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

SeekTruth
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

no i can't!! class me as an idiot if you like:

do me the honour of pointing out what you feel is a fact here- can you do that for me? i'd appreciate it= i'm not being funny or sarcastic here- a serious question, just out of interest;)

I'm looking at your previous post and think I may know what the issue here is. The OP states many things as facts. I trust that you can discern what they are claiming as fact. If you dispute any of these and want to question whether or not they actually are true facts, then by all means, have at it! @I'mConvincedrequested as much in the OP and several times afterwards.

Edited by SeekTruth
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, SeekTruth said:

I trust that you can discern what they are claiming as fact

<claiming as fact>!? i don't understand what that means in this context:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
3 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

<claiming as fact>!? i don't understand what that means in this context:unsure2:

It means the same thing it would mean in any context. At this point, I can only reasonably suspect that you're being purposely obtuse. -:sleepy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

It means the same thing it would mean in any context. At this point, I can only reasonably suspect that you're being purposely obtuse. -:sleepy:

something is not fact if it's claimed to be fact- what part of that do you not understand?

why will you not answer the question? here it is again:

point out a fact regarding the OP?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

something is not fact if it's claimed to be fact- what part of that do you not understand?

why will you not answer the question? here it is again:

point out a fact regarding the OP?

 

From the OP:

 

Quote

 

1. The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group 

This was an incident that took place off the coast of mexico in 2004. 

 

That's a fact. Did you really need me to do that for you?

Yes, claiming something to be a fact does not make the claim factual, as I noted above. I trust you can determine what is being claimed as fact. If you want to question or refute any of those claims, please do.

 

Yawn.

Edited by SeekTruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
14 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

That's a fact.

no it's not, Sherlock! you're TOLD it's a fact/ suggested to you it's a fact via what you read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 7/30/2020 at 5:35 PM, I'mConvinced said:

Still here? Have you caught up on which people did what yet? I see you abandoned our previous discussion when you were proved flat out wrong and showed your ignorance of this topic. 

But then I guess you have your bias and you're welcome to cling desperately to it. 

I see you still prefer to lie. Will you ever be brave enough to admit you are a dead beat failure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 7/30/2020 at 5:38 PM, I'mConvinced said:

You fail to address the FLIR expert Dave Falch and his take on why what you say can't be true. 

These aren't jet engines as you would see the engine spiking in IR. They don't look like jets to an expert who's job is to look at FLIR footage all day. A

Are you a FLIR expert? Have you clearly refuted Dave Falch? If the answer is no then what you have posted is simply ignorant of the facts. 

I see you use a non-expert as your expert. How ridiculous of you. Then again it suits your desire to be a dismal failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 7/30/2020 at 5:44 PM, I'mConvinced said:

I never said there was, I said of the four pilots who engaged the TicTac. There were 4 pilots in the second flight, composed of 2 F18's both of which had WSO's, which did record the footage. 

Honestly Stereologist, if you can't understand the basic facts of this case, as shown on multiple occasions I will quote for you if required, then I see little point in responding further to your petty insults. 

Honestly loser. You seem to be unable to follow the issues at hand. The FlIR shows nothing unusual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Posted (edited)
On 7/30/2020 at 5:49 PM, I'mConvinced said:

Funny but typical of someone unable to argue the facts.The things about facts however, is that they remain facts regardless of your ridicule or choice to ignore them. 

I've presented the case as clearly as I can and I haven't seen a single worthy response that disputes it. 

 

There you go again being the liar that you are. Your clumsy and laughable efforts have been shredded by all.

Edited by stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

This thread is like the failures of the TTSA. They post their opinions and pretend they are facts.

There is nothing in any of the evidence that shows anything other than the mundane.

There are no explainable events. There is nothing unusual, but people want to introduce anecdotes and pretend they are the same level as the evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

no it's not, Sherlock! you're TOLD it's a fact/ suggested to you it's a fact via what you read!

LOL! Sorry, whether you're an ignoramus or disingenuous, you've made my ignore list. Congrats! Life is too short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth

stereologist has nothing intelligent to offer, evidently. All I see from them here is idiocy and insults. I can get used to this ignore list thingy. LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
14 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

No there hasn't and I have addressed those points. I think all evidence is worthy of examination and scrutiny, no matter the outcome, but the evidence and following explanation must fit the known facts of the case. I have seen no evidence at all that does this. 

Be specific, give me evidence that you think proves that these objects are jets or whatever you think they are and I will answer it. 

What you have posted smacks of someone with an opinion not based on fact. 

There has all across this sub forum, you choose to not see them. The items that are contrary to your viewpoint are dismissed or ignored. So stop acting like you are some of enlightened narrator when you are more closed minded than those who call into question the ET answer you espouse.

The same can be, and is said of you. Just because you don't want to read, hear, or see it makes it no less valid or real.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Once again I remind readers that NOT ONCE has ANYONE here had the balls to simply nominate either:
- the video and precise timing, of the alleged non-terrestrial anomaly / maneuver they are claiming
OR
- the data or evidence (screenshots, raw data) of the alleged non-terrestrial anomaly / maneuver they are claiming, along with any necessary mathematics and analysis

I have never seen such vigorous, yet unsupported handwaving in all my days, even going back to the Abovetopsecret forum...  Frankly, it is gutless bull****.

 

The funny part is - I love doing analyses and if I am proven wrong, will happily apologise and concede, having learnt something.  Surely it would be in their interest to do as I ask and provide a specific claim, rather than vague secondhand opinions from non-experts, or vague handwaves about how everyone is ignoring them..

We're rightly ignoring you as you have no specific claim.  And we know why - you are terrified of nominating anything as you know that IF that is shown to be false, you got nowhere to run (except maybe upstairs and out of the basement to get a hug from Mom/Mum...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
20 hours ago, Dejarma said:

what are you classing as fact? give me an example with regards to the OP

Well I tend to use the dictionary definition as it's pretty clear. 

Facts are the undisputed elements of the case. Things like the names of the people involved, the type of plane they were flying, the type of equipment they used etc. All of this and much, much more can be found in the OP. 

What do you classify as facts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Once again I remind readers that NOT ONCE has ANYONE here had the balls to simply nominate either:
- the video and precise timing, of the alleged non-terrestrial anomaly / maneuver they are claiming
OR

Done it many times already. The problem as described is that you cannot see any heat spikes in the gimbal video. 

Dave Falch was very clear, it does not look like afterburners, it doesn't spike like every other engine he has ever seen and the object looks nothing like a plane to him. This would also explain why the military couldn't identify them either. 

So once more, the gimbal video, all of it and not any specific time, please explain the lack of heat spikes, explain how Dave Falch is wrong and explain why Mick West lied. If you can't then its you doing the hand waving. 

 

*Edit* While you're at it please explain how Mick West failed to spot the leftwards motion in the FLIR1 video. Then explain how he worked out the speed of the object from the degrees of leftwards motion without having a distance to target. 

Pony up or shut up as I've asked from you many times now. 

Edited by I'mConvinced
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
11 hours ago, Trelane said:

There has all across this sub forum, you choose to not see them. The items that are contrary to your viewpoint are dismissed or ignored. So stop acting like you are some of enlightened narrator when you are more closed minded than those who call into question the ET answer you espouse.

The same can be, and is said of you. Just because you don't want to read, hear, or see it makes it no less valid or real.

1. Completely non specific again. All over the forum, then point them out specifically. 

2. Give an example please. All I have seen are the Mick West and Thunderf00t debunks and I have very specifically addressed them. 

3. Putting words in my mouth. I have explained that I think the ET explanation is the least likely and given several other possibilities for investigation. 

4. Your posts are nothing but word salad and when asked to give specifics you are either unwilling or unable. Frankly it does not matter to me which it is as either has the same result. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

1. Completely non specific again. All over the forum, then point them out specifically. 

2. Give an example please. All I have seen are the Mick West and Thunderf00t debunks and I have very specifically addressed them. 

3. Putting words in my mouth. I have explained that I think the ET explanation is the least likely and given several other possibilities for investigation. 

4. Your posts are nothing but word salad and when asked to give specifics you are either unwilling or unable. Frankly it does not matter to me which it is as either has the same result. 

 

1. Back out and go through each sub thread that you've already commented on. You can do the leg work specifically since you've commented in all of them.That's sheer laziness and B.S. on your part.

2.You've attempted at addressing some but not disproved them and there is far more if you take the time to read posts and not just the ones you choose to argue with. Again you do the leg work. I'm not an errand boy.

3. I've done nothing of the sort outside of quoting your posts in order to respond. Nice try though.

4. My posts in response to yours present clear messaging. I apparently have struck a nerve as to cause this reaction. Word salad indeed. That simple response let's me know exactly how you are unwilling or unable to accept contrasting viewpoints.

Take care and have a wonderful weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
12 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

stereologist has nothing intelligent to offer, evidently. All I see from them here is idiocy and insults. I can get used to this ignore list thingy. LOL!

You have nothing to offer but your mouth. You just don't like being shown to have been hoaxed.

You can always show us your ideas that you think are intelligent. Go ahead and charm us with your brilliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Well I tend to use the dictionary definition as it's pretty clear. 

Facts are the undisputed elements of the case. Things like the names of the people involved, the type of plane they were flying, the type of equipment they used etc. All of this and much, much more can be found in the OP. 

What do you classify as facts? 

yeah ok.. why do i bother:wacko:

Share this post


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

You have nothing to offer but your mouth. You just don't like being shown to have been hoaxed.

You can always show us your ideas that you think are intelligent. Go ahead and charm us with your brilliance.

Every post you made on this page is nothing but insults. Literally every one. I suspect it’s been that way the last couple pages at least. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 

We're rightly ignoring you as you have no specific claim.  And we know why - you are terrified of nominating anything as you know that IF that is shown to be false, you got nowhere to run (except maybe upstairs and out of the basement to get a hug from Mom/Mum...

Wow, no you are ignoring the actual content of the thread because you don’t have the first clue what to do with it. And are still posting in here with your insults to try and save face. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Wow, no you are ignoring the actual content of the thread because you don’t have the first clue what to do with it

i don't get that, but i'm sure you know what you mean so have fun:unsure2:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Every post you made on this page is nothing but insults. Literally every one. I suspect it’s been that way the last couple pages at least. 

yawn

yawn

yawn

:sleepy:

 

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 1

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.