Corbell promises big reveal at 12 noon PST

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: Encounter
While reading 'ufo case book' I have noticed a common pattern when witnesses discribe UFO depart. The object on the ground has to get til some ultitude before accelerating away.
They seem to always jump up using 'normal' propulsion and then being just gone withing split second? Does their thechnology work only when a bit off the surface?

Of the many possible theories.....This technical science paper (also downloadable PDF) may have information you can extrapolate that might answer semi-partially, partially, or fully give you a theoretical maybe. I have not read it in detail...just skimmed. You’ll probably know in the first five minutes...if it’s looking like what your seeking. Also, the Roswell newspaper picture is not correct as far as I have seen,

I agree the Roswell thing looks fake, and it's fitting because the lead author is a fake "theoretical physicist". He doesn't have any physics degree, and lists employment like processing insurance claims and hospital bills. The paper's first reference is "Secrets of antigravity propulsion...". There's a book by that title, but it was self-published and didn't contain any secrets of antigravity propulsion and the author of that book is not considered a reliable source, so, it's quite a useless paper for anybody interested in real science.

“real science”? Fine Arbi.....perhaps you can offer the poster a direct real proven physics based answer to his questions. You said what you said but then offered no solution or reference a real science paper, book, article, that will definitely answer “ They seem to always jump up using 'normal' propulsion and then being just gone withing split second? Does their thechnology work only when a bit off the surface? ”

My reply to him started with “Of the many possible theories”....then I go on to mention “give you a theoretical maybe.”

The paper is an attempt to answer the propulsion question that many of the world has concerning UFO’s. Did it matter if it’s authored by an insurance claims worker Or waiter, or armchair UFO buff, etc. ? Real Science community Theories are sometimes a $10 a word opinions.

Instead of shooting down what I offered him. I challenge you to “real science” his questions then. Go ahead and answer his questions, and save us all the time of attempting to answering the worlds physics based theorists questions, that they have all been wanting to be answered.

Be a hero Arbi! But.... If you can’t solve the questions of propulsion, then courteously, just let people here offer possible solutions whether they are from scientists or janitors (no offense to janitors).

At least you and I are in concurrence about the picture......I might add that the pictures at the end of the paper, were some I had not seen. Learn something new every day on the ATS Channel.

Btw, I gather you read the entire paper to base your reply.......not just the credentials of the authors....hmmm? (A rhetorical question) ...Einstein was a patent clerk, if I remember correctly.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: JBurns

Bro let's give it up, take our ball, and go home.

8 out of 10 of these "skeptics" could shake hands with an ET and they will still scream."DISINFO! PSYOP!"

It's now clear to me arguing with them is going to be fruitless.

Let them believe that entire carrier fleets, pilots, pentagon chain of command, and AATIP/UAPTF which has dedicated scientists and technicians specifically for this with access to Classified data and tools...

Are all completely wrong, or that this is all DISINFO/psyop stuff.

It's comical. If they aren't convinced now, they won't be even when ET shows up on their doorstep.

Unfortunately you are spot on my friend

They for years proclaimed that all the sightings were made up by "crackpots" with over-active imaginations, and when the objects themselves are finally *proven* to exist (not their origin, but the physicality and objective reality of the objects) they move on to this psyop spiel

I won't accuse anyone of working toward these ends, "professionally," but I do find their reactions highly suspect! Either they are so personally invested in this being false that they can't admit they were wrong, or they are indeed working to muddy the waters (as they have done for the past century!)

Here are a few anecdotal experiences I have had

A few years back, I discovered a picture of the top secret White House bunker in the Truman library's archives (showing its actual location: files.abovetopsecret.com...). I posted a topic on it in the RATS forum here on ATS. 2 short weeks later, the photos had been scrubbed from the library's web presense. Contrary to what some have said here, it does at least prove that ATS and its content is important enough to not just monitor, but actively suppress

Fast forward to 2019/2020, I got lucky and discovered more previously unseen satellite photos taken of the Papoose lake area by NASA imaging missions showing some clear anomalies in the area Bob Lazar painted as "S-4" and while they don't definitively prove anything about aliens, it does indeed show quite a bit of activity on site (including many small and a few very large sets of tire tracks: files.abovetopsecret.com...) and what I believe are obvious geometric shapes representing the hidden hangar doors (files.abovetopsecret.com...). Shortly thereafter, the never-before-occuring "flybys" over Papoose Lake started, with photos just clear enough to cast doubt (yet still showed some anomalies) but never directly imaging the one location in question (boxed in red above). Soon after, "Journalists" took to the web to proclaim the end of Bob Lazar, etc clearly without acknowledging how unusual the places he imaged were. This is just another example of, in my opinion, active operations designed to muddy the waters and prevent at least some of the information from being widely accepted (or studied, as was my hope). I believe this was done not just to add a counter-narrative, but also to "slide" the images down in the Google Search results.

But these videos? They are provably authentic, and on top of it you have the highly credible witnesses (who were there!) telling us they don't know what it was, it didn't behave like any aircraft they know and that it even defied the laws of physics as they know them

Its remarkable. And now the debunkers just move on to the next thing... "Sure its true, but its a psyop"

Convenient!!!!

Thanks for having an open mind. Thanks for not being disuaded by nay-sayers. We are on to something big here. Something that is a real game changer if we are smart

a reply to: Arbitrageur


For the record....a prop from TZ



What’s funny is that early on the screen capture was taken and then a dead alien was inserted and then the picture (reversed view and lightening of the dome to show less of it) has been used as possible proof on website’s throughout the years,,,,,

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: JBurns

Bro let's give it up, take our ball, and go home.

8 out of 10 of these "skeptics" could shake hands with an ET and they will still scream."DISINFO! PSYOP!"

It's now clear to me arguing with them is going to be fruitless.

Let them believe that entire carrier fleets, pilots, pentagon chain of command, and AATIP/UAPTF which has dedicated scientists and technicians specifically for this with access to Classified data and tools...

Are all completely wrong, or that this is all DISINFO/psyop stuff.

It's comical. If they aren't convinced now, they won't be even when ET shows up on their doorstep.

This sceptic would become your best friend if you could hook me up with a Netflix and Chill session with an E.T.

I would acknowledge any such physical evidence I could confirm with my own senses.

But bugger off if you just show up holding a phone and say here's your E.T and then proceed to show me some blurry pixels on a screen shapped oddly like a mylar batman balloon.

Sorry if I refuse to believe simply because others want me to and no other reason.
The desire for actual undeniable evidence I do not have to squint at to make out some kind of pre-suggested shape is just hard wired into me I guess.
I know, I know. That would clearly make me a terrible scientist, if I ever decided to become one.

Now excuse me I am gonna go convince the neighbours to let me inject them with bleach. Because I think it will cure covid and I have the youtube videos to prove it does......

a reply to: JBurns

Let's break this all down.

....They for years proclaimed that all the sightings were made up by "crackpots" with over-active imaginations,...

Every Sighting has not been attributed to crackpots with over-active imaginations. Most sightings (around 90%) are attributed to misidentification with prosaic explanations. Others were hoaxes. Some are still considered 'unknown' due to lack of further information.

...and when the objects themselves are finally *proven* to exist (not their origin, but the physicality and objective reality of the objects) they move on to this psyop spiel

By their very nature they are unidentified. They are not proven to be anything else. Why are you making the leap?
And it's not like psy-ops haven't been used in the past, is it?

...I won't accuse anyone of working toward these ends, "professionally," but I do find their reactions highly suspect! Either they are so personally invested in this being false that they can't admit they were wrong, or they are indeed working to muddy the waters (as they have done for the past century!)

But you are leaning towards a psy-op too? Basically one where you believe something to be true. But the proof has been denied to you. The more that perceived truth was denied, the more you actually believe that this proves what you believe.

Most people want conclusive proof. Proof that does not exist. At least not in the public domain. If that proof is forthcoming then I will gladly accept it. It would be the news of the century.

But these videos? They are provably authentic...

The videos are authentic. But what does that mean? UFOs are real! Roswell is real! The USAF officially studied UFOs.... Those are all provable statements of fact. None of them mean ET is visiting Earth.

...and on top of it you have the highly credible witnesses (who were there!) telling us they don't know what it was, it didn't behave like any aircraft they know and that it even defied the laws of physics as they know them

Why are the pilots "highly credible"? The Hynek Report showed how they were poor observers. Plus in May of 2019 it was reported the NYT

....the video showed objects accelerating to hypersonic speed, making sudden stops and instantaneous turns — something beyond the physical limits of a human crew.

The problem with the videos is they don't show any unusual movement that defies the laws of physics. So these specific pilots "credibility" is questionable.

Nor is simply "being there" any sort of qualification for identifying what was seen. Pilots are not usually scientists, meteorologists, astronomers, engineers or experts in a number of other disciplines. People who weren't there but have different skill sets and access to better information can resolve cases. Otherwise, we may as well accept that Bigfoot is real, the Loch Ness monster is real and fairies and elves exist based on eye witnesses.

Its remarkable. And now the debunkers just move on to the next thing... "Sure its true, but its a psyop"

It's sounding like a psy-op. They do happen. You appear to believe one of sorts was perpetuated to withhold your perceived truth from you.

Why can't this be one to distract and achieve something else?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Instead of shooting down what I offered him. I challenge you to “real science” his questions then. Go ahead and answer his questions, and save us all the time of attempting to answering the worlds physics based theorists questions, that they have all been wanting to be answered.

Be a hero Arbi! But.... If you can’t solve the questions of propulsion, then courteously, just let people here offer possible solutions whether they are from scientists or janitors (no offense to janitors).

The answer was already in my previous post. There is only one video I know of that shows "physics-defying" propulsion, according to the pilot who made the video, Chad Underwood. This is the science behind that video, it's a graph showing that the "UFO" or UAP moves is a left relative motion during the entire video, and continues to do so theough the end of the video. What Chad Underwood says is a sudden acceleration to the left is an illusion due to target lock.

This is the REAL science of the only real video I know of which claims physics-defying propulsion/performance, not only does it not accelerate beyond the known laws of physics, it basically doesn't do much of anything at all, the illusion is entirely created by the way camera system works when target lock is lost.

www.metabunk.org...


It's further explained here:

For eyewitness claims of performance, scientists have overwhelming reams of scientific evidence on the unreliability of eyewitness perceptions.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate

More real science on pilot misperceptions of UFOs:

Pilot misperceptions

That's the REAL science. Analysts already figured out in the waves of UFO sightings in the 1950s that photographs or film of the objects were required for any kind of meaningful scientific analysis. So the Navy sends David Fravor out to ID a UFO, and what does he do with his camera? It's not like a UFO suddenly caught him off-guard. Fravor was told they were sending him out to ID a UFO so he was expecting to see a UFO and he didn't turn on his camera? Very disappointing.


I wish Fravor had flicked the switch on his helmet to turn on his camera. I would love to see the video of what he saw! His story sounds amazing, but, unfortunately, to make up for his failure to photograph the object he sent another pilot (Chad Underwood) out to get imagery. Chad Underwood caught some kind of UFO on video, and David Fravor looked at Underwood's video and he also fell for the illusion of acceleration at the end. But, whatever Chad Underwood captured on video didn't make any physics-defying maneuver as both Chad Underwood and David Fravor claim, they are both victims of an optical illusion (maybe, unless they are part of a scripted psy-op, I don't know, but the scientific evidence in the video is clear either way that Underwood's UFO doesn't seem to do anything a balloon can't do).

As for the Tic-Tac Fravor saw, the story is interesting, but since there's no video we have no scientific evidence to support his story, or any other video to support any other story that I know of but if you have some to share, please do. In fact all three of the videos officially released by the pentagon show optical illusions that fooled people.

FLIR by Chad Underwood shows illusion pf physics-defying acceleration
GIMBAL shows illusion of UFO rotation caused by complex Gimbal mechanism and supporting electronics.
GOFAST shows an illusion of fast moving object due to parallax illusion.

John Greenewald hypothesizes that internally, the military may use those three videos as training videos to show pilots not to be fooled by those illusions, and the military's own internal document lists balloons as one of the subjects in the three videos:



That document definitely shows balloons, but whether the videos are used for training purposes as Greenewald suggests, I can't say; if they aren't, they probably should be.

So the science which shows how humans can mis-perceive things is borne out in the three pentagon-released videos. All three are analyzed by the real scientist Thunderf00t here, this is the real science, the eyewitness perceptions are unreliable and we need video, but when we get video, it doesn't support what the eyewitness thinks they saw:

Pentagon officially released 'UFO' videos: BUSTED (Part 1)


US Navy CONFIRMED UFO: BUSTED (Part 2)


Pentagon officially released 'UFO' videos: BUSTED (Part 3)

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur
For the record....a prop from TZ

Good find, thanks for confirming the FAKE image inserted into the fake "scientific" paper by the fake "theoretical physicist". And now you have the story from the real scientist Thunderf00t in the above videos, if you believe everything every eyewitness tells you without question, you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence for eyewitness misperception, even when the witness is doing their best to say what they think they actually saw. Or 30 eyewitnesses:

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Curious.....has the pyramid UFO over the pentagon video from 2018 been debunked or still unknown?


YouTube vid to dark.....however the vid was brightened up and viewable here:

www.newsflare.com...

I’ll attempt to answer my own question......

The pyramid shown, is a clever reflection of a reflection of a pyramid object manipulated within the car is the best but unscientific way I can put it, lacking other articulate precise wording.

Kudos to whomever brightened the video and reposted it ...... the original vid which was posted on YouTube was too dark. I would not have noticed what I show below.

Below are frames that I pulled that show a reflection of the pyramid in front of street light poles nearest the vehicle traveling on the road.....if real, you would expect the pyramid shape to disappear behind the pole when passing it by the movement of the vehicle.



The next frames below show a reflection of the pyramid highlighted by the sodium vapor road (orangish) light nearest the vehicle on the road, again, in front of the light pole nearest the vehicle roadside.... Otherwise if the pyramid was over the pentagon it would have then needed to be lighted up even more by the parking lot lights nearest to the pentagon building itself.



It is my interpretation ....it’s a premeditated fake and the pyramid object is within the car. I have no answer for how the objects rotation is achieved....however I suspect a man made illusion performed in the car, using the reflection of the windows of the vehicle.

I might have been convinced if the windows of the vehicle were rolled down....but to pull off the illusion the windows were needed as part of the gimmick.

Any comments? I’m all eyes

Howdy, ran across this today and tried to find thread/discussion with search function to no avail. Is this vid form 2004 part of Jaime Maussan's antics?
Mexico Air Force video declassified

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I was just scrolling past your post and saw your screen grabs, before I even read your post first thing that came to mind was 'windscreen reflection', then I actually read what you posted and now have no doubt that is what it is.

a reply to: mirageman

You don't think the Gimbal video shows any movement that isn't compatible with the laws of physics??

Next time you are up in a small (or large) airplane, do me a favor. Push the nose down and see if your altitude remains consistent!

It is *impossible* to move on the pitch axis without a change in altitude.


www.grc.nasa.gov...

How about the fact that it is ice cold? Even colder than the chilly -12 degrees below zero other aircraft were at that altitude. Then add in the heat from whatever propulsion system you have (they all generate tons of heat, very ineffecient unlike the Gimbal craft)

www.cnet.com...=/1200x630/2020/04/27/fcd62b91-17e5-4b87-86fb-16700550d78a/gimbalstill2.jpg

And then even Corbell's video from Omaha.... you can see right on the Gun Cam it says "NO RETURN" meaning it had no radar signature whatsoever. Even birds reflect radar.

Additionally, in reference to Gimbal...
www.weather.gov...

Moving on any Axis you have to consider the speed of the aircraft and the angle of your turn/bank/dive, because you will put significantly more stress on the airplane threatening to tear off flight surfaces and crash..you also INCREASE stall speed, meaning if you were to normally stall around 45 knots well, lets say you are at 60 degrees bank, you now have a much higher stall speed (exact calcs can be done, I don't know them) meaning you require more and more speed/throttle just to keep generating lift as the bank/angle increases.

In short I am sure many of them can be explained. But not all of them!

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
I’ll attempt to answer my own question......

The pyramid shown, is a clever reflection of a reflection of a pyramid object manipulated within the car is the best but unscientific way I can put it,

Any "UFO" that looks "ghostly" or mostly transparent, like that one, should trigger us to recall that glass transmits 96% of light and reflects 4% of light, so is the ghostly appearance we see the cause of only 4% of the light being available? If so, that means it's a reflection. A lot of NASA "UFO" videos also show reflections which you can immediately discount as not being solid objects because you can see through them. Kudos for answering your own question mate.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: mirageman

You don't think the Gimbal video shows any movement that isn't compatible with the laws of physics??

As I just said and posted videos from thunderf00t explaining, that's an illusion. The camera is mounted on a gimbal mechanism, which causes the illusion, which is why the video is named "Gimbal". When crossing straight ahead (zero degrees heading) the gimbal mechanism rotates the camera, and some electronics de-rotates the scenery, but glare doesn't get de-rotated, so the rotation we see is rotation of the camera which rotates the glare. That doesn't mean any solid object is rotating. Goddard's journal explains it pretty well and shows other examples where the glare doesn't get de-rotated by the electronics:



Mick West has some videos explaining it also:





The Gimbal video is more evidence of how easily we can be fooled by illusions and misperceptions, especially when fancy technology is involved. Even the ATFLIR technician doesn't seem to realize that glare doesn't get derotated like the rest of the scene, but other videos like the video by Goddard's journal show that's clearly the case and the ATFLIR technician needs to explain why the glare doesn't get derotated in the Goddard's journal video. According to him, it can't happen. But Goddard's journal video shows it does happen, so, he's wrong. I think he needs to watch the Goddard's journal video.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

www.youtube.com...

I'm just gonna leave this here for anyone who think humans don't have the tech for aircraft that can do crazy maneuvers.



Youtubes got tonnes of videos of even crazier flying than this. All human based.

Think I've mentioned elsewhere that my own quad-copter which released in 2015, made by American company 3DRobotics pretty much has electronics in it where it can fly pretty much on it's own and could fly itself around the world on auto-pilot if the battery tech could keep up.
Mine's designed for 'cinematic' work so by default flies like most quad-copters the average person sees being flown around, basically like a small slower helicopter, essentially a flying 2kg brick. but boy oh boy, once you turn on 'sports' mode, that sucker can easiy hit 88 kmph and do some crazy stuff. Essentially turns in to a giant 'blow fly' capable of doing break neck turns and horizontal and vertical movements.

The only thing that stops it being a 'tic-tac' is the flight hardware.e.g it has 4 electric motors and is propeller driven, instead of saying having jet engines (and I've seen videos of where people have converted similar over to jets)
And this is a commercial anyone can buy of a shelf.

So it's not a far stretch to consider that there is man made texh out there, more than likely top secret military stuff, that can do the same but scaled up and possibly more, and well if my 'drone' was like it was in 2015, I can only assume the tech has gotten even better in the last 6 years.

It's quite honestly a realistic proposition that some, if not all 'tic-tac' like UFO's are of this Earth and imho it's better to go with the more obvious and likely answers when there is a lack of definitive evidence otherwise.

Think along the lines of the Sherlock Holmes quote "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Are there 'alien' UFO's out there? Maybe. But it is indeed more than likely human if these things are more than a smudge or a cockroach on a blurry, pixelated camera lens.

This is why we need to start getting more solid evidence, like clear footage instead of grainy blurry blobs and "I know what I saw." testimony before myself, someone who wants to believe, will believe, rather than just believing because we want to or because others wish me to.

I mean heck, it's now 20 years later, what ever came of that 2001 'Disclosure Project' press conference? Where we were going to have our world shook? Even that was more talking and zero actual evidence. Then there's people like Corbell, and Tom DeLonge and friends, who every year tells us they've got evidence they're going to show us, always have these big effing announcements to make, and it always, ALWAYS, turns out to be the same old same old, or some complete and utter drivel designed to get them some clicks and keep the income they get from the gullible for their same old, same old books and videos coming in.

When it's always the same thing over and over it is hard to not become jaded and be sceptical about everything presented, when what is presented is poor in quality, or easily debunked with 2 seconds and 1/4 of a brain, or the same stories by questionable characters we were getting told in the 1970's.

How many years has it been? Where's the next Bob Lazaar? A Bob Lazaar that has better proof thanks to modern tech and that has something new to tell us? A Bob Lazaar and similar that is not sketchy as hell? Especially in this day and age where Wikileaks can get a tonne of top secret U.S military files and videos etc, but not a single UFO pic.

A world with tech where a guy with Aspergers can supposedly view files on a NASA computer with zero effort on a crappy dial up connection and computer but didn't know how to hit 'print screen' or Ctrl C, Ctrl V?.

You telling me skilled people, like actual hackers, cannot or have not been able to do a better job? That no one has been able to get HD pics or video or un-redacted files, no other reliable whistle blower witnesses like Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning?

literally billions of people on the planet, all with a HD camera essentially glued to their hand, and still we cannot get anything, but everyone seems to be able to get amazing footage of cops dog piling a criminal and other random events no problems?

Why is it often when someone see's a UFO, especially over a popular public landmark like the white house where you'd expect at least thousands of eye balls to be looking at it 24/7, only one person seems to actually see and film it?

It literally says 'Deny Ignorance' on either side of this post you're reading here.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Surely this is true, many times no doubt.

But every single time? Its not possible.

Your assertion requires thousands of people being consistently incompetent. Mine requires one thing: that some of these vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding are indeed made by someone other than a human being.

The thing is, people have smart phones everywhere and take pictures and videos of all kinds of unexpected things that were never documented in the past, when not everyone had cameras. Yet, where is a single reliable video that's not fake of what you describe, "vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding"? Chad Underwood claims he made such a video, but shows an optical illusion, I don't know of any other. So we have zero photographic evidence of what you describe. Certainly the boring descending sphere in the topic of this thread doesn't seem to exhibit any capabilities beyond our understanding. And this is the same thing we see over and over in UFO videos, nothing close to what you describe.

So all that's left of "vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding" is unreliable eyewitness testimony. Even though pilots have a huge misperception rate, even the most reliable class of observers still has 50% misperception rate of UFOs.

Yours requires 100000/100000

My criterion is actually the scientific community criterion, and now a criterion even used in courts since eyewitness testimony is so unreliable, and that is we need something better than eyewitness testimony, like photos, or video. OK we have video of a sphere descending very slowly into the ocean, and other boring videos of UFOs, but they do not show "vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding".

30 eyewitnesses or 100000 eyewitnesses telling us stories doesn't get us anywhere. Hynek tried to make the claim that multiple eyewitnesses having a close encounter of a UFO must indicate a reliable event. But, that's not the case as this example and many others show, which Hynek didn't realize at the time he wrote that in his book.

What do you think witness testimony is? (Not to be confused with expert testimony)

Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. It can be reliable too and that's why it's continuously used in courts.

a reply to: Sublant

I recall channel surfing one day and happened to land on Oprah. The episode was all about reliability of witnesses.

Oprah staged a 'bag snatch' where an actor ran up and stole a hand bag from another actor who was standing in line of her audience waiting to get into the building.

They then asked a group of audience members who were standing next to or around the 'victim' questions about what they saw, what the 'perp' looked like.

Most's recollections were completely wrong about what happened, relayed events differently to how they actually occurred.
I recall one guy in particular who actually recalled events correctly, Described the 'thief' pretty well. It was along the lines of "He was wearing a black shirt"

Then a woman started 'correcting him' butted in and was like "No, no you're wrong, I am DEFINITELY SURE he was wearing a green t-shirt" and the guy who remembered things correctly, started going "oh, yeah maybe you were right. Now I think about it, yeah, he might of been wearing a green shirt." and his memory and testimony was now changed simply through being manipulated by someone else.

Perfect example of why hard evidence is more important than witness testimony, because while some of us indeed have eidetic memories, the majority sadly do not and most humans are very prone to manipulation.

It's this very reason most UFO witness testimony wouldn't stand up in court. Especially hearsay.

Heck I had to go through the family courts quite a few years ago, and my Ex called in a 'expert', aka a social worker as a witness against me.
I had never met this woman in my life, yet she proceeded to assassinate my character and make 'psychological' assessments of me.

Thankfully the judge stopped her fairly quickly and asked "Are you a psychologist?"
She replied "No"
"Then why are you making psychological assessments of Mr. Kangaroo?"
Her "Ummmmm eerrrrr"

He asked her "Have you ever met Mr Kangaroo? Like ever?"
Her "Ummm no."
Him "Then how are you able to state what you are saying? What makes you qualified?"
Her "Well his ex said..."
Him "Do you have any evidence to back up these claims you are making beyond someone said to me....?"
Her "um, er, no."
Him "Get the f*** out of my court."

I don't think I ever saw anything so glorious. Sadly the ex's side was full of this kind of 'witness' testimony.

Thankfully this judge wasn't a moron, but no doubt many others would of happily ate up her BS.

This is how I feel when discussing a lot of topics on this site with others that rely on nothing but witness testimony to be their 'facts'.

originally posted by: Sublant

Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. It can be reliable too and that's why it's continuously used in courts.

Besides the need to prove the existence of intelligent alien life first through court level evidence to even realistically make a comparison, eyewitness testimony has been proven unreliable.

Social scientists have demonstrated through studies since the 1960s that there was significant reason to be concerned about the accuracy of the eyewitness-identification testimony used in criminal trials. Although witnesses can often be very confident that their memory is accurate when identifying a suspect, the malleable nature of human memory and visual perception makes eyewitness testimony one of the most unreliable forms of evidence.

Source

According to the Innocence Project , 358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration.

Source

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
I’ll attempt to answer my own question......

The pyramid shown, is a clever reflection of a reflection of a pyramid object manipulated within the car is the best but unscientific way I can put it,

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Any "UFO" that looks "ghostly" or mostly transparent, like that one, should trigger us to recall that glass transmits 96% of light and reflects 4% of light, so is the ghostly appearance we see the cause of only 4% of the light being available? If so, that means it's a reflection. A lot of NASA "UFO" videos also show reflections which you can immediately discount as not being solid objects because you can see through them. Kudos for answering your own question mate.

This is Highlarious..... the Gaia website is promoting the Pentagon Pyramid as being real from the looks of it....

Pentagon Pyramid

a reply to: JBurns

Do you see the 2nd UFO in the Gimbal video? It's in the left upper corner, it's a circle, it's moving too. What is that? The Sun?

There's just no reason to post what is effectively a trailer to an "announcement" if it's genuine. If he truly had something big to post he would just do it. This guy loves hype (and himself).