pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: UFOs now called UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) Crowd Stories and photos.  (Read 56289 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #725 on: June 06, 2024, 12:50 »
+3

To the second link: This guy claims to have found some loophole in Einsteins field equations that enable travel at speed greater than the speed of light. As this goes totally against the whole point of relativity, you will forgive me, if I remain sceptical.


Being skeptical is fine, but claiming it is not possible is arrogant. ...
you continue to warp & misrepresent - he never said it was not possible, but like any skeptic, declares there's no evidence for the claim, and it's unlikely - not impossible


« Reply #726 on: June 06, 2024, 14:18 »
+1

To the second link: This guy claims to have found some loophole in Einsteins field equations that enable travel at speed greater than the speed of light. As this goes totally against the whole point of relativity, you will forgive me, if I remain sceptical.


Being skeptical is fine, but claiming it is not possible is arrogant. ...
you continue to warp & misrepresent - he never said it was not possible, but like any skeptic, declares there's no evidence for the claim, and it's unlikely - not impossible

I suggest you work on your reading-with-understanding skills. Here is the relevant quote: "Since a warp drive is unfortunatly impossible". For your info: impossible = not possible.

On the other hand, when the user Uncle Pete posted a whole list of nonsensical lies that are EXACT OPPOSITES of my views and of what I have been saying, you said nothing. Oh, that was no misrepresentation because he is part of your clique? Therefore, I conclude that:

1. you lack objectivity
2. you lack integrity
3. your reading-with-understanding skills are very poor (it is not the first time in this thread that you didn't understand plain text)
4. when you are proven wrong, you don't have class to admit your mistakes - instead later you launch personal attacks, sometimes nonsensical, like this one.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2024, 15:01 by LDV81 »

« Reply #727 on: June 07, 2024, 03:45 »
0

An intelligent gathering of data from reliable sources and means. Why are you against that?


What are you talking about???!!! Of course, I am for gathering of reliable data!!! You're building your strawman again and burning it???

The Pentagon released 3 cases with sensor data in 2017. But it was admitted that it was just the tip of an iceberg. They had many more truly unexplained cases that were not released. "Truly unexplained" means military experts tended to rule out prosaic explanations.


Grusch's accusations have no evidence behind them. He knows someone who says something, he claims to have been told, but he can't say who or what.

That statement is factually, extensively false and poorly made.

Any mention of 'bokeh' regarding the triangle in the night vision video is false, inaccurate and poorly researched. If you refer to Mick West you aren't going to win that debate.

« Reply #728 on: June 07, 2024, 04:44 »
+1
Play a larger role in the government-wide effort to understand UAP, using an evidence-based approach rooted in science AARO already did this and found broadly speaking "nothing to see here. He was specifically selected because he is a scientist. You've offered AAROs report part 1 as proof of your opinion as fact manifested. This is false. Kirkpatrick refuses to release the data for peer review even within the ICIG. Further he is now working for one of the very companies which were part of his investigations which is not permitted by federal law for a period of I think 2 years (could be shorter), but he walked straight into it. He also retains an unpaid consultancy within AARO. This isn't science but it is extremely inappropriate and is being addressed by congressional means. You would have known that if you refrained from generalising.

    Utilise its existing Earth observation tools, such as satellites, to investigate whether there are environmental conditions associated with UAP

This is already done. As Christopher Mellon explained "there is 4k satelite footage which is not classified showing very clearly a vehicle which isn't ours and he doesn't know why it hasn't been released but he sees no reason including national security reasons, why it can be released to the public"

    Enhance collaborations with the private US space industry, which offer powerful constellations of satellites, to look out for UAPs so we are less reliant on grainy camera footage for potential sightings
Well do you want an app that you can submit data via or don't know you're going to have to stop killing your own children here. Again already done but Lockhead wanted to pass it on and extricate themselves from this research in order to expedite quicker back engineering. The CIA said no. Laws were drafted to assist Lockhead Martin and Honeywell (schumer rounds) Mike J & Co said no. This is the problem. You wave it around like proof but you're killing your own baby again. It's proof that Congress has lost control of the agencies it governs. Which unfortunately means that a democracy tier system is just for show. What should happen. is that the President steps in and overrides these people with executive orders with zero restraint and with the full weight of his office grabs the agencies by the throat and a lot of people get sacked. But he can't take steps without stumbling over his own feet, it's an election year, and this can't happen without a bloodbath which undermines the whole government facade. So it will rely on the likes of Danny Sheehan and David Grusch to come at it from another angle. Which takes precious time, small leaks to help push things along and hope enough leaks that the President is deferred to. Sheehan will expose it, allowing the president the power and dignity to come in and save the day. But UAP won't be the only dirty secret that's under that rock and Biden has his own filthy secrets under there too. Bit of a messy situation all round.

    Consider how AI and machine learning can be leveraged to help detect UAP and gather more data around sightings
Already happening through various sources.

 Improve public engagement, perhaps by looking into the development of a smartphone app to gather imaging data from citizen observers


This is why it's just not possible to debate Peter on this subject. Doesn't learn, accept or research but does proclaim. Falsely. I don't care about ad hominem arm waving it is a very silly statement and is a weak argument. The information Peter has is outdated and rather simplistic and that is attacking the issue which is Peter proving he isn't up to speed. This already exists. It's existed for decades and is only being enhanced by A.I. but the organisation known as Enigma Labs has more information that can be researched and unfortunately I fear there is an impending scandle regarding their organisation that hints at this being a more sophisticated Blue Book 3. Time will tell. But Peter proves that the wider public has made their mind up and will use all their poorly researched energy to defend that decision or opinion.

    Better leverage the existing reporting system for commercial pilots who believe they have witnessed a UAP

Already exists. Laws passed requiring reporting of UAP in fact pretty much world wide. America als has Americans for Safe Aerospace where they will take reports from pilots and collate the information and provide legal frameworks to support those reporting. In fact because AARO became so unreliable Ryan Grave of AFSA who also count David Fraver among their organisation have been surprised by the extreme uptick in contact from pilots. Phillips who now runs AARO has rumoured to be deferring to Kirkpatrick already and Gullibrand has also defended AARO.

What they said couldn't happen is happening- that crap is being pushed back up into that horse. The last three hopes are
1. Sheehan blowing it up. He has the explosives and the trigger but will he push the button.
2. A leaker goes full tonto like Snowdon and dumps it out there. Very likely.
3. Another country does it and gets it over with. Mexico is looking likely but also rumours are China is also a possibility or Japan. Maybe Brazil because they're getting concerned.

But we are way beyond Grusch now and have been since April. The issue isn't are we alone (we arent), the issue isn't are they coming here (they're here) the issue isn't why (who cares) the issue is that the existence of aliens isn't worrying anyone and that should worry us all. Hints and comments that I've been catching are that it's the least of our worries and that the issue is any attempt to engage these beings can be stopped before it was even attempted. Zero success rate will be the outcome. Not due to superior fire power but because they know how to go back and kill Hitler. So we'll take our lumps and move on. That's why apparently- everyone is backing off and moving on. Stand up to it and bye bye. How true that is, is probably BS on a grand scale. 😆 🤣  Ok then.

« Reply #729 on: June 07, 2024, 05:08 »
+1

Since a warp drive is unfortunatly impossible, aliens would have to travel at sublight speed, so it would take them more than 26,000 years to cover the distance.


Now, this is the Himalayas of arrogance or ignorance. Random dude on a microstock forum declaring what is possible and what not in the Universe and the wider reality.

Random dude has some knowledge of physics.

People dealing with the subject matter professionally think otherwise:

https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/3240.html?id=6192


https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240506270015/en/New-Study-Achieves-Breakthrough-in-Warp-Drive-Design

First ot the second link: If you read this carefully, you will notice that ths is about a hypothetical drive that shares some common principles with the warp drive from Star Trek, but works only at velocities below the speed of light:

"The team introduced the concept of a "constant-velocity subluminal warp drive" aligned with the principles of relativity. "

Therefor, I would say that warp drive is a misnomer here, because usually warp speed is considered to be a speed greater than the speed of light. In any case, it does not solve the problem to cover large distances during space travel in a reasonable time.

To the second link: This guy claims to have found some loophole in Einsteins field equations that enable travel at speed greater than the speed of light. As this goes totally against the whole point of relativity, you will forgive me, if I remain sceptical.

I think, one of the reasons that physists deal with this kind of speculations is that theoretical physics seems to have reached a bit of a dead end.

String theory is still unproven, we are no closer to solving the mystery of dark matter than we were 20 years ago and we have still no idea how to develop a quantum theory of gravitation.

Therefore, quite a few theoretical phyisists are desperate enough to develop more fancyful theories and make outlandish claims. Even if it comes to nothing in the end, it is still a possibility to get yourself a name.

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. Or if you believe in branch theory does the new branch carry your changes and you remain in the present having seemingly changed nothing. But because Thought has no mass it can move anywhere instantaneously. Can we use that ability somehow or do we already know how and do it already but can't prove we do. How much do you know ow about time travel. If you're really heavily up on it I'd like to ask question.

« Reply #730 on: June 07, 2024, 14:16 »
+1
...

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...

whaledreck!   you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light!  if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel

besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers

« Reply #731 on: June 07, 2024, 16:33 »
0
...

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...

whaledreck!   you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light!  if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel

besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers

I never said the highest mountain on Earth. Not very imaginative of you lol. Besides you're confusing physiological with well whatever you're confusing it with Steven.

Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.

Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2024, 16:36 by Lowls »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #732 on: June 08, 2024, 11:14 »
+3

You reject this:

Play a larger role in the government-wide effort to understand UAP, using an evidence-based approach rooted in science

    Utilise its existing Earth observation tools, such as satellites, to investigate whether there are environmental conditions associated with UAP

    Enhance collaborations with the private US space industry, which offer powerful constellations of satellites, to look out for UAPs so we are less reliant on grainy camera footage for potential sightings

    Consider how AI and machine learning can be leveraged to help detect UAP and gather more data around sightings

    Improve public engagement, perhaps by looking into the development of a smartphone app to gather imaging data from citizen observers

    Better leverage the existing reporting system for commercial pilots who believe they have witnessed a UAP


Tell me why?

For crying out loud, don't lie!!!

Very mature and responsible, level headed response.

Here:

In response to public interest and political pressure, federal and military agencies have shared a trove of information about unexplained aircraft encounters but many sightings have been found to be of pedestrian origin, from weather balloons to drones, airborne trash, and birds.

On Wednesday, Defense Department spokeswoman Susan Gough issued a statement saying the Pentagon's inquiries had not turned up "any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently,"


They have produced and disclosed evident, it's just that you don't want to accept the truth or the answers that have been disclosed.

Grusch said he hasn't personally seen any alien vehicles or alien bodies, and that his opinions are based on the accounts of over 40 witnesses he interviewed over four years in his role with the UAP task force.

"My testimony is based on information I have been given by individuals..."


He hasn't seen anything, he just talked to people who claim to.

Several times during the hearing, Grusch deflected lawmakers' questions, saying he could only elaborate in a SCIF a sensitive compartmented information facility. Those instances include when he was asked if the government has had any contact with aliens and whether anyone had been murdered to cover up information about "extraterrestrial technology." Grusch said he couldn't comment.

So that's you compelling evidence and you want the truth, but Grusch says he knows, yet he won't disclose what he knows, to the people who are trying to open the investigation into more openness.

You can't stand the truth, so you deny anything that doesn't fit your personal version of the truth. Admit it.  ;D

« Reply #733 on: June 08, 2024, 12:51 »
+2
...

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...


 

whaledreck!   you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light!  if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel

besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers

I never said the highest mountain on Earth.
your exact words were " Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship "


Quote

Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.


Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.

nonsense - thought is not travel except in a metaphorical sense - and though t does not occur faster than light - it's a physical  process bound by the same physical rules; measured in milliseconds.

it's not a quibble - you jumped into a to a discussion of actual travel at lightspeed, not metaphor.  we have no actual example of travel faster than light - under our current knowledge it is impossible   - BUT unlike UFO-cultists, real scientists are always open to new information

« Reply #734 on: June 08, 2024, 13:50 »
0
...

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...


 

whaledreck!   you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light!  if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel

besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers

I never said the highest mountain on Earth.
your exact words were " Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship "


Quote

Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.


Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.

nonsense - thought is not travel except in a metaphorical sense - and though t does not occur faster than light - it's a physical  process bound by the same physical rules; measured in milliseconds.

it's not a quibble - you jumped into a to a discussion of actual travel at lightspeed, not metaphor.  we have no actual example of travel faster than light - under our current knowledge it is impossible   - BUT unlike UFO-cultists, real scientists are always open to new information

But it isnt nonsense. And it isnt a metaphor. I think neutrinos travel faster than light no? Sure I read that somewhere 🤔 maybe not.

So is it a travel mentally or a bit more? I think there is a bit more to it. When we dream we experience the locational experiences as physical experiences. To our minds an bodies these things are real events. Shaking. Crying. Screaming. Wetting the bed. Fear, love and happiness. You can say they are simulations (never mind what causes them or their function), but are they or does a part of our consciousness extend beyond our physical bodies to those locations or realities where these events play out.

Time travel forwards in time is possible but by cheating and playing semantics. Earthbound you age faster than someone on the space station (5 minutes older per week is it, or month) something like that. But those on earth experience nothing and the event is only perceived from the perspective of those on the space station. From our perspective rive we left them in the past. But it isnt really travelling it's more like sitting on a side line as events play out and you join back in.

Memories are just captured photons like photographs. Stored and can be revisited and suddenly memories of the event trigger more information and enlarge the memory. So you do return in your mind to re-experience those events. And in fact I'm able to remember in detail the photo being taken even though I didn't even know I went to a location until I was shown the photo after many years. I can expand it and replay events leading up to it. Smells, sounds, the mood, who was there. What the texture of that shirt was or bedding. Every surface I can remember what it felt like. Even the temperature that day. When this happens or when I do that I'm not aware of my surroundings and am fully there. It's an odd sensation that I only realised I did this past 3 months or so. This isn't like a memory. but much more vivid.

Now what is travelling back in time? Is it returning mentally and being able to illicit a physical experience which in turn create new memories which change the original memory by remembering more so that my perception of the world around me is very different but you experience nothing. Or do you want but to be all Tardis and scarfs darling 😆. I think perhaps time travel might not be what we think it should be but rather a perception shift of events that may mean my time line bifocates and I drag an unaware copy of the world with me. In this world you in theory wouldn't die. You would continue about your business and one day a car runs you over...

You survive and your perception is that you survived but you travel on with your world copy in a new branch but the one you left behind mourns your death.

« Reply #735 on: June 08, 2024, 14:50 »
+2
...

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...

whaledreck!   you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light!  if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel

besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers

I never said the highest mountain on Earth. Not very imaginative of you lol. Besides you're confusing physiological with well whatever you're confusing it with Steven.

Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.

Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.

you keep digging your hole deeper - first, what body of water can you see from a mountain on Mars?  how many ships are there on Mars?

but you keep saying thinking/dreaming about a place is the same as being there -  do you have any idea of what physiological means?  -- please state how your claim of time travel is valid 'even in physiological terms'?   there is no physical movement no energy expended beyond neural messages -- when you transport yourself to mars, how are you able to breathe?

when i think of Mordor, am i actually there with gollum & frodo?


« Reply #736 on: June 08, 2024, 15:10 »
+1
...

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...


 

whaledreck!   you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light!  if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel

besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers

I never said the highest mountain on Earth.
your exact words were " Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship "


Quote

Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.


Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.

nonsense - thought is not travel except in a metaphorical sense - and though t does not occur faster than light - it's a physical  process bound by the same physical rules; measured in milliseconds.

it's not a quibble - you jumped into a to a discussion of actual travel at lightspeed, not metaphor.  we have no actual example of travel faster than light - under our current knowledge it is impossible   - BUT unlike UFO-cultists, real scientists are always open to new information

But it isnt nonsense. And it isnt a metaphor. I think neutrinos travel faster than light no? Sure I read that somewhere 🤔 maybe not.



So is it a travel mentally or a bit more? I think there is a bit more to it. When we dream we experience the locational experiences as physical experiences. To our minds an bodies these things are real events. Shaking. Crying. Screaming. Wetting the bed. Fear, love and happiness. You can say they are simulations (never mind what causes them or their function), but are they or does a part of our consciousness extend beyond our physical bodies to those locations or realities where these events play out.

your thinking doesn't make it so - why do you waste our time in what was a serious conversation with your rambling 'thoughts'

NO neutrinos do not travel F TL - which  took only a simple google search to find out a preliminary CERN report was disproven & the world stopped shaking.

and physical responses to dreams are not the same as being in a different location - do you get wet when it rains in your dreams? do you get blisters when you hike in a dream?

Quote

Time travel forwards in time is possible but by cheating and playing semantics. Earthbound you age faster than someone on the space station (5 minutes older per week is it, or month) something like that. But those on earth experience nothing and the event is only perceived from the perspective of those on the space station...

again, have you heard of google?  you're off by 3 orders of magnitude just for the number - and it's SIX months

"Astronauts on the ISS experience both weaker gravity and higher velocity, resulting in slightly slower ageing compared to people on Earth. The European Space Agency (ESA) explained in a tweet that after spending six months on the ISS, astronauts have aged about 0.005 seconds less than the rest of us.

and that's measured by those of us on earth who do the measurement and experience the time change

Quote

Memories are just captured photons like photographs. Stored and can be revisited and suddenly memories of the event trigger more information and enlarge the memory. So you do return in your mind to re-experience those events. And in fact I'm able to remember in detail the photo being taken even though I didn't even know I went to a location until I was shown the photo after many years....
wrong again  - you're describing a medieval concept of vision - there is no homunculus in the brain's theater,,  photons cannot be 'stored' and in fact what we perceive as a view is actually processed in different parts of the brain - this takes more than a simple google search but the info is there for those who are interested in  real science.
Quote



Now what is travelling back in time? Is it returning mentally and being able to illicit a physical experience which in turn create new memories which change the original memory by remembering more so that my perception of the world around me is very different but you experience nothing. Or do you want but to be all Tardis and scarfs darling
   no it's not ' returning mentally' - you can't make up your own definitions like Humpty Dumpty

 

« Reply #737 on: June 08, 2024, 17:14 »
0
...

Thought. Thought travels faster than light. Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see and measure how fast the light got there. But your thoughts can take you there instantly. Memory can take you back in time. You can't seem to effect the past but how would we know. If time is changed in the past and changed events collapse foreward would we jave a memory of the past or a new memory of the past. ...


 

whaledreck!   you're confusing the physical with the mental - thought relies on transport among neurons which are significantly below the speed of light!  if i think about the moon am i walking on it? recalling the past is not time travel

besides the nit-picking fact that it is impossible to 'Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship at see ' unless you think the earth is flat. i've been among the highest mountains & i confirm the absence of sightings of oil tankers

I never said the highest mountain on Earth.
your exact words were " Shine a light from the highest mountain to a ship "


Quote

Does it take you to these places physically? I don't think so. Never the less our consciousness does travel to an impression we have of these places and memories certainly do allow you to travel back in time. That's a form of time travel in strict terms.


Now think of a landscape on Mars. Did you manage that in under three minutes. Faster than light steven as stated even in physiological terms.

nonsense - thought is not travel except in a metaphorical sense - and though t does not occur faster than light - it's a physical  process bound by the same physical rules; measured in milliseconds.

it's not a quibble - you jumped into a to a discussion of actual travel at lightspeed, not metaphor.  we have no actual example of travel faster than light - under our current knowledge it is impossible   - BUT unlike UFO-cultists, real scientists are always open to new information

But it isnt nonsense. And it isnt a metaphor. I think neutrinos travel faster than light no? Sure I read that somewhere 🤔 maybe not.



So is it a travel mentally or a bit more? I think there is a bit more to it. When we dream we experience the locational experiences as physical experiences. To our minds an bodies these things are real events. Shaking. Crying. Screaming. Wetting the bed. Fear, love and happiness. You can say they are simulations (never mind what causes them or their function), but are they or does a part of our consciousness extend beyond our physical bodies to those locations or realities where these events play out.

your thinking doesn't make it so - why do you waste our time in what was a serious conversation with your rambling 'thoughts'

NO neutrinos do not travel F TL - which  took only a simple google search to find out a preliminary CERN report was disproven & the world stopped shaking.

and physical responses to dreams are not the same as being in a different location - do you get wet when it rains in your dreams? do you get blisters when you hike in a dream?

Quote

Time travel forwards in time is possible but by cheating and playing semantics. Earthbound you age faster than someone on the space station (5 minutes older per week is it, or month) something like that. But those on earth experience nothing and the event is only perceived from the perspective of those on the space station...

again, have you heard of google?  you're off by 3 orders of magnitude just for the number - and it's SIX months

"Astronauts on the ISS experience both weaker gravity and higher velocity, resulting in slightly slower ageing compared to people on Earth. The European Space Agency (ESA) explained in a tweet that after spending six months on the ISS, astronauts have aged about 0.005 seconds less than the rest of us.

and that's measured by those of us on earth who do the measurement and experience the time change

Quote

Memories are just captured photons like photographs. Stored and can be revisited and suddenly memories of the event trigger more information and enlarge the memory. So you do return in your mind to re-experience those events. And in fact I'm able to remember in detail the photo being taken even though I didn't even know I went to a location until I was shown the photo after many years....
wrong again  - you're describing a medieval concept of vision - there is no homunculus in the brain's theater,,  photons cannot be 'stored' and in fact what we perceive as a view is actually processed in different parts of the brain - this takes more than a simple google search but the info is there for those who are interested in  real science.
Quote



Now what is travelling back in time? Is it returning mentally and being able to illicit a physical experience which in turn create new memories which change the original memory by remembering more so that my perception of the world around me is very different but you experience nothing. Or do you want but to be all Tardis and scarfs darling
   no it's not ' returning mentally' - you can't make up your own definitions like Humpty Dumpty

 

Huh cool.
Yes you do get blisters in your sleep if you walk and your teeth can fall put, you fly, etc ... but physical things don't appear to remain on your body when you wake up but emotional states do.

I said the highest mountain and after I typed that and pressed submit I began googling the answers, screen grabbed them ready for what I assumed would be you, rapidly posting objections lol. So I already had responses the day before you posted. I'm not gonna call you predictable but ya know ... only having fun.

Wow the space station time frame was a memory recalled from a programme from years ago. I wasn't off time wise but the information was incorrect then. I'm afraid that as I get older the many things learned and remembered are now disproven and better science has been done to correct past errors. I've lived that part of my life I don't particularly want to drag myself through that entire part again looking up everything to edit useless factoids so I am better prepared on a forum in the arse end of the Internet. Happy to be corrected by those who enjoy that more. Its conversational learning from each others areas of enjoyment but missing a beer.

You need to stop taking things so literally because you won't win any medals here. Stored memories are light we have seen so does it matter the mechanism, conversationally?

My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it.

Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you.

Frodo 🤣- no but when you read a book you build the landscapes and characters. You construct their entire face, height, hair colour and voice and mannerisms. Yes the writer does create some of these aspects for you but you do most of it and almost instantly. Then you have memories of being one of the characters that you most associated with. These memories are as real as those you experience in real life. Only being rigid means one is real and the other fantasy. What I mean is obviously one is real and the other is fantasy but what if your perception. of both can have an effect on the reality you move through. Because people do take on traits from characters in books they enjoy. They might be more kind. Be braver. Try to swing on a Web etc. Does the fact that these are from a book make them any leas real. God for instance. So I wonder if our rigidness to dogmatic science is now actually a small cave with only one way in and out.

What's interesting is that I experienced an event. An event so stupid that I actually missed it and my other half witnessed it happening to us. Had they said nothing I would have never known anything had happened. But they did and now everything has changed. Thanks Steve.

« Reply #738 on: June 09, 2024, 06:19 »
+1

You reject this:

Play a larger role in the government-wide effort to understand UAP, using an evidence-based approach rooted in science

    Utilise its existing Earth observation tools, such as satellites, to investigate whether there are environmental conditions associated with UAP

    Enhance collaborations with the private US space industry, which offer powerful constellations of satellites, to look out for UAPs so we are less reliant on grainy camera footage for potential sightings

    Consider how AI and machine learning can be leveraged to help detect UAP and gather more data around sightings

    Improve public engagement, perhaps by looking into the development of a smartphone app to gather imaging data from citizen observers

    Better leverage the existing reporting system for commercial pilots who believe they have witnessed a UAP


Tell me why?

For crying out loud, don't lie!!!

Very mature and responsible, level headed response.

Here:

In response to public interest and political pressure, federal and military agencies have shared a trove of information about unexplained aircraft encounters but many sightings have been found to be of pedestrian origin, from weather balloons to drones, airborne trash, and birds.

On Wednesday, Defense Department spokeswoman Susan Gough issued a statement saying the Pentagon's inquiries had not turned up "any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently,"


They have produced and disclosed evident, it's just that you don't want to accept the truth or the answers that have been disclosed.

Grusch said he hasn't personally seen any alien vehicles or alien bodies, and that his opinions are based on the accounts of over 40 witnesses he interviewed over four years in his role with the UAP task force.

"My testimony is based on information I have been given by individuals..."


He hasn't seen anything, he just talked to people who claim to.

Several times during the hearing, Grusch deflected lawmakers' questions, saying he could only elaborate in a SCIF a sensitive compartmented information facility. Those instances include when he was asked if the government has had any contact with aliens and whether anyone had been murdered to cover up information about "extraterrestrial technology." Grusch said he couldn't comment.

So that's you compelling evidence and you want the truth, but Grusch says he knows, yet he won't disclose what he knows, to the people who are trying to open the investigation into more openness.

You can't stand the truth, so you deny anything that doesn't fit your personal version of the truth. Admit it.  ;D

The only evidence these people believe is what fits their belief. Everything else is ignored or called a lie by debunking the source and ignoring the facts. That's the only way to make the lack of evidence fit the UFO claims. Lie and deny then make up fantasy science to explain the unexplained. It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.

« Reply #739 on: June 09, 2024, 11:07 »
+3

 
 
My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it.

Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you. .,.
...

thanks for taking the time to discuss, while we'll still disagree.

when i respond it's mostly because i know the answer but do a quick google search  (listing source if useful) rather than post misinformation.    the internet is plagued by false info, so its my tiny contribution to accuracy

btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #740 on: June 09, 2024, 11:08 »
+1
The only evidence these people believe is what fits their belief. Everything else is ignored or called a lie by debunking the source and ignoring the facts. That's the only way to make the lack of evidence fit the UFO claims. Lie and deny then make up fantasy science to explain the unexplained. It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.

The biggest debunkers in UFO study are the believers. They use selective data, ignore the facts, and any source that disagrees with the pre-conceived beliefs, is first shouted down, then called a liar. Everything that doesn't fit, is denied.

Here's some irony, anyone from the government, is automatically, one of them, part of the coverup. Yet the latest hero for the cause, Grusch, is a Major and worked for the government. He refuses to be interviewed by AARO, and he's their best current source for claims.  :o People interested in the facts and the truth have been provided with the current best evidence and information, but they are unhappy. Why is that? Because the answers they got, are not the answers they wanted.

Only the answers that agree with what the believers have already decided is the truth, are acceptable. Anything else is just a lie or a coverup.  ;D

Imagine this? All the governments of the world, who can barely agree on time, climate, energy, politics, human rights, finances, laws or much of anything, are all in this together for the biggest coverup in the world. All working together to hide the truth. Isn't that amazing? Not one photo of the UFO as big as a football stadium. Not one credible leak of evidence that's verifiable. All of the leaders and governments of the world, work together and agree on only one item, because it's so big and important. And that is hiding aliens visitors from the public.

Sounds like some fantasy sci-fi plot, doesn't it?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2024, 11:11 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #741 on: June 09, 2024, 14:44 »
0

 
 
My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it.

Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you. .,.
...

thanks for taking the time to discuss, while we'll still disagree.

when i respond it's mostly because i know the answer but do a quick google search  (listing source if useful) rather than post misinformation.    the internet is plagued by false info, so its my tiny contribution to accuracy

btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions

It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts.

Famously - well in our circles - Nina Kulagina. Was extensively tested and died in I think 1990. https://youtu.be/1cr_BS1TrRo?feature=shared



1.

« Reply #742 on: June 09, 2024, 20:24 »
+1

 
 
My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it.

Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you. .,.
...

thanks for taking the time to discuss, while we'll still disagree.

when i respond it's mostly because i know the answer but do a quick google search  (listing source if useful) rather than post misinformation.    the internet is plagued by false info, so its my tiny contribution to accuracy

btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions

It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts.

Famously - well in our circles - Nina Kulagina. Was extensively tested and died in I think 1990. https://youtu.be/1cr_BS1TrRo?feature=shared



1.

A very reliable source Youtube video. In your circles, the facts don't matter. Grow Up!

« Reply #743 on: June 10, 2024, 00:14 »
0

 
 
My thinking does not make it so. Nope it doesn't but it doesn't hurt to explore the concept. More and more the rumours that uap were able to be partially controlled with thought which can already be done thanks to Elon but it was around long before. So I'm curious as to how that discovery was made if true. What type of person ignorred dogma that its impossible to just do it.

Why do I waste my time. One my ask you the same question. Why ifnits such a load of old whaledreck I post- do you constantly go out of your way to Google the information, come back here, and in a detailed long post go through each comment to correct my rambling thoughts. It's a bit odd because youde think you could ignore it like I ignore Karen's losing their crap on utube. It doesn't occur to me to go and look up laws to post a tomb of accuracy to teach them. But the information you posted was interesting thank you. .,.
...

thanks for taking the time to discuss, while we'll still disagree.

when i respond it's mostly because i know the answer but do a quick google search  (listing source if useful) rather than post misinformation.    the internet is plagued by false info, so its my tiny contribution to accuracy

btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions

It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts.

Famously - well in our circles - Nina Kulagina. Was extensively tested and died in I think 1990. https://youtu.be/1cr_BS1TrRo?feature=shared



1.

A very reliable source Youtube video. In your circles, the facts don't matter. Grow Up!

🤔 Thank you for being rude that allows me to respond in kind.

I didn't ask for your opinion of me, you chose to give it. I am grown up.

Clearly you were so eager to mash your moronic claws into the keyboard and pass on your detailed response you didn't have chance to watch the video.

That was spectacularly idiotic. If only you had. Oh well.

« Reply #744 on: June 10, 2024, 14:41 »
+2
...

btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions

It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts.
...


 

 you'll be surprised to know Randi was one of my heroes - along with the foundation that publishes Skeptical Inquirer to which i've subscribed since the late 70s.  many of their articles are free to all https://skepticalinquirer.org/volume/no-3-vol-48/  It's been an ongoing master class in critical thinking on any subject

Nobody ever claimed Randis prize because no one ever demonstrated paranormal powers under the testing protocols. (That they agreed to.)

Randi never claimed to be a scientist he was a magician who used his knowledge of magic to expose faith healers & other quacks - detailing how they performed their tricks  "The only difference between magic and astrology or feng shiu et al is that magicians tell you up front that they'll trick you"

regarding Nina, i went on a brief googe ramble again:

Some people and groups, like the James Randi Educational Foundation and the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims on the Paranormal (CICAP), doubt claims about psychokinesis. Massimo Polidoro believes that the experiments with Kulagina had long preparation times and uncontrolled settings, like hotel rooms, which made it easy for tricks to happen. Magicians and skeptics think Kulaginas abilities could be done by someone skilled in sleight of hand, using things like hidden threads, small pieces of magnetic metal, or mirrors. They also suggest that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union might have had reasons to fake or exaggerate results for propaganda purposes, similar to the Space Race or arms race.



https://www.unrevealedfiles.com/nina-kulagina-woman-with-ability-to-move-objects-using-mind/

and from Martin gardner whose column in Scientifc American first led me to SI:

These criticisms appear to be mainly based on assertions by career sceptic Martin Gardner in works criticizing parapsychology and paranormal claims. Gardner describes Kulagina as a pretty, plump, dark-eyed little charlatan who took the stage name of Ninel because it is Lenin spelled backward and is pure showbiz. He further states that Soviet establishment psychologists caught her cheating using techniques familiar to all magicians.  This relates to remarks in a separate article on demo-optical perception, in which he reports an early demonstration by Kulagina of eyeless sight, as reported by the Leningrad newspaper Smena (16 January 1664) at the Psychoneurological Institute in the Lenin-Kirovsk district. In this demonstration Kulagina is said to have, while blindfolded, read from a magazine and performed other sensational feats. Gardner attributes such successes to the inability of a simple blindfold to prevent seeing, and argues that no test that does not encase the entire head in a covering is adquate.  He further quotes from another research institute in Leningrad in which she was given tasks under two conditions, one in which lax controls would allow her to peek and the other in which peeking would be impossible. Phenomenal ability was shown in the first condition, but none at all in the second, from which it was inferred that the claim was an ordinary hoax. 

Gardner quotes a New York Times story of 21 May 1968 that 'Ninel, now using the pseudonymn of Nelya Mikhailova, had been caught again. She was found employing concealed magnets to fool Soviet scientists and newsmen into thinking she possessed the ability to move objects by staring at them .'.


https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/ninel-kulagina

that was more than 50 years ago - what evidence of the paranormal has been verified since then?  at least w UFO there is a (very slight) chance there are extraterrestrials.. claims of the paranormal would require major changes to the laws of physics
« Last Edit: June 10, 2024, 15:13 by cascoly »

« Reply #745 on: June 10, 2024, 16:32 »
0
...

btw, no one has been able to demonstrate telekinesis under controlled conditions

It is much better to chat than battle. Ahhhhh now Steven - telekinesis has been shown under controlled circumstances but were they rigorous enough. Certainly at the time but by tidays standards 🤔 or skeptics 🤨. I'll avoid Randi he was an insufferable clot and he was also disingenuous and was not very rigorous. There was also a whiff he refused to pay up and moved the goal posts.
...


 

 you'll be surprised to know Randi was one of my heroes - along with the foundation that publishes Skeptical Inquirer to which i've subscribed since the late 70s.  many of their articles are free to all https://skepticalinquirer.org/volume/no-3-vol-48/  It's been an ongoing master class in critical thinking on any subject

Nobody ever claimed Randis prize because no one ever demonstrated paranormal powers under the testing protocols. (That they agreed to.)

Randi never claimed to be a scientist he was a magician who used his knowledge of magic to expose faith healers & other quacks - detailing how they performed their tricks  "The only difference between magic and astrology or feng shiu et al is that magicians tell you up front that they'll trick you"

regarding Nina, i went on a brief googe ramble again:

Some people and groups, like the James Randi Educational Foundation and the Italian Committee for the Investigation of Claims on the Paranormal (CICAP), doubt claims about psychokinesis. Massimo Polidoro believes that the experiments with Kulagina had long preparation times and uncontrolled settings, like hotel rooms, which made it easy for tricks to happen. Magicians and skeptics think Kulaginas abilities could be done by someone skilled in sleight of hand, using things like hidden threads, small pieces of magnetic metal, or mirrors. They also suggest that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union might have had reasons to fake or exaggerate results for propaganda purposes, similar to the Space Race or arms race.



https://www.unrevealedfiles.com/nina-kulagina-woman-with-ability-to-move-objects-using-mind/

and from Martin gardner whose column in Scientifc American first led me to SI:

These criticisms appear to be mainly based on assertions by career sceptic Martin Gardner in works criticizing parapsychology and paranormal claims. Gardner describes Kulagina as a pretty, plump, dark-eyed little charlatan who took the stage name of Ninel because it is Lenin spelled backward and is pure showbiz. He further states that Soviet establishment psychologists caught her cheating using techniques familiar to all magicians.  This relates to remarks in a separate article on demo-optical perception, in which he reports an early demonstration by Kulagina of eyeless sight, as reported by the Leningrad newspaper Smena (16 January 1664) at the Psychoneurological Institute in the Lenin-Kirovsk district. In this demonstration Kulagina is said to have, while blindfolded, read from a magazine and performed other sensational feats. Gardner attributes such successes to the inability of a simple blindfold to prevent seeing, and argues that no test that does not encase the entire head in a covering is adquate.  He further quotes from another research institute in Leningrad in which she was given tasks under two conditions, one in which lax controls would allow her to peek and the other in which peeking would be impossible. Phenomenal ability was shown in the first condition, but none at all in the second, from which it was inferred that the claim was an ordinary hoax. 

Gardner quotes a New York Times story of 21 May 1968 that 'Ninel, now using the pseudonymn of Nelya Mikhailova, had been caught again. She was found employing concealed magnets to fool Soviet scientists and newsmen into thinking she possessed the ability to move objects by staring at them .'.


https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/ninel-kulagina

that was more than 50 years ago - what evidence of the paranormal has been verified since then?  at least w UFO there is a (very slight) chance there are extraterrestrials.. claims of the paranormal would require major changes to the laws of physics

That's interesting but there are a few errors.

She was tested many many times by a lot of scientists both military and civilian. She was also watched over by a master magician to try and catch her out. She herself was not a magician but a soldier where the claim that her story was for propaganda persposes. That's said she was later accused of being a fake and despite her failing health decided to once again perform her abilities to deny the claims from the Russian newspaper. A legal case was launched and all the scientific data which was extensive was handed over to the courts. She didn't just get tested in a hotel room so although that is reported she was extensively tested for years by various scientific institutions and claimed over a hundred scientists. She eventually finished her legal case against the newspaper and the court in a landmark decision due to the weight of evidence and scientific witnesses and the magician all testifying on her behalf - when all the evidence was re-examined the court awarded her the case and forced the newspaper to retract their deplorable claims which included that she wasn't even in the military despite the fact that she was in fact a very good soldier who saved many lives.

I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me but Wikipedia has been provably corrupted with false information and tactical omissions in an organised campaign by Susan Gerbic and her gorilla skeptics group. Who have behaved in an unethical way and have already been investigated prior to this latest scandle. Wikipedia was always a hit and miss affair but now anything of a paranormal or ufo nature within Wiki has been damaged beyond repair. This has been quite a public issue I'm surprised you've not come across it. She and her cohorts have committed a terrible act and they have hurt ufo history and the skeptical fraternity alike.

I'm guessing you didn't watch the video either? It details Ninas history including the accusations very neutrally but it also reports the list of those organisations that investigated her claims.

I used to love James Randi and I loved how he caught Uri Geller but he was a terrible egoist as time went on and he wasn't objective from that moment on. He became smug and superior and mocking and these qualities are not how one should objectively investigate cases. He was clearly biased. So he lost me. I remember watching a doc on utube exposing him or about a scandle he was part of. If I find it ill edit the link in.

« Reply #746 on: Yesterday at 15:09 »
+1
....

I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me but Wikipedia has been provably corrupted with false information and tactical omissions in an organised campaign by Susan Gerbic and her gorilla skeptics group. Who have behaved in an unethical way and have already been investigated prior to this latest scandle. Wikipedia was always a hit and miss affair but now anything of a paranormal or ufo nature within Wiki has been damaged beyond repair. This has been quite a public issue I'm surprised you've not come across it. She and her cohorts have committed a terrible act and they have hurt ufo history and the skeptical fraternity alike. ....

the 2 links i showed weren't from Wikipedia . i didnt know about the incidents you mentioned as i rarely use wiki since i agree it too often unreliable (it is useful for details on sports {eg rules of cricket}, specific historical events such as battles, overviews of architectural styles, etc)   

wiki does get it right when they've listed my early online multiplayer games  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper!_(video_game)

« Reply #747 on: Yesterday at 17:32 »
0
....

I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me but Wikipedia has been provably corrupted with false information and tactical omissions in an organised campaign by Susan Gerbic and her gorilla skeptics group. Who have behaved in an unethical way and have already been investigated prior to this latest scandle. Wikipedia was always a hit and miss affair but now anything of a paranormal or ufo nature within Wiki has been damaged beyond repair. This has been quite a public issue I'm surprised you've not come across it. She and her cohorts have committed a terrible act and they have hurt ufo history and the skeptical fraternity alike. ....

the 2 links i showed weren't from Wikipedia . i didnt know about the incidents you mentioned as i rarely use wiki since i agree it too often unreliable (it is useful for details on sports {eg rules of cricket}, specific historical events such as battles, overviews of architectural styles, etc)   

wiki does get it right when they've listed my early online multiplayer games  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper!_(video_game)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman:_Sniper

One of my favourite games. But if we are talking favourites it has to be Myst for me. I completed it in 4 days with my younger brother. It was a beautifully built game with puzzles and code breaking in jaw dropping landscapes.

Regarding genetic anomalies in humans like Nina I knew a guy many years ago that couod stick anything up to the weight of a spoon on his face. We were talking one day and he just mentioned it. I said BS so he took my lightet and just pushed it to his cheak and it stuck. He did it with several things. He showed it to a Dr and they believed he has a specilal skin that was able to grip more readly than normal skin. I did watch an interview with a gentleman who was part of the experiments regarding special powers and remote viewing research. He said that there were some promising results but what he found astonishing was that some of the people they researched were capable of seeing infra red and ultraviolet spectrums of light quite clearly. That most subjects were normal but the odd one now and then could see in other spectrums. I can see auras lol. Well specifically what I can see is when I hold my hand up against a grey sky I can see a fringe round my fingers or someone's head or hand. Not chromatic aberration. This fringe is about an inch around things. It wickers like a flame. A friend at school asked what was I doing holding up my hand looking at it and this drew attention. I said what is that fringe like a glow and no one else said they could see it. And once a few years ago an old man wearing a flat cap and a trench coat was hobbling along and he crossed the road in front of me. Nothing unusual but as he crossed there was a ... I guess a billowing brown cloud that he left behind and it trailed away from him. Like someone smoking but it came from his whole body. He wasn't smoking that I could see and it was a brown fog. No idea what I saw and ive never seen anything like it before or since. For some reason I assumed it meant he was dying but obviously it could be a few things. Dust on his coat even though it was in a city. Don't know. I wonder what will come along in tye UAP world next. Hopefully something brutally blatant so we can just get one with learning.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
49 Replies
14364 Views
Last post May 08, 2011, 10:56
by click_click
0 Replies
3280 Views
Last post July 04, 2018, 10:37
by VJLoops
2 Replies
2807 Views
Last post April 19, 2019, 11:06
by Not Today
20 Replies
10875 Views
Last post September 02, 2019, 05:16
by foggystone
13 Replies
7245 Views
Last post January 12, 2020, 17:00
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors