Excellent Lou Elizondo interview

[ChrLzs]

While we await Phantom's selection, I will, as a gesture of good faith, address what he says in the notes above each video.  I won't go into full detail, just enough to refute the claims at what might be termed "Beginner's Guide" levels.

9 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

I could find nothing from anyone to discount the FLIR footage.

First up, I would point out that no-one here is trying to "discount the FLIR footage".  As far as I can see, no-one has called it fake.  I'm certainly not calling it fake, nor am I discounting it.  What I am discounting is how this footage is being (mis)used by some to suggest something it does NOT show.

The problem here is that the FLIR footage is being used to support claims of either groundbreaking capabilities or non-terrestrial characteristics.  It is being misinterpreted, either deliberately or through a lack of knowledge of how the equipment works.  In order to properly interpret the imagery, you need to understand:

1. IR (thermal) imaging
2. Optics and 'Zoom'
3. How tracking works
4. How the alt-azimuth Gimbal Tracking Mount works
5. How/why that 'GTM' gains and loses 'lock'
6. How the FLIR system gets a 'range' (or not) and how it may be linked to radar
7. What the indicators on screen show (or don't show)
8. What the scene should look like when tracking known / mundane things like a distant aircraft or target balloon or seabird
9. The concept of relative and angular velocities and how calculations can or cannot be made (remembering that both the camera platform and the subject are both moving in different directions and velocities in 3D space (pitch/roll and yaw) *and* the camera is also panning on 3 axes as it tries to track)  All of this movement of course makes the background apparently move at high speed also.  It's all relative......  

There's more, but that's just a start.

Anyway, the fact that you couldn't find anything could suggest any of the following:

• you're not very good at using a search engine
• you're not very good at determining a source that is knowledgeable, and not in it for moneymaking, trolling or gathering clicks
• you did find stuff - but elected to not show it as it was far too complicated (see above for why..)
• you did find stuff - but didn't even look at it (for fear you might learn something?)
• there isn't any information out there, where the footage is analysed by people who actually know about all those things I listed above, and more.

Now I have to point out that I know the last one is not true.  I'll prove that in a little while.  And all of these videos have been looked at right here at UM, as well.

9 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

From all indications it was operating normally.

Yes, I agree.  Indeed, one of them was quite impressive at picking up a small distant object that could easily have been missed.  Well done Raytheon.  Although I'd have to observe that the optical side of your system isn't all that good, and you really need to work on the horrible blooming effects.  More about that later, maybe.

9 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

I'll include this link from an ex-fighter jock who evaluated the videos.

'Fighter Jocks' are not automatically good at using this equipment.  They have much to learn and at least one of these videos (all?) was taken during training.  Also, 'jocks' don't usually get into the vagaries of working out velocities and ranges and the like - there are WAY too many traps.  Remember that ATFLIR is an aid to track (and if close enough, identify) potential threats, at which missiles and other things can then be thrown..

Quote

He makes no conclusions on what the objects were

Umm, right.  Probably a wise move.  I presume as you didn't mention anything, he doesn't do any calculations, either.  Probably best.

 

 

Anyway, that's enough for a start ... more when I have time.

 

[Dejarma]

On 12/5/2021 at 3:21 PM, Phantom309 said:

numerous times people like Chris Mellon, Marco Rubio, Lou Elizondo, Ratcliffe etc have indicated much higher quality evidence does exist, but has not been declassified as of yet. Why? Simply because you do not want to compromise any of the electronic and optical gathering systems currently being employed. Plus, why reveal to your adversaries what you really have capabilities wise - and what you really know?

if this is the case then why shout ya mouth off in public, why say anything about it at all?

these individuals say they know stuff (in public) but never prove it.. now i can say Why?  Simply because it's BS!

[ChrLzs]

In the second set of comments, the handwaving and lack of content just becomes worse....

17 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

Cahill mentions this technology is not within our arsenal of any human tech

WHAT technology does he refer to?  Oh, right, I need to watch the video?  Same old tactics - you can't actually use your own words and be specific?  Is that because you didn't understand?  If so, then really you should pick a debate on a topic you are actually familiar with..

17 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

and is probably 100 to 1000 years in advance of our current abilities.

Now that's fascinating.  What a claim!!  But not 99 years, or 75?  Not 2000?  How did he do this mathematical calculation, and how does he know what we would have invented under our own steam?  Do you think that someone in 1900 could have predicted to even a vague degree of accuracy what was (and as NOT) achieved by 2000?  let alone 2021...  I've got to say that this might be someone Phantom idolises, but he is talking utter bull****.  As we would say down here, what a ******..

17 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

I would not be so quick to characterize or disparage any of our military personnel as "idiots", be they from the U.S. or from Australia, where I see you are located at.

Our dumb military folk generally don't rise anywhere near to the top, like they obviously can over there.  And I'll call it as I see it based entirely on what they say.  Now I am taking your description as it is, so maybe the video has something a bit more well thought out or solidly evidenced and explained.  But I doubt it, and I ain't wasting my time - if you can't be bothered using your own words to explain in more detail, then I certainly can't be bothered wasting my time watching your 'special' videos.

17 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

The ones I have known personally over the years who were involved in similar capacities have all been very, very, competent, truthful, and trustworthy. 

You know Mellon and Cahill personally?  If not, then keep your offtopic fantasy handwavings to yourself.  As for Chris Mellon, can you elaborate on his relevant experience in aeronautics and UAP analysis?  See what you can dig up - it's worth a laugh...  Or how about Sean Cahill who you describe as an 'ex Navy Chief', thus implying a general or something...  He's a retired Chief Petty Officer only, as far as I can tell, but has recently changed his reference to himself to Chief Master At Arms.  Woohoo, sounds much more impressive..  But, while he was on the bridge of the Nimitz during one of these events, I can't see that he has had ANY experience with radar systems or FLIR systems or UAP analysis.  He is however an 'investigative film maker' who makes a buck out of appearances and UFO documentaries...

 

Do feel free to do your own homework and tell me how these folks have any sort of proven record on any of this, or just point to one of their analyses online.  After all, once you nominate a video, I'm offering to run you through an analysis.  It won't be all that fancy and I'll be stealing some of it from other sources (that I will happily name), but it will be worded in simple, step by step logical terms, with all the assumptions and potential errors listed, and open and explained calculations.  All publicly exposed for you to look at and hopefully understand.  You and indeed anyone will be welcome to shoot down anything you see, or correct me.  Surely that would be fun for you...

So, which video and which claims?

Edited December 9, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Phantom309]

Looks like you are obviously unable to absorb new material and engage in an adult discussion. This is a deeply complex subject with lots of moving parts, and very much requiring a holistic mind set........but you are seemingly incapable of dealing with the depth and breadth of it all. By focusing on one single aspect, in this case the FLIR videos, you hope to discredit one factor, and thereby "winning" the overall argument about the existence of UAP's. Sorry, doesn't work that way. The FLIR videos are just fine, as the Navy personnel have attested to. Any info that encroaches in on your narrative, well, time to bring out the bombastic, adolescent, volleys and hope for the best. By continually trying to belittle the people involved, you only reveal apparent inadequacies in yourself. Perhaps you are jealous of the accomplishments of these individuals. And nitpicking about the exact wording of a military rank.....no words necessary, just another weak tactic to try and deflect the narrative.

 

 

From my psychology courses long ago, and despite my advancing age, I do remember some other key aspects. Looks to me like you have a strong case of confirmation bias. I recall confirmation bias serves to separate a person from new information and experiences - these are necessary for maintaining a healthy growth mindset. Basically, the ability to change one’s perspective and beliefs in response to new evidence and info. I remember my prof saying the mind becomes a house of reflecting mirrors that reinforces existing images and thoughts. People will then ignore inputs that might hint strongly at other possibilities. This outcome in a highly fixed mindset, often vehemently opposed to learning, changing, and engaging in normal discussions.

 

 

 When asked or challenged to step outside of their mindset of certainty, anger often ensues (as you have demonstrated time and again) and confirmation bias offers a way to circle his/her psychological wagons and fend off that immediate threat.....and the bigger threat of “maybe I’m wrong.”

 

The net-net of all this: with such a self-centered ego and a puffed-up attitude of importance........and highly resistive to any new observations, data, and different perspectives of discussion, I shall seek out the ignore function, and deposit you there. 

 

[Dejarma]

36 minutes ago, Phantom309 said:

you hope to discredit one factor, and thereby "winning" the overall argument about the existence of UAP's.

IMO it's not arguing it's discussing conflicting opinions--- you call it arguing, why?

here's a possibility:

you're convinced you're right & anything said against what you feel is arguing to you, therefore I'd suggest you put everyone on ignore because the vast majority of folk in here discuss opinions- well, most of the time

 

[Golden Duck]

5 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

Looks like you are obviously unable to absorb new material and engage in an adult discussion. This is a deeply complex subject with lots of moving parts, and very much requiring a holistic mind set........but you are seemingly incapable of dealing with the depth and breadth of it all. By focusing on one single aspect, in this case the FLIR videos, you hope to discredit one factor, and thereby "winning" the overall argument about the existence of UAP's. Sorry, doesn't work that way. The FLIR videos are just fine, as the Navy personnel have attested to. Any info that encroaches in on your narrative, well, time to bring out the bombastic, adolescent, volleys and hope for the best. By continually trying to belittle the people involved, you only reveal apparent inadequacies in yourself. Perhaps you are jealous of the accomplishments of these individuals. And nitpicking about the exact wording of a military rank.....no words necessary, just another weak tactic to try and deflect the narrative.

 

 

From my psychology courses long ago, and despite my advancing age, I do remember some other key aspects. Looks to me like you have a strong case of confirmation bias. I recall confirmation bias serves to separate a person from new information and experiences - these are necessary for maintaining a healthy growth mindset. Basically, the ability to change one’s perspective and beliefs in response to new evidence and info. I remember my prof saying the mind becomes a house of reflecting mirrors that reinforces existing images and thoughts. People will then ignore inputs that might hint strongly at other possibilities. This outcome in a highly fixed mindset, often vehemently opposed to learning, changing, and engaging in normal discussions.

 

 

 When asked or challenged to step outside of their mindset of certainty, anger often ensues (as you have demonstrated time and again) and confirmation bias offers a way to circle his/her psychological wagons and fend off that immediate threat.....and the bigger threat of “maybe I’m wrong.”

 

The net-net of all this: with such a self-centered ego and a puffed-up attitude of importance........and highly resistive to any new observations, data, and different perspectives of discussion, I shall seek out the ignore function, and deposit you there. 

 

Noone is denying the UAP phenomenon. You can't because it says what it is right on the tin.

What you are presnting in anecdotes and fanciful speculation.  I'd be careful throwing a charge of confirmation bias.  Those mirrors might be face the wrong direction.

[ChrLzs]

All that text to avoid the simple request?

8 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

By focusing on one single aspect, in this case the FLIR videos, you hope to discredit one factor, and thereby "winning" the overall argument about the existence of UAP's.

I didn't constrain the argument to FLIR videos, I also asked about radar and any other verifications.  YOU focused on the FLIR videos - fer chrissake, you posted 3 of them...

I simply requested that you STOP being a tinfoilhatter - STOP posting lots of unsupported rubbish, STOP running like a coward from any real debate and discussion on the evidence.

And (please read this bit very carefully, as you just don't seem to get it)...

POST whatever you think is the best evidenced claim.  FLIR? fine.  Radar logs? fine.  ANYTHING? fine.

You choose.  And I'll dig in and examine it fully.

This is a REALLY simple request, and it makes zero sense to not start with the very best example of whatever it is you are claiming.  Why didn't you do that at the start?  (Actually, I know the answer to that one....)

So, I repeat, POST whatever you think is the best evidenced claim.  You claim expertise, so I'm offering you the chance to carefully select the smoking gun.  How the hell could I be more accommodating?  I'm not trying to distract with psychological claptrap, I'm giving the stage entirely to you, so you can show us just how much you know. You get to choose exactly the evidence (of ANY kind) that you like, and then you can show us all how good that evidence is.  And I'll look at it closely too...and we'll see what happens.

 

Now, if you AGAIN avoid doing that, .  then I'm going to choose.  I'll even tell you which one I'll choose - it'll be the ONLY one for which you gave some figures, namely the last video in your set of 3 (the last of the videos that YOU posted, the FLIR video....  ) 

If that's not OK, then... choose.

8 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

Sorry, doesn't work that way.

No, it doesn't.  Post your best example of evidence.  It's that simple, doesn't involve any psychology - EITHER YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE AND THE REQUISITE KNOWLEDGE TO DISCUSS IT, or you don't.  It seems pretty clear which one applies, but it is all up to you.  Drop the waffle, drop the excuses and just get off your lazy backside and commit to your best.

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Dejarma]

why is it everyone who speaks out is an ex this, ex that? has anyone who's still in their job (navy pilot whatever) ever spoken out on video etc?

[+Desertrat56]

42 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

why is it everyone who speaks out is an ex this, ex that? has anyone who's still in their job (navy pilot whatever) ever spoken out on video etc?

If they did they would soon become "ex" at the least and jailed at the worst.

[ChrLzs]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

If they did they would soon become "ex" at the least and jailed at the worst.

Yep.  And frankly, the DoD is not entirely stupid.  They've acknowledged that the videos are unclassified and they will have checked them thoroughly before doing that to ensure that they contain no information that might threaten national security.  They are simply unidentified - not close enough to be fully resolved.

If they do have any good evidence of anything that could be a threat, they would be unlikely to release it unless the craft were outed in some way so they could no longer be denied, or the powers that be saw some strategic advantage.  For example they might want to scare people a little so as to procure more funding..

But in that scenario, the aliens must only be visiting the US military, as there are many countries who do not share the US's attitudes, plus of course there is a huge and very well-equipped amateur community out there (astronomers) who are surveilling the skies at high resolution.  Seems these anomalies avoid us astroheads and only hang around US DoD training exercises.  Yeah, right....

[+Desertrat56]

3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Yep.  And frankly, the DoD is not entirely stupid.  They've acknowledged that the videos are unclassified and they will have checked them thoroughly before doing that to ensure that they contain no information that might threaten national security.  They are simply unidentified - not close enough to be fully resolved.

If they do have any good evidence of anything that could be a threat, they would be unlikely to release it unless the craft were outed in some way so they could no longer be denied, or the powers that be saw some strategic advantage.  For example they might want to scare people a little so as to procure more funding..

But in that scenario, the aliens must only be visiting the US military, as there are many countries who do not share the US's attitudes, plus of course there is a huge and very well-equipped amateur community out there (astronomers) who are surveilling the skies at high resolution.  Seems these anomalies avoid us astroheads and only hang around US DoD training exercises.  Yeah, right....

It is why I think it is ridiculous to keep screaming for/hoping for "disclosure" from "the government".

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

If they did they would soon become "ex" at the least and jailed at the worst.

these 'ex' people signed the official secrets act I'd assume.....

Would someone responsible for new weapons tech become an 'ex' or jailed if he told the world how it all works/ how to disable it in conflict etc?

This same individual tells this to the world after retiring & that's ok? Is this different to 'ex' navy pilots etc telling the world about uaps & what they claim they are? If you feel it is then explain why- just out of interest

[+Desertrat56]

55 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

these 'ex' people signed the official secrets act I'd assume.....

Would someone responsible for new weapons tech become an 'ex' or jailed if he told the world how it all works/ how to disable it in conflict etc?

This same individual tells this to the world after retiring & that's ok? Is this different to 'ex' navy pilots etc telling the world about uaps & what they claim they are? If you feel it is then explain why- just out of interest

Therein lies the problem I have.   If they are telling "secrets" after they no longer belong to the military, and no one does anything about it, those "secrets" are probably not real or they have been told to tell "secrets" that have a kernel of truth with a lot of embellishment to keep people distracted from something else.

[ChrLzs]

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

Would someone responsible for new weapons tech become an 'ex' or jailed if he told the world how it all works/ how to disable it in conflict etc?

Of course they would - they'd probably get nuked within a few microseconds of releasing the info.

So if you think it through, that leads to the very obvious conclusion that whatever these 'jocks' are releasing.. (double entendre intended) is nothing that would remotely threaten national security.  In other words, the powers that be in the DoD and gubmint are simply laughing their asses off, as these folks draw attention away from whatever the real secrets are.  And I'll take it even one step further...could it be possible that they would spend a few mil on setting up a 'department', give it a fancy name like AATIP, and then stock it with gullible know-nothings who have a history of buying into CT's and aliens and the like?  And make sure that entire department contains absolutely no-one with the required expertise in any of the equipment, let alone anyone with decent analytical skills?

Because that's what seems to have happened.

But .... I shouldn't speak too soon, any moment Phantom will be back to nail us all to the wall...  

Edited December 10, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Trelane]

19 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Therein lies the problem I have.   If they are telling "secrets" after they no longer belong to the military, and no one does anything about it, those "secrets" are probably not real or they have been told to tell "secrets" that have a kernel of truth with a lot of embellishment to keep people distracted from something else.

You're getting warmer...

[ChrLzs]

20 minutes ago, Trelane said:

You're getting warmer...

  

Let me help, and heat it up a little..

San Clemente Island.  (follow the yellow brick road...)

Or for those who simply want more than just a hint, how about you start here..

https://sofrep.com/news/navy-knows-more-about-2019-mystery-drones-incident-than-it-says/

Sadly, no pics of the USAF drones there, but there's a some interestingly shaped Chinese ones.  Anyone for a Tictac?

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

how about you start here..

https://sofrep.com/news/navy-knows-more-about-2019-mystery-drones-incident-than-it-says/

Sadly, no pics of the USAF drones there, but there's a some interestingly shaped Chinese ones.  Anyone for a Tictac?

BTW, that excellent article comes from SOFREP, which you will probably have heard of, if your military...  Feel free to look up its reputation for factual and relatively unbiased commentary.

The author's bio is as follows:

Quote

SOFREP Editor in Chief Sean Spoonts is a former Navy Anti-submarine Warfare Operator and Search and Rescue Aircrewman in SH-2f LAMPS II Sea Sprite. Graduate of Naval Aircrewman Candidate School Pensacola, AW "A" School NATTC Millington, HS-1 SAR School NAS Jacksonville, FASOTRAGRUDET SERE NAS Brunswick. Duty with HSL-30, NAS Norfolk and HSL-36, NAF Mayport.

If you're puzzled by some of the acronyms, here's what I think they are..

• LAMPS = Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System helicopter, with advanced anti-submarine and anti-surface weapons and detection technology
• NATTC = Naval Air Technical Training Command
• HS-1 = SeaHorse Anti-submarine helicopter
• SAR = Search And Rescue
• NAS = Naval Air Forces Military Station (or Navy Anti-Submarine)
• FASOTRAGRUDET = Fleet Aviation Specialized Operational Training Group Detachment (high level training in "Airborne Reconn Integrated Electronics Suite II")
• HSL-30 = "Neptunes Horsemen", a renowned helicopter anti-submarine squadron
• NAS Norfolk = United States Navy base in Norfolk, Virginia - home port of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Forces Command
• HSL-36 = "Lamplighters" another renowned chopper anti-submarine squadron..
• NAF Mayport = Naval Station at Mayport, Jacksonville, it is home to a busy seaport as well as an air facility

Phee-ew.

Now, let's compare that background to Luis Elizondo, shall we?  Or to either of the 'jocks' mentioned by Phantom?

 

[Dejarma]

11 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW, that excellent article comes from SOFREP, which you will probably have heard of, if your military...  Feel free to look up its reputation for factual and relatively unbiased commentary.

The author's bio is as follows:

If you're puzzled by some of the acronyms, here's what I think they are..

• LAMPS = Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System helicopter, with advanced anti-submarine and anti-surface weapons and detection technology
• NATTC = Naval Air Technical Training Command
• HS-1 = SeaHorse Anti-submarine helicopter
• SAR = Search And Rescue
• NAS = Naval Air Forces Military Station (or Navy Anti-Submarine)
• FASOTRAGRUDET = Fleet Aviation Specialized Operational Training Group Detachment (high level training in "Airborne Reconn Integrated Electronics Suite II")
• HSL-30 = "Neptunes Horsemen", a renowned helicopter anti-submarine squadron
• NAS Norfolk = United States Navy base in Norfolk, Virginia - home port of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Forces Command
• HSL-36 = "Lamplighters" another renowned chopper anti-submarine squadron..
• NAF Mayport = Naval Station at Mayport, Jacksonville, it is home to a busy seaport as well as an air facility

Phee-ew.

Now, let's compare that background to Luis Elizondo, shall we?  Or to either of the 'jocks' mentioned by Phantom?

 

Seriously, Chris= I really do commend you on your efforts.. You do your best to 'educate' the uniformed!
The time & effort you put into your replies is amazing & should be respected.. Unfortunately, (for the most part) it tends to fall on deaf ears! Respect my friend

[Dejarma]

oh the irony= i spelt uninformed wrong

 

[ChrLzs]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

Seriously, Chris= I really do commend you on your efforts.. You do your best to 'educate' the uniformed!
The time & effort you put into your replies is amazing & should be respected.. Unfortunately, (for the most part) it tends to fall on deaf ears! Respect my friend

Posts like that make it all very worthwhile, so thanks, DJ..

Plus every now and then (admittedly, it's rare..) someone who wore an overtight tinfoilhat will actually change their mind, and rejoin the ranks of the reasonable...  Something tells me Phantom won't be in that category, but I hold a glimmer of hope... 

 

Just now, Dejarma said:

oh the irony= i spelt uninformed wrong

I dunno.. perhaps we'll start on Fravor and co next.  They probably still own their dress uniforms..  

 

 

 

BTW, it's Charles, rather than Chris.. 

 

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

Posts like that make it all very worthwhile, so thanks, DJ..

Plus every now and then (admittedly, it's rare..) someone who wore an overtight tinfoilhat will actually change their mind, and rejoin the ranks of the reasonable...  Something tells me Phantom won't be in that category, but I hold a glimmer of hope... 

 

I dunno.. perhaps we'll start on Fravor and co next.  They probably still own their dress uniforms..  

 

 

 

BTW, it's Charles, rather than Chris.. 

 

great name- my middle name after father... yep, shouldn't be too difficult to pull Fravor to bits, if anyone wants to listen!?

i'll start a new thread on this later- should be fun 

[ChrLzs]

I haven't forgotten....  It seems @Phantom309 either has, or he's Ignored me, thinking that will stop me from debunking his claims.  But I'm more interested in other people who are posting or lurking - people who listen and learn and can do their own verification - my target is *not* the unteachable..

Anyway, as I hinted above, the video I'll focus on (pun intended) is the last of the 3 'samples' that Phan provided.  I choose that one as it contains the most specific claims about 'measured' velocities, and Phan didn't have the cojones to nominate his best case.  I will be back later to start going through the claim with the proverbial fine-toothed comb, and finding any actual evidence that supports the claim.  Or, in this case - as I will show - the LACK of any such evidence.

Bear in mind that Phan presented his claims as evidenced facts.  They are not.  If anyone has better evidence, feel free to post it, BUT, I don't have unlimited time, so it needs to be the BEST you can find.  And realise that means if I debunk it, you do not get to come back, pick another ****ty video and say "What about this one?" and go off on a Gish Gallop.  If I debunk it, you need to acknowledge that, and pick a hobby you know more about or are prepared to research PROPERLY..  Coz I'm mighty sick of going through these sad cases OVER and OVER again.

 

Anyways, stay tuned, I'll be back to show you the huge holes in that claim..

Edited December 17, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Freez1]

Well things sure got heated up in here over nothing. It’s like if you don’t care about anything but the worlds most dedicated debunking expert then go get a job as one on some website that pays you for you’re arm chair professional opinion. It’s a forum everyone is entitled to speculate regardless if they are wrong I love reading this stuff it’s called a forum for a reason dude. 

[Trelane]

13 hours ago, Freez1 said:

Well things sure got heated up in here over nothing. It’s like if you don’t care about anything but the worlds most dedicated debunking expert then go get a job as one on some website that pays you for you’re arm chair professional opinion. It’s a forum everyone is entitled to speculate regardless if they are wrong I love reading this stuff it’s called a forum for a reason dude. 

Yes a forum. Not an echo chamber. All sides and opinions are allowed.

[ChrLzs]

19 hours ago, Freez1 said:

It’s a forum everyone is entitled

Yes, they are.  Did you not read the bits where I INVITED anyone to contribute...?

And your contribution?  Seems to be contentless, and purely to have a go at me - presumably for actually posting content that you're not going to like and showing you just how 'evidential' the claimed 'evidence' truly is...

I would have thought an open-minded genuine participant would applaud that...   Anyways, you'll have plenty of opportunities to critique, dispute and shoot down what I post as it unfolds, then you can show us who is the better researcher...  Fair enough?  After all you sarcastically said I was the "world's most dedicated debunker".  I'm nowhere near that, but this is a topic I know pretty well.

I'll be back in a few hours to start the process - look forward to your input and critique, freez1.  And if necessary, an apology....