be interested in partnering with them? What is your theory regarding TTSA?

Sounds like you have utterly failed. o surprise there.

Of course proclaiming something is alien before it is tested is just the silly antics you do. There is nothing in the agreement having to do with these pieces of metal.

Not sure what you meant here: "however it is the first time the military have signed a publicly available CRADA with the US Military."  Lots of companies have agreements with the military.

I've already explained what the agreement is about. Are you paying attention or do you have your fingers in your ears screaming la-la-la-la ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
On 8/11/2020 at 4:05 PM, stereologist said:

You claim to have provided evidence and I called it rubbish.

So please show where anything I called a lie is not a lie. For example, show that the TTSA was responsible for the video leaks. That's baloney. You calling it leaks shows that I was correct that the TTSA has been dishonest. I stated they are dishonest and gave the example of them claiming Elizondo was the head of AATIP when the Pentagon states he was not even a part of that group.

Your efforts to lie about what I have posted show how untrustable you are in any of your posts.

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/u-s-navy-confirms-videos-depict-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release/

The FLIR1 video had been circulating online since 2005 but was not labelled as the Nimitz encounter. This was first leaked by a poster on the abovetopsecret forums and then uploaded to YouTube.  You would know this if you had watched the OP videos. 

This will explain to you why the release by both the NYT and TTSA in 2017 were in fact leaks, as they had not been cleared for public release at that time.  What is your point regarding the honesty of the TTSA claims? It claimed it had paperwork authorising the release but when the FOIA came back it showed they had not obtained the correct permission to release these videos to the public.  How does this in any way change the evidence? Are you surprised a corporation pulled strings to stick to its schedule? Do your research man before you start accusing people of lies.  Once more, please read the below quotes and then please remove your foot from your mouth:

Quote: However, the Navy also asserts that the three videos were never cleared for public release, thus confirming the official stance of the Pentagon originally issued to The Black Vault in May of 2019, and contradicting TTSA’s widespread claims the U.S. government “declassified” the footage for public consumption.

“The videos were never officially released to the general public by the DoD and should still be withheld,” said Pentagon Spokesperson Susan Gough to The Black Vault earlier this year. Mr. Gradisher, on behalf of the Navy, confirms the Pentagon’s position this week by adding, “The Navy has not released the videos to the general public.”

As to the claims he headed the project as being fake as it turns out it's likely he did.  He certainly worked as the senior figure in the department responsible for the oversight of the AATIP program. 

There were two people that spoke out from the whitehouse, the first denied he headed the program while the other, off record, admitted that he did.  If all you have is to spuriously question the integrity of the evidence based on a hunch that these aren't straight shooters (like any corporation is) to stand against the evidence of the videos, the witness testimonies, the FOIA documents & NOTAM's and the US Navy & DoD spokespeople and the CRADA then more power to you I guess.  It seems like a real stretch to me and your argument appears to hinge on whether or not a man, who definitely worked where he said he did, may or may not have headed the program his department was responsible for, and that is ludicrous.  To then bring in the fact that they hadn't fully completed the correct process to have the military authorise the release and essentially leaked the videos by trying to somehow say they didn't leak them...well it's crazy talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Another attempt to link this to other cases or people in order to discredit it.  Do you have a valid, fact based argument for any of the points I have raised? I hear a ton of 'in my opinion' but absolutely nothing that addresses the problems raised.  You're no different to Chris, you spout off like you know everything but when challenged you just cry about being misrepresented, before failing to explain exactly how this is so or what your actual views are.  Frankly it's pathetic.

You've already discredited this nonsense with your claims of hard evidence when there is none. Your story has been pathetic from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.