UFO's.....old hat, new interests.

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
...2. A lame attempt to rationalize denial of conclusive evidence born of mechanics (radar, photos) in conjunction with trained military observers.

3. And beyond military observation combined with military radar from some of the most secure and restricted areas on the planet, what would you consider "extraordinary proof"?..

Why is the only time Lefties give accolades to military competency is when it benefits their argument?

Sorry, but the military hasn't verified the existence of flying saucers.

It's like this; You have military personnel and equipment documenting something, then military leadership denying the conclusion of those documented events. Yet they have no problem using the same personnel and equipment to ACCURATELY wage war and mount a defense. Nothing is perfect, so you have to use (wait for it) CRITICAL THINKING when evaluating a situation. You should look up what that entails.

Why is it that folk like you (whatever the hell you deem your political/social label to be) never answer a direct question to one of your declarative statements?

Oh, and for the record: the military didn't own up about Tillman until the family and investigative reporters told a different tail. Then there was that little puppet show with Powell to sell the Iraq invasion. Those are just recent examples of why I won't hold my breath for the military to admit they can't control or stop UFO's from doing their thing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

1. All you do here is just try to blow smoke about the FACT that you made a declarative statement that purposely left out pertinent details. Now you just combine moot points with childish foot stamping.

2. Moot points seem to be on your hit parade today. Stating them doesn't shield your inability to disprove the conclusive logic of my entire response for the objective reading audience to see.

3. You BS about every and anything you post...especially your icon's self description. Sorry, buy no one is buying your attempted neologism but the man in your mirror.

4. Again, you lie about what I post. Explain to the reading audience how using official government radar, witnesses and transcripts and such becomes an unprovable "I know what I know"? So far, all you've displayed is that YOU know nothing other than your personal supposition, conjecture and opinion as reliable facts to draw conclusions. Sorry Dutch, but that dog of yours just won't fly. Seems "insipid stubbornness" is your motto. Carry on.

1. What statement? That there's no evidence space aliens exist or that there's a vast, wide conspiracy to hide the Grey Men? What wrong with it? There isn't any evidence....or do you think the MSM is part of the cover up?

2. You are arguing in circles now. Again, I can't prove a negative.

3. Disagreed as most of my posts prove.

4. Dude, there's no evidence of extraterrestrial life. Sorry if it bursts your bubble.

 

[Stone]

1. All you do here is just try to blow smoke about the FACT that you made a declarative statement that purposely left out pertinent details. Now you just combine moot points with childish foot stamping.

2. Moot points seem to be on your hit parade today. Stating them doesn't shield your inability to disprove the conclusive logic of my entire response for the objective reading audience to see.

3. You BS about every and anything you post...especially your icon's self description. Sorry, buy no one is buying your attempted neologism but the man in your mirror.

4. Again, you lie about what I post. Explain to the reading audience how using official government radar, witnesses and transcripts and such becomes an unprovable "I know what I know"? So far, all you've displayed is that YOU know nothing other than your personal supposition, conjecture and opinion as reliable facts to draw conclusions. Sorry Dutch, but that dog of yours just won't fly. Seems "insipid stubbornness" is your motto. Carry on.

That dog of yours WONT HUNT is how the phrase is said.....Not FLY! WTF! Of course it wont fly,...ITS A FRIKKIN DOG.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's like this; You have military personnel and equipment documenting something, then military leadership denying the conclusion of those documented events. Yet they have no problem using the same personnel and equipment to ACCURATELY wage war and mount a defense. Nothing is perfect, so you have to use (wait for it) CRITICAL THINKING when evaluating a situation. You should look up what that entails.

Why is it that folk like you (whatever the hell you deem your political/social label to be) never answer a direct question to one of your declarative statements?

Oh, and for the record: the military didn't own up about Tillman until the family and investigative reporters told a different tail. Then there was that little puppet show with Powell to sell the Iraq invasion. Those are just recent examples of why I won't hold my breath for the military to admit they can't control or stop UFO's from doing their thing.

So?

Are you seriously stating that "the military" has successfully covered up the existence of space aliens for over 70 years?

Excellent point; how many months did it take for the truth to come out about Pat Tillman? You're saying thousands have been doing it for over 70 years. That's quite a stretch, isn't it?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. All you do here is just try to blow smoke about the FACT that you made a declarative statement that purposely left out pertinent details. Now you just combine moot points with childish foot stamping.

2. Moot points seem to be on your hit parade today. Stating them doesn't shield your inability to disprove the conclusive logic of my entire response for the objective reading audience to see.

3. You BS about every and anything you post...especially your icon's self description. Sorry, buy no one is buying your attempted neologism but the man in your mirror.

4. Again, you lie about what I post. Explain to the reading audience how using official government radar, witnesses and transcripts and such becomes an unprovable "I know what I know"? So far, all you've displayed is that YOU know nothing other than your personal supposition, conjecture and opinion as reliable facts to draw conclusions. Sorry Dutch, but that dog of yours just won't fly. Seems "insipid stubbornness" is your motto. Carry on.

1. What statement? That there's no evidence space aliens exist or that there's a vast, wide conspiracy to hide the Grey Men? What wrong with it? There isn't any evidence....or do you think the MSM is part of the cover up?

2. You are arguing in circles now. Again, I can't prove a negative.

3. Disagreed as most of my posts prove.

4. Dude, there's no evidence of extraterrestrial life. Sorry if it bursts your bubble.

1. All you've got is just repeating the SOS while dodging any direct discussion of points brought forth. and when you do make a declarative statement, you do the SOS when it's logically and factually disproven.

2. Projection on your part, as the chronology of the post shows to the objective reader.

3. A lie on your part, as the chronology of the posts shows how once your responses are analyzed and disproved with additional information from valid sources, you just cover your eyes and parrot the SOS.

4. Parroting this in response to any and all evidence to the contrary is the tactic of the willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn. Unless you've got something else, I'd say we're done here.

 

[Taichiliberal]

That dog of yours WONT HUNT is how the phrase is said.....Not FLY! WTF! Of course it wont fly,...ITS A FRIKKIN DOG.

Since you've got nothing else of worth to offer, you obsess about this.
That's the point, Stoney....dogs don't fly...so the idiocy of what I'm responding to is the equivalent in a rational, logical and factual discussion. Capice?

 

[Cypress]

1. A generalized moot point that in no way affects the validity of the information I and others have presented since the OP.

2. A lame attempt to rationalize denial of conclusive evidence born of mechanics (radar, photos) in conjunction with trained military observers.

3. And beyond military observation combined with military radar from some of the most secure and restricted areas on the planet, what would you consider "extraordinary proof"?

4. Given your previous statements that essentially disparage any idea of extra-terrestrial objects, your introduction of the Blackbird is a poor attempt at best. Here's the thing: what you "think" seems to couch in the automatic dismissal of an extra-terrestrial explanation regarding UFO's as seen by the military's of various countries for decades. With that in mind, you throw in the proverbial kitchen sink to enhance your beliefs. Anyone who has spent time looking into this phenomena has conclusively ruled out your laundry list. The exception is, "as-yet-unkown"....which is a hail mary attempt in and of itself.

5. You can't have it both ways. See #3 and #2.

I have seen no reports, confirmations, or studies from the U.S. military or from reputable scientists conforming that interstellar spaceships piloted by alien beings are being routinely piloted through our atmosphere.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

1. All you've got is just repeating the SOS while dodging any direct discussion of points brought forth. and when you do make a declarative statement, you do the SOS when it's logically and factually disproven.

2. Projection on your part, as the chronology of the post shows to the objective reader.

3. A lie on your part, as the chronology of the posts shows how once your responses are analyzed and disproved with additional information from valid sources, you just cover your eyes and parrot the SOS.

4. Parroting this in response to any and all evidence to the contrary is the tactic of the willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn. Unless you've got something else, I'd say we're done here.

1. What discussion points? That's there's zero evidence of space aliens? A few lights do not constitute evidence.

2. What projection? You believe in space aliens and are upset I do not believe likewise. All I'm saying is there's zero evidence to support such a conclusion.

3. You're free to construct an argument more coherent and factual than name-calling.

4. Dude, I'm not parroting. I'm disagreeing.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That dog of yours WONT HUNT is how the phrase is said.....Not FLY! WTF! Of course it wont fly,...ITS A FRIKKIN DOG.

How the fuck do you know my dog doesn't fly!!!!

 

[Taichiliberal]

So?

Are you seriously stating that "the military" has successfully covered up the existence of space aliens for over 70 years?

Excellent point; how many months did it take for the truth to come out about Pat Tillman? You're saying thousands have been doing it for over 70 years. That's quite a stretch, isn't it?

What part of my previous post does your first sentence address?

Your second sentence is a joke if you've read all the information put forth on this thread by myself and others. Either that or you're just being insipidly stubborn as usual, never honestly answering a question., like what would you consider "extraordinary proof" beyond military observation combined with military radar from some of the most secure and restricted areas on the planet?

Tillman wasn't tied into national air space security for over 70 years now was he? Tillman wasn't connected to the White House, or nuke missile sites, air force bases, etc. for over 70 years, now was he? Nope, I just used his example regarding the military's penchant to cover-up anything that may contradict their plans and such. Capice?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nope, I just used his example regarding the military's penchant to cover-up anything that may contradict their plans and such. Capice?

My point being that, while that happens, it doesn't last for long. Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers? Snowden? Even the fucking Russians has the secrets of the Manhattan Project within a few short years.

OTOH, I do remember a lot of secrecy from my Chemtrail days, so I can understand your concern.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. A generalized moot point that in no way affects the validity of the information I and others have presented since the OP.

2. A lame attempt to rationalize denial of conclusive evidence born of mechanics (radar, photos) in conjunction with trained military observers.

3. And beyond military observation combined with military radar from some of the most secure and restricted areas on the planet, what would you consider "extraordinary proof"?

4. Given your previous statements that essentially disparage any idea of extra-terrestrial objects, your introduction of the Blackbird is a poor attempt at best. Here's the thing: what you "think" seems to couch in the automatic dismissal of an extra-terrestrial explanation regarding UFO's as seen by the military's of various countries for decades. With that in mind, you throw in the proverbial kitchen sink to enhance your beliefs. Anyone who has spent time looking into this phenomena has conclusively ruled out your laundry list. The exception is, "as-yet-unkown"....which is a hail mary attempt in and of itself.

5. You can't have it both ways. See #3 and #2.

I have seen no reports, confirmations, or studies from the U.S. military or from reputable scientists conforming that interstellar spaceships piloted by alien beings are being routinely piloted through our atmosphere.

Nice try in your attempt to reword the standard denier/skeptic line to make it more plausible. However, your statement does not recognize documentation of UFO's for 70 years and counting being documented by some of America's most strategic and restricted airspace (via military radar and personnel observation). More to the point, what you haven't seen doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do some objective research into some to the credentials of physicists, aeronautic experts, ex-military and intelligence personnel, etc., who have gone on record with their research. It seems folk of your mindset automatically discredit anyone who doesn't adhere to the skeptic party line despite a career record that makes them most credible.

And to date, you have no credible debunking of what I've previously referred and linked to. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nope, I just used his example regarding the military's penchant to cover-up anything that may contradict their plans and such. Capice?

My point being that, while that happens, it doesn't last for long. Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers? Snowden? Even the fucking Russians has the secrets of the Manhattan Project within a few short years.

OTOH, I do remember a lot of secrecy from my Chemtrail days, so I can understand your concern.

it doesn't last for long? Where have you been? Look into just how long it took McNamara to cop to the Gulf of Tonkin lie! 40 years!
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/05/robert-s-mcnamara-and-the-real-tonkin-gulf-deception/

C'mon Dutch, you're not even trying! you're just grasping at straws in a lame attempt to avoid conceding any point in this discussion. That's beyond being an arrogant asshole on your part, that's just pathetic.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

it doesn't last for long? Where have you been? Look into just how long it took McNamara to cop to the Gulf of Tonkin lie! 40 years!
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/05/robert-s-mcnamara-and-the-real-tonkin-gulf-deception/

C'mon Dutch, you're not even trying! you're just grasping at straws in a lame attempt to avoid conceding any point in this discussion. That's beyond being an arrogant asshole on your part, that's just pathetic.

Yet Americans knew the fuzziness of the second Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1967 so your theatrics are unnecessary.

Why are you so passionate about space aliens? There's zero evidence they exist and it would take all of the world's technological nations to keep the secret if they did. Do you really think the French would hide it?

 

[Cypress]

Nice try in your attempt to reword the standard denier/skeptic line to make it more plausible. However, your statement does not recognize documentation of UFO's for 70 years and counting being documented by some of America's most strategic and restricted airspace (via military radar and personnel observation). More to the point, what you haven't seen doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do some objective research into some to the credentials of physicists, aeronautic experts, ex-military and intelligence personnel, etc., who have gone on record with their research. It seems folk of your mindset automatically discredit anyone who doesn't adhere to the skeptic party line despite a career record that makes them most credible.

And to date, you have no credible debunking of what I've previously referred and linked to. Carry on.

I do not begrudge you if you want to believe interstellar starships piloted by aliens are routinely visiting our planet.

I personally do not consider blurry photos, grainy videos, or eyewitness testimony as particularly convincing proof of galactic starships anymore than I considered them convincing proof of a Cretaceous relic pleiseosaur living in Loch Ness.

Especially when alternative hypotheses have not been ruled out.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
it doesn't last for long? Where have you been? Look into just how long it took McNamara to cop to the Gulf of Tonkin lie! 40 years!
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08...ulf-deception/

C'mon Dutch, you're not even trying! you're just grasping at straws in a lame attempt to avoid conceding any point in this discussion. That's beyond being an arrogant asshole on your part, that's just pathetic.

Yet Americans knew the fuzziness of the second Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1967 so your theatrics are unnecessary.

Why are you so passionate about space aliens? There's zero evidence they exist and it would take all of the world's technological nations to keep the secret if they did. Do you really think the French would hide it?

Naa-unnh, son. YOU made the issue of time lag in gov't cover-ups. YOU asserted that 70 years of cover up and non-admittance by the gov't wasn't possible.
So, I gave a FACT regarding Vietnam and McNamara. Until he copped, the gov't NEVER admitted that the basis for our involvment was based on a lie....not even the Pentagon Papers (brought to us by a whistle blower and brave journalist). A matter of fact, a matter of history. Like UFO's, the people were pointing to evidence and such, the gov't denied it.

So once again, your "reasoning" has back fired on you due to your either genuine or willful ignorance of history.

Keep it coming, Dutch....you prove my post with each post.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I do not begrudge you if you want to believe interstellar starships piloted by aliens are routinely visiting our planet.

I personally do not consider blurry photos, grainy videos, or eyewitness testimony as particularly convincing proof of galactic starships anymore than I considered them convincing proof of a Cretaceous relic pleiseosaur living in Loch Ness.

Especially when alternative hypotheses have not been ruled out.

We're not talking about belief, we're talking about fact based evidence. YOU keep trying to misrepresent that. That is your flaw, which makes your mantras absurd.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Naa-unnh, son. YOU made the issue of time lag in gov't cover-ups. YOU asserted that 70 years of cover up and non-admittance by the gov't wasn't possible.
So, I gave a FACT regarding Vietnam and McNamara. Until he copped, the gov't NEVER admitted that the basis for our involvment was based on a lie....not even the Pentagon Papers (brought to us by a whistle blower and brave journalist). A matter of fact, a matter of history. Like UFO's, the people were pointing to evidence and such, the gov't denied it.

So once again, your "reasoning" has back fired on you due to your either genuine or willful ignorance of history.

Keep it coming, Dutch....you prove my post with each post.

LOL Dude, you're free to believe. I'm free to disbelieve in magical visitations from Space Aliens without single shred of evidence on or around Earth or our solar system.

God Bless America.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I do not begrudge you if you want to believe interstellar starships piloted by aliens are routinely visiting our planet.

I personally do not consider blurry photos, grainy videos, or eyewitness testimony as particularly convincing proof of galactic starships anymore than I considered them convincing proof of a Cretaceous relic pleiseosaur living in Loch Ness.

Especially when alternative hypotheses have not been ruled out.

Agreed. Taichi's evidence of extraterrestrial life is exactly the same as evidence of Sasquatch, Nessie, the Abominable Snowman and chupacabras.

 

[evince]

I totally believe you saw something weird your mind could not interpret.

Whether what you saw actually was an interstellar spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrial alien beings is another matter.

The scientific method seems to be a pretty good guide to me. The null hypothesis is that interstellar alien spaceships are not being piloted through earth's atmosphere routinely. The burden of proof is on UFOlogists to provide sufficient and convincing evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The vast majority of reputable scientists cannot accept grainy videos, blurry photos, and witness accounts of weird lights in the night sky as substantial scientific evidence.

And I am the first one to admit I wish we had credible evidence of extraterrestrial life.

It was a UFO


an unidentified flying object


Because it wasn’t the military advancement I surmised it was tells me little



I will never know what it was


And I never reported it to anyone official


I fully realized reporting it was folly


So I never told anyone but folks like we have here



Just as an aside


How many more humans have done the same?


Someone has technology that we yet don’t have


Someone


I don’t know who