Haha, yes, there is some comedy in that.

But a thread about UFOs doesn't have to become ridiculous. The fact that sometimes objects are seen in the sky that are unidentified isn't all that surprising or controversial. Nor is the possible existence of aliens, which is often a resulting discussion point. Aliens being in those UFOs is of course much more controversial and speculative, and that's where these threads often do become ridiculous, especially when they start getting into cover-ups.

I answered that within the post, but I can see now my wording was very unclear. I said "I also think you've turned it into a pretty dumb thread", by which "I also" wasn't intended to mean "In addition, I think..." but "Like Trolly, I think...". However, he probably always thought this thread didn't belong here (and he may be right). Also, I don't think Trolly is a big fan of yours. But of course I'm just speculating here, and I should let Trolly answer for himself if he wants to.

Well, it was probably unfair of me to lay it all at your feet, because with no replies, a tangent goes nowhere. But yes, you have done something - by constantly coming back to this topic of how unusual the amount/type of UFO media coverage is taking place is in some way meaningful, and additionally refusing to come up with any of your own opinions on this, and then adding silliness like "It's literally impossible that I'm wrong here though. It's not really a matter of opinion."

Lock the thread and unlock it in a month after the big UFO thing we’ve been promised happens.

Well I agree that probably isn't helpful. It's just (to my mind) what I'm saying seems not controversial at all. It seems so not controversial that I barely even know what the fuss is about-- that I'm arguing that something is happening here and that there has been a sort of concerted effort to push this onto the public-- with the counter argument being that this is all some organic nothing-to-see thing I guess.

It wouldn't bother me any but does seem unnecessary.

At this point I feel like the government could announce Independence Day is about to happen for real and all we'd have from this thread is the world's most elaborate Gettier case.

Cuepee,
How many times are you going to post that in here?
Like do you even have an opinion on this or are you just taking up cause of the trolls?
And it's a dumb analogy that doesn't even fit here. Who are the people driving slower here and which ones are driving faster?

Just just of curiosity here, is this an actual forum that you have in mind or just some hypothetical one? I ask that because I find it interesting that you suspect you know what goes on in a thread that you apparently have never opened. It's intriguing.
But it's clear based on this post though that you have no idea what my actual argument has been, because no part of it has been that some sort of actual UFO disclosure is happening.
The part that is different is the rhetoric and how it's being presented. Which just on a purely logical/semantic basis is irrefutable. 2021 is not the same as 1947 or 1987-- there's no reason to assume that it would be the same and every reason to assume that it would be different. That project bluebook exists, or that people talked about Roswell, or that Carter and Reagan discussed aliens does not make this the same.
It doesn't mean there aren't some parallels. Like instead of saying that UFOs could be weather balloons now they're saying that perhaps it's the Russians or the Chinese actually-- but that's still a pretty major difference in rhetoric. Weather balloons are a lot more dismissive than them saying the things like Rubio says in that clip, as one example.
Arguing that it could be the Russians or Chinese legitimizes it a whole lot more than them saying "nah that's just weather balloons". Them releasing videos -- fraudulent or not-- legitimizes it a whole lot more as well.

I get where you're coming from but I can't yet get on board with ufos other than advanced technological earthlings. Do you feel there are ufos out there exhibiting similar to human form, flying spacecraft form another planet visiting us which us what the govt is tipping off to? I find that stuff intriguing which I why I'm asking. I know very little about this stuff.

I don't think any of it is real really. Like I doubt that anything that Rubio talks about in that Fox clip is legitimate. So I don't think it's UFOs from another planet, the Russians, or the Chinese. And there have been debunks done on some of the gun-cam videos but I'm not too versed on that.
I can't say any of this too loudly though or people will demand to know what I really think-- as if I'm not actually allowed to be skeptical of UFOs.

https://youtu.be/60ZJQ4I7_3M
CNN video here titled "US Navy Confirms UFO Videos are the Real Deal"
And remember-- I don't think any of this real and I think cnn and the rest of the mainstream media is pure garbage. But I would love to see someone who is claiming that this is "same old same old" find anything comparable to this from years past.
This is why my position is basically incontrovertible-- because it is. There isn't anything from years past that matches this. The fact that project bluebook exists is not anywhere close to this. It's literally videos being broadcast on CNN that they are claiming are UFOs.
Right Cuepee? It's really the dumbest debate that I've been having with you all, complete with Cuepee thinking that he is making fun of me which is always cute.

Cuepee,
Do you think that CNN video being broadcast is every bit comparable to the sort of stuff that has been put out in the past on UFOs?

Like we can agree that it's actually not based on my intuition at all and that it's simply common sense observation of the news, right?

Trying to get through the last 100 posts of this thread (didn't start from the beginning) and this is what came to my mind from the "what's different this time?" question.
There are now 2 military recorded videos that have been released to the public with the official military statement being we don't know what tf if is. Before it was a reflection of a weather balloon or some **** and based on some amateur footage. Now it's the pilots that were in the cockpit of the plane that captured the footage on Joe Rogan confirming what they saw with no explanation.
Seems a little more than slightly different but the 1st video that came out a few years ago that went exclusively to that Blink 182 guy seemed really odd.

This is great, "The part that is different is the rhetoric and how it's being presented". You actually named the thing I'm supposed to look at.

The problem is this, I don't think the rhetoric is any different. I think it's the same. So now your burden is to give us some reason, beyond your gut, to think that it is in fact different. The thing about "Russian or Chinese" isn't going to cut it. That it's some kind of foreign technology has been on the table a long time.

https://text-message.blogs.archives....many-may-1948/

First thing you'll see in that link is a memo from 1947. Skim a bit further and you'll get this:
So, waaaaaay back in 1947 the Washington Post was quoting military officials talking about how they needed to investigate in case some foreign power was spying or had superior technology.

If you scroll down to the bottom you'll get the list of sources which, while I'm not pretending to have read, are a list of news articles with some interesting headlines:

So there you go. All I did was google "old UFO articles" and clicked a link. It was that easy to find all those headlines. And that's just from 1947. Granted 1947 was a particularly exciting year for ufologists, but still, all the same kind of headlines.

This "incontrovertible" thing looks really silly to me. All you're doing is pointing to something and saying "See! It really is different". You're doing nothing to substantiate how or why. You're doing no comparisons to anything in the past. You're just reasserting the position. You need to give us something, anything to think you've actually done some analysis here.

Yeah.I'm calling BS sorry. It is completely standard and myself, Blade and others gave you several examples how.

Translation: So again BS LB sorry. You're asserting something is up re media coverage and public figures commenting on UFOS and further asserting that it's unprecedented. You've been flat out shown a bunch of examples which belies your assertions.You then engage in cognitive dissonance by sticking with your false assertions, yet refusing to elaborate why.

So again you're either trolling or simply arguing for the sake of it because why tf not- aka bs.

If you're not even willing to defend your assertions (as you haven't even made an argument so far) then your assertions aren't worth considering.

And, to be fair, you're asking us to do your job here. It shouldn't really be on me to find all this stuff. This is the stuff you're already supposed to know about before arriving on your conclusion, yet it doesn't seem you were remotely aware of things like Project Bluebook, or Reagan or Carter's positions, and it doesn't seem like you've actually read up on them now. We're still stuck on you just throwing stuff out there and saying "It's different" while offering no kind of comparison.

Lucky is trying to weave UFOs into how he does his typical conspiracyderp stuff, and usually in this niche little message board that is met with mocking.

In this case he stumbled upon those that actually were into UFOs quite a bit more than him, and have a lot more experience on the topic, so it is kind of interesting to see what a standard hard core conspiracy guy like Lucky does when confronted by those that know he is full of it, because they just know the topic a lot better from their own life experience.

Pretty sure that is when he will start doing the "I said it was 70% I was wrong" and walk away thing, whereas with the other crowd he will continue with the various "so we agree that xxx" lines.

The riggie vs riggie interaction can be mildly entertaining to watch on harmless topics like this. I have to imagine it gets quite a bit uglier when it is about more serious things, like for instance if a reformed Qderp (that was deeply involved with it) debates with a newer Qderp that has opinions of everything without knowing anything. That is Lucky with UFOs (he openly says he is uninformed), so this thread definitely gives a gentle example of an interaction that could be a lot worse between riggies/conspiracyderps/former conspiracyderps. The interaction between people like Lucky and Trolly are far more common, so I do appreciate the posts of the latest posters to the mix - they have made this a much more interesting thread to read, and it is a thread about UFOs - so that aint easy to do!

I was going to address this but went down another line. The real problem with his 70/30 thing is that (and I assume the 70 is "nothing") what even is the 30 here? Lucky hasn't given us any idea what he thinks the alternative to "nothing" even is. We don't even have the criteria by which we could know if his suspicions turn out to be correct.

That's why I said at best we'll have an elaborate Gettier case from him. He hasn't even given us a basis to think he was on to something even if aliens storm Parliament tomorrow.

The 70/30 thing is what he (and many conspiracy people) do to essentially bet on and predict both sides. Think of it as a variant of the old joke of - it either happens or it does not, so it is 50/50 that can be said in jest about anything, even getting hit by a meteorite.

He has not told you what his alternative is, because all it is is an extension of his secret powers controlling the planet narrative, and by that I mean its not much different than when you see spam on a message board of "love your video/post, and if you are interested in buying etc etc." that often tries to sell a product unrelated to where the spam was posted.

I posted that I was surprised Lucky even cared about UFOs , as it did not really seem his thing, and reading this thread it is clear he does not really care specifically about UFOs for UFO sake. It is about his shadowy government narrative whateverburger. He also is aware if he let loose his whole manifesto on that then he goes way past Lizard People in terms of the crazy-ometer.

You actually know the topic of UFOs, and the way you know it and talk about it is kind of interesting. Lucky has pretty much no past experience with it and he is trying to jam it into his standard narrative, and usually when he does that he still knows more on the whatever fringe topic than the people who mock him or ask for details, but that was not the case here, so he got exposed more, albeit on a topic that is utterly harmless. Thus, he can do the walkway plan (already started when he hinted it would be fine if they just locked this thread, claimed he blocked a lot of people etc.)

Obviously I am not a UFO guy, but I have found your posts to be interesting to read, because it is obvious that you have spent some time learning about that niche topic. Lucky tried to use it for his own agenda, so was kind of refreshing to see how that worked out when confronted by people who genuinely know more on a fringe topic.

I doubt this thread has much more to it. One can only post Rubio or Carlin pictures or ask Lucky to give details so many times.

I think I said earlier in the thread, in my teens I started going down the conspiracy pipeline. I'd always had an interest in science as a kid and sci-fi is the obvious next step, and then the next step is into UFOs and whatnot. I was always sceptical, but a part of you wants it to be true, and a part of you wants to find the little bits that are true so that you're not one of "those" types. You want to be smarter than the full-on paranoid, governement-steals-my-thoughts people, so you get to reading. I'm not sure what pulled me back in other the feeling of being constantly blue-balled by all of that. You never find the aliens. You never find the spacecraft. You always find "testimony" and old tired debunked crap that you either have to buy into or get out. Everyone's always on the brink of finding the smoking gun. It gets tiring. Being into UFOs was a bit like watching Lost on repeat until you eventually realise that no matter how good the set up was, the finale never paid off.

Anyway, what I ended up on was the sceptic side. Because the sceptic side got me all of the fun of elaborate conspiracy theories, all the cool sci-fi and thriller feelings, without actually having to buy into it. Like anything, it gets old, but I think most of us can relate to the fascination we all had with 9/11 truthers, everyone's watched a documentary on the Kennedy assassination, and and then you stumble on the grains of truth like MK Ultra (incredibly awful stuff, but every CTer's wet dream).

This stuff is really fun to think about. The problem is that when you do stumble on the little bits of truth, you have to work twice as hard to figure out if you've really got something because it's buried in so much crap, and when people are hook, line, and sinker into the least believable aspects it gets very tiring.

I have a hypothesis that everyone buys into at least one conspiracy, at least a little bit, whether it's that someone on the inside knew about 9/11 or whether Shakespeare was really a pseudonym, or Jack the Ripper was a Royal, or backmasking in songs. That's why I try not to come down too hard on people. I think conspiracies are fascinating if only for what they say about the human imagination. In discussions like these I just try to get people to see that they're reading in what they want.

One of the videos declassified last year, that news articles and social media went wild over, was a bird. And you could tell it was a bird because the camera details on screen allowed you to calculate its size, and if you looked closely you could see its wings flap. But that's the kind of thing people run wild with because the audio of the pilot at the time is that he can't tell what it is. And no doubt people will give a million reasons why it can't be a bird, but its bird sized at bird altitude and while it's fun to think about alternatives...it's a bird.

That was longer than I intended, but that's where I'm coming from on these issues. It can be really exciting to think you've fallen into the truth, that you see what no one else can, but you need to step back and see that, on certain topics, there's a disappointing lack of anything tangible.

That post was already too long so I'll put this here to make it more obvious if anyone's interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgUdy01KZbY

Lol utoobz, and it's an hour and a half long, but for context it's Alex Malpass' old podcast. He's a PhD philosopher (if anyone's ever heard of him, it'll probably be for writing arguments against William Lane Craig's objections to actual infinites) interviewing another PhD about his work on the epistemology of conspiracy theories. There's fun talk about a few conspiracies, but it talks about how theories form, what separates them from "mainstream" theories people hold, and how they protect themselves.

It's a while since I watched it so no timestamps. It might be of interest to people itt, particularly for the type of arguments that you do see very frequently in other political arguments. The most common one is the way people have a network of ideas, none of which they really hold to individually, that support each other as a whole. For example, someone says they have a lot of evidence, and they believe the grand narrative because of the weight of that evidence, but when you try to pick out a single case they'll very quickly back off it and say "Okay, that's debunked, but I have so many more". It's fascinating, and I see it a lot.

I post that here after every comment you say that proves you are exactly the person he is talking about.

It is not trolling one iota and is exactly my opinion.

It could not be more apt.



It is not dumb at all.

It is actually one of the most aware pieces of satire that demonstrated how much this 'comedian' understood human nature and could craft a statement, a joke that will likely endure FOREVER, to encapsulate this human frailty.

FLOL.


So you actually have no clue what Carlin is saying here and mocking. WOW.

I honestly always wondered if the people who Carlin is mocking here are self aware enough to realize or even get the joke. If as the audience laughed and looked at those sitting beside them who fit that understood or where sitting there thinking 'what are they laughing about. I don't get it'.

You have answered that question. You are oblivious

Pro TIp - it has nothing to do with driving Lucky.

It is generally considered bad form to 'explain a joke' but I will break that for you Lucky so you can be 'in on it', despite being the butt.

What Carlin is saying in this joke...



Has nothing to do with driving. Driving is just the example used to highlight a human frailty or trait of 'obliviousness' in a relatable way.

I am sure all of us have been a car with a person who thinks like that when driving.

Despite the fact they may, at times drive above or below the speed limit themselves, they convince themselves that whatever speed they are driving RIGHT NOW is the 'RIGHT' speed not just for them but for everyone else.

Therefore everyone driving faster is wrong and an "idiot" and everyone driving faster is wrong and a "maniac".

He is making fun of people who lack an ability to be self aware and realize that just because SOMETHING makes sense to 'them' ('this is the right speed because I feel it is safe for ME') does not mean it has to be the same for others and they are not WRONG ("idiot", "maniac") just because they differ.

See your post below which has been indicative of the main theme you keep repeating over and over in this thread.

You are arguing that you cannot understand how others disagree because this makes sense to you. You then say they are 'wrong' to hold a differing opinion, on a matter of OPINION, and defend it with 'that should not be controversial because it makes sense to me'.


The Carlin joke would not work if there was not this group of people amongst us that are so oblivious (that is the nicer word btw) that we all quietly laugh at in our daily lives when we witness this trait and think WTF?


It is what is called 'tapping into a common under current'.

So yes, Lucky that person is clearly you. Your question here proves you cannot even read the joke and comprehend it as you are so blinded and lack the self awareness and introspection to see it.

You are literally the butt of his joke. You are why the joke works so well and will endure as a truly great joke.

70/30 he will understand your post.