Stop your answering questions with a question schtick and I already told you why earlier itt, I'm not repeating myself due to your either short attention span or else dishonest debating style.

I'm trying to get you to think.
Why do you think the report is coming out?
It's a pretty simple question
Sometimes the Socratic method is needed for people who are thick.

Like do you understand how completely silly all of this rhetoric is CV?

And I already answered it in very simple terms at the time, Sometimes you need to retain info.

Oh and never call people thick after you mention CT's by people who use Protocols of the Elders of effin Zion as a source, there's a heads up

You still haven't explained how it's different. I take it you won't be breaking that trend anytime soon?

ye i read every post last few weeks. good stuff by you guys and even tho I think 239, HJ or any of the defenders were absolute dogshit for never countering a megha post and were dishonest in a few areas, i didn't like how people wanted 239 for being banned. I think he believed what he believed. didnt like how peoepl got calle dout for being trolls when it went agains the hive mind right away

dumb to lock a thread like that but oh well. good stuff overall a good read and im still unsure if she was complicit or not at end of day. a good lawyer could've argue and get their whatever way based on what we all know.

Like literally very little of anything that you, Monteroy, Cuepee, or Bladesman has said has mattered to me here. So if I don't retain all of it then apologies but it's mostly because I consider it meaningless noise.
The Gettier stuff is at least fun though, and I appreciated you telling me about that guy Bennowitz.

I think it's just people (sometimes highly placed people who should know better) being idiots. Americans have been conditioned since the 1940s to believe in this stuff, but really when a UFO turns up it's probably a speck on the lens of the fighter's targeting pod and it appears to move at fantastic and unearthly speed just because the pilot's gimballing the seeker head to track something that was never there in the first place. The mass-hysterical element is of interest, but it's not going to be some organised nefarious conspiracy.

Well yes and no. We're all mostly in agreement here that UFOs are not real and that these videos are basically nothing.
The disagreement is about why it's making news, why there is a Pentagon report due out next month on the topic, and why various people from across the power structure in the USA are promoting the idea that UFOs are real.
I'm saying that there is actually some organization and purpose behind that beyond just the media trolling for clicks or whatever-- although that's part of it too.

CV are you familiar with the holtzclaw case?
The guy is sitting in jail for life. And he is innocent.
That's the only person I know of such a case. I don't know what this is but it's completely crazy. The guy was set up and is 100% innocent!

https://www.change.org/p/free-daniel...ully-convicted



Sorry for derail. The guy is innocent jailed for life.
CV if you not familiar with this, it is the most butchered case you'll ever find.

That is not dishonesty.

"Real' there just means they 'acknowledge' they took the footage of something 'unknown'. A 'UFO'.

Prior they knew they TOOK that footage but they would not 'acknowledge' that publicly.

The only thing different is that 'acknowledgement' or comment which I have given you over and over the most logical and reasonable answer that is also pretty benign.

Lucky has literally manufactured his own CT that the only reason he does not get taken seriously here or elsewhere in his life is that others are part of some big conspiracy to deny what is obvious that he keeps putting in front of us.

He is the oracle and all else are blind.

It's just being thick and playing word games.
We're talking about propaganda here not objective facts. There are no real UFOs because UFOs aren't real. That's not stopping them from saying they are.

What's your reason for not being taken seriously in life I wonder?
But I've never said you're a part of some conspiracy. What I've said is that you're dense and that you're blind people groping elephants on this topic.
I mean I get why you might resent that because no one wants to be told that not only are they wrong, but they don't even have the capability for getting it right-- but that would appear to be where we are now on this.
Fortunately we don't have to argue and can agree to disagree.

NO you are spinning or are thick.


Because the Military had a policy of no comment, citizens could not know if the leaked footage they were looking at was some 'deep fake' or was 'taken legitimately'.

That is where the question comes in and the Military has confirmed it real 'al taken legitimately by them'.

What it does not mean is that the object, the UFO is any thing other than some 'unidentified flying thing'. "Real" has nothing to do with that part.


So this 'big reveal' that you think is so meaningful is just the militaries change in policy to no be silent on 'did you take the footage' that no one can explain and instead to now say 'yes we took that footage' that no one can explain.

Oh you cut me to the quick. lol. So clownishly funny as you lash out at ALL of those who are calling your BS.

But you see, you have the same explanation for everyone who keeps calling you. They ALL can't see, and you are the only one with clarity. That either means they are all in on it to deny you the truth that they agree with or that you truly are the only insightful and smart person and everyone else is just too dumb to see what you do.

There really is not a 3rd option.

Cuepee,
Do you think Wetwork has trouble following me here?

I guarantee you Wetwork cannot answer any of the questions others are asking you and refuse to answer based on what he has discerned from what you said. Why can I guarantee that? As you yourself admit you are not addressing them.

If he wants to believe and follow your unfounded CT's that is fine.

I can literally make up any story right now and someone can 'follow it' if they are not going to challenge it.

Cuepee,
I've already answered most of the main questions. You guys just disagree. Which is fine. You have the right.
But if you want me to try again, tell me what it is that you would like to know please.

So they're calling them Unexplained aerial phenomena, which is no different than them calling them unidentified flying objects, if anything it's an even broader definition.

And they're not speculating which is no change from their previous policy so again how is this different? And you still haven't defined what "real" is. Just the same old same old again from you.

When I say that we're dealing with propaganda and not objective reality, do you understand what I mean there?
Everything in your post suggests that you do not. Whether they're calling them UAPs or UFOs or just saying that they don't know what they are-- all of this is irrelevant and it's you taking too fine grained a view of this.

No, you're simply blindly asserting it's "propaganda" again what does this even mean?
It's not irrelevant,Project Bluebook stated some of them were unknown and unexplained and the government funded Cobdon investigation committee even went one step further opining at least one was "an extraordinary flying object", regarding the Trent photographs in McMinnville in 1950, and Bluebook finished in 1969 over 50 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn...FO_photographs
So yet again it's nothing different or new. You're making no sense at all here seriously.

I think what you personally should be most embarrassed by is what you're putting out yourself. There is almost no consistency to it. You basically have argued that what is happening is a change in policy that has them going public over this stuff-- in for them to cut off the conspiracy theories basically.
And the only person who believes anything close to that here is Washoe, fwiw. You are essentially arguing that what is happening is actually a legit thing brought about by a shift in attitudes amongst the ruling class towards UFOs.
And yet, your allies in this thread are people like Monteroy, CV, and Bladesman and you attempt to piggyback onto their arguments to attack me-- when if you actually spelled out what you're telling me to them, they would be like "lol no" just the same way that I do.
Have you considered that?

This is just whataboutism from 1969. I'll try to figure out the right way to actually explain it though.

Whaddya mean whataboutism? You haven't provided any comparison where you can even claim whataboutism as you've given no criteria, This is just word salad from you. You can't even explain your theory or even provide one.