UFO Leak of the Century video.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I believe Lumenari was 100% in agreement with you. You simply misinterpreted her post. Or, from another perspective, she failed to explain herself adequately for forum/text correspondence. Whichever way you wanna look at it, a misunderstanding happened on the internet again lol. If it wasn't you, then I am the one who misunderstood.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It's quite obvious that it has been drilled into people's minds that there is nothing strange regarding ufos. That the only people who see them are drunks, wackos, attention seekers etc.

I think that used to be the case, however, these days pretty much everybody has seen or gotten video of a UFO, or knows somebody who has. Yes, the idea has been absorbed by the general population that UFOs are nothing strange, but mostly because they're so common. Like meteorites. They used to be wondrous portents and omens delivered by the gods themselves, and now they're just small rocks falling from space. Ho-hum.

I saw a UFO video a while back and it had a couple driving on a highway filming a completely dead-stationary black cube-like object. It didn't do anything, just sit there. They're baffled. As they go on their merry way, they joked, "Well, bye-bye, aliens!" No big deal. No national news coverage. Just your regular old harmless aliens.

That's what we have these days.

a reply to: Blue Shift


Pssssssstttt. (down low): I think it was one of those triangles. See, they have some kind of tech that can project shapes of other kind of crafts. Stuff you know. Babylon 5, Star Wars, and even The Borg Cube! See, we get the public desensitized so they don't run out to crazy conspiracy sites shouting, "Aliens!!!! UFOs!!!!" (looks around because of the loud voice).

Then, when they no longer care... They will fly one out of a hanger... and the internet will melt down... this site twice!!



PS - BBTs can also do sounds but it is not as complete as the "seeing is believing" stuff yet.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Slinki
a reply to: Woodcarver

You have absolutely no way to prove that anything Lumenari said was "faked". That is your opinion.
As far as I am concerned, anything is possible, and to write someone off as a kook simply because they haven't provided pictures and crystal clear video and blah blah blah the second you demand it - is ridiculous.

It's like this...

I remember my 8th birthday vividly. I got a nice red bike from my Grandma, I had friends and family there.

The birthday cake was my favorite... strawberry cake with vanilla icing.

I remember being worried that I would not blow all the candles out and I was happy that people were singing.

A long time later, I post online that I had strawberry cake with vanilla icing on it on my 8th birthday.

Someone replies...

As far as your claims. They are not credible in the slightest bit to me. I call shenanigans and i insist you prove them, or i will simply dismiss you as someone who can’t distinguish fantasy from reality. There are plenty of those people floating around making absurd claims without the means to back them up, or the education to convice me that you are credible.

Now, I cannot prove that I had strawberry birthday cake with vanilla icing for my 8th birthday.

I have no real means to do that... the few birthday pictures do not show the cake.

I can ask my parents to back me up on that, but sadly witnesses do not mean anything either in this case.

So not only am I delusional and cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, I do not have the education to back it up.

The education part of the "slam" I found particularly funny though.

But here we are...

Outstanding use of profound logic. I'm going to use your very analogy in future debates because it illustrates the hypocrisy many deniers exhibit on a consistent basis when it comes to who and what they want to believe regarding the UFO topic.

As an aside I find it ironic so many people want to immediately dismiss eye witness testimony when the very first step in the scientific method is....wait for it....making an observation.

So the very thing people denounce (i.e. observation) they so hypocritically support (i.e. observation) but only when it follows a prescribed path according to their indoctrination.

a reply to: 1point92AU

Thank you and feel free to do so.

It frustrates me sometimes that a website that wants to talk about conspiracy topics (ATS) has members with such an attitude that I personally am shamed into not even telling my experiences in the UFO category.

Although it is not just this site... I've had bad experiences on other ones before here and I like this place so will just keep quiet about something that everyone worldwide should just be able to talk about, sort out their experiences and see if at least there is a common thread on some of it.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: 1point92AU

Thank you and feel free to do so.

It frustrates me sometimes that a website that wants to talk about conspiracy topics (ATS) has members with such an attitude that I personally am shamed into not even telling my experiences in the UFO category.

Although it is not just this site... I've had bad experiences on other ones before here and I like this place so will just keep quiet about something that everyone worldwide should just be able to talk about, sort out their experiences and see if at least there is a common thread on some of it.

Please don't let them stop you. I've had some amazing first hand experiences also co-witnessed by others at the time and to this day we discuss those events from time to time. The fear of ridicule doesn't dissuade me one bit. Your simple analogy proves how often they (deniers) choose to view things hypocritically.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Jay-morris

Agreed. And if any speculation is to be done, explanations should clearly side with natural causes; military aircraft, Remote control vehicles, and other Mundane causes, way before we get into Speculating about extreme and unreasonable causes.

Hold on a second. You're being hypocritical in your agreement here and you don't even realize it. In multiple posts above you belittled multiple posters stating there is no evidence of a sighting being non-terrestrial. Yet in the above post you make the statement "if any speculation is to be done, explanations should clearly side with natural causes; military aircraft, remote control vehicles, and other mundane causes"

So link for me the body of evidence where I can correlate the sightings you denounce and correlate them to:

- natural causes
- military aircraft
- remote control vehicles
- other mundane causes

You require evidence from anyone making a non-terrestrial claim, right?

I'm requesting the same from you regarding an explanation using one or many of the categories you listed. I would like a link discussing the technology and it can be in the form of text or a valid video of said technology which accurately categorizes the technology in one or multiple categories you listed.

Let's use Fravor's account of the tic tac. The object moved from an altitude of 80,000 feet to sea level in less than 1 second. It appeared 60 miles away at his CAP point before he arrived at his CAP point meaning it somehow knew where Fravor was going to be. The object made aerial maneuvers Fravor has not witnessed before in any type of aerial craft. I.E. Side to side darting, hovering, etc. all without the appearance of rotors, wings, an engine exhaust, no visible signs of propulsion, etc. I.E. It did not resemble any aerial craft Fravor was familiar with. Just to be clear I am not saying this means it's ET. I'm just stating what the eye witness stated.

It's a simple request I am making of you to provide me with the body of evidence that accurately categorizes this object and its behavior into one of the 4 categories you listed.

Here they are again:

- natural causes
- military aircraft
- remote control vehicles
- other mundane causes

We need to see the evidence to support your claim these observations fall into one or more of the above categories.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
So the very thing people denounce (i.e. observation) they so hypocritically support (i.e. observation) but only when it follows a prescribed path according to their indoctrination.

I'm not a scientist, but I think the main characteristic of the observation accepted by science is "repeatability", something that, but it's very nature, is hard to have in UFO cases.

originally posted by: ArMaP

I'm not a scientist, but I think the main characteristic of the observation accepted by science is "repeatability", something that, but it's very nature, is hard to have in UFO cases.

Would they agree to land and take off TWICE from the proverbial White House lawn, though?



"That was GREAT, but the lighting was a bit out - can we do that again, guys? There's some strawberry ice-cream in it for y'all"

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: 1point92AU
So the very thing people denounce (i.e. observation) they so hypocritically support (i.e. observation) but only when it follows a prescribed path according to their indoctrination.

I'm not a scientist, but I think the main characteristic of the observation accepted by science is "repeatability", something that, but it's very nature, is hard to have in UFO cases.

You don't have to be a scientist to understand the scientific method. You would be wrong in your characterization. Go learn about it. It's a very easy search string. There is no "repeatability" step in the scientific method. It's called testing your hypothesis.

Observation is the first step. Then you ask a question. Go do the research. If you've every correctly done a science fair project while in school then you would have adhered to the scientific method. Or at least you should have.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
You don't have to be a scientist to understand the scientific method. You would be wrong in your characterization. Go learn about it. It's a very easy search string. There is no "repeatability" step in the scientific method. It's called testing your hypothesis.

Does that mean that you make one observation and base all your work on only that observation?

If you've every correctly done a science fair project while in school then you would have adhered to the scientific method. Or at least you should have.

The Portuguese school system of the 60s and 70s was nothing like the US system, no science fairs or anything like that.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: 1point92AU
You don't have to be a scientist to understand the scientific method. You would be wrong in your characterization. Go learn about it. It's a very easy search string. There is no "repeatability" step in the scientific method. It's called testing your hypothesis.

Does that mean that you make one observation and base all your work on only that observation?

If you've every correctly done a science fair project while in school then you would have adhered to the scientific method. Or at least you should have.

The Portuguese school system of the 60s and 70s was nothing like the US system, no science fairs or anything like that.

Like I said...do a little research into it. You make an observation, ask a question, develop a hypothesis, and then decide how best to test that hypothesis.

The point is the first step is observation. You must observe something. Observing is also the same as an eye witness. A person who observes something.

Deniers immediately discount a person observing something yet willingly accept observation as a first step in the scientific method. They are the same action. Observation. Why discount one and not the other?

Cognitive dissonance. Programmed thinking. Hypocrisy.

a reply to: 1point92AU

You didn't answer my question: are the asking of a question and the development of an hypothesis based on just one observation?

ANYTIME a UFO story starts out 'Reverse Engineering...' you can be assured it is a HOAX or a 'STORY' or something other than true.

YOU CAN NOT REVERSE ENGINEER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. YOU CAN'T DO IT WITH ADVANCED -EARTH-BASED- TECHNOLOGY, let alone ET tech.

You must know, be aware of and be able to reproduce the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

This is not worth the time of day.

"They use the RE angle just to give it pre-established cred."

It's a compelling idea but impossible.

FWIW, HTH

a reply to: ArMaP

Go research the scientific method and you will learn the answer. I'm not here to educate you.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Jay-morris

Agreed. And if any speculation is to be done, explanations should clearly side with natural causes; military aircraft, Remote control vehicles, and other Mundane causes, way before we get into Speculating about extreme and unreasonable causes.

Hold on a second. You're being hypocritical in your agreement here and you don't even realize it. In multiple posts above you belittled multiple posters stating there is no evidence of a sighting being non-terrestrial. Yet in the above post you make the statement "if any speculation is to be done, explanations should clearly side with natural causes; military aircraft, remote control vehicles, and other mundane causes"

So link for me the body of evidence where I can correlate the sightings you denounce and correlate them to:

- natural causes
- military aircraft
- remote control vehicles
- other mundane causes

You require evidence from anyone making a non-terrestrial claim, right?

I'm requesting the same from you regarding an explanation using one or many of the categories you listed. I would like a link discussing the technology and it can be in the form of text or a valid video of said technology which accurately categorizes the technology in one or multiple categories you listed.

Let's use Fravor's account of the tic tac. The object moved from an altitude of 80,000 feet to sea level in less than 1 second. It appeared 60 miles away at his CAP point before he arrived at his CAP point meaning it somehow knew where Fravor was going to be. The object made aerial maneuvers Fravor has not witnessed before in any type of aerial craft. I.E. Side to side darting, hovering, etc. all without the appearance of rotors, wings, an engine exhaust, no visible signs of propulsion, etc. I.E. It did not resemble any aerial craft Fravor was familiar with. Just to be clear I am not saying this means it's ET. I'm just stating what the eye witness stated.

It's a simple request I am making of you to provide me with the body of evidence that accurately categorizes this object and its behavior into one of the 4 categories you listed.

Here they are again:

- natural causes
- military aircraft
- remote control vehicles
- other mundane causes

We need to see the evidence to support your claim these observations fall into one or more of the above categories.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
I'm not here to educate you.

Thankfully.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: 1point92AU
I'm not here to educate you.

Thankfully.

Stellar contribution to the discussion.

a reply to: 727Sky

For those who have not seen or heard some of the latest develops/updates from Richard Dolan youtu.be...