Idk why you think my approach has been weird. There has never been much to say really. But yes obviously things have changed/are changing.

So Cuepee,
Are you arguing that there have been changes yourself in coverage or not?

I think that's a bad standard, and here's why: this still being in the news in August would fit both our hypotheses of "something" and "nothing" equally well. It wouldn't give us evidence either way. It's my opinion that there's always "someone" talking about this stuff.

I'd make these predictions: we won't see any change in budget perhaps beyond the kind of increase in-line with usual budget changes, we won't see the government confirm the existence of extra-terrestrials, and we won't see the government confirm the existence of some new cutting-edge technology capable of doing the extraordinary things people claim are occurring in the video (performing manoeuvres that are deemed "impossible" for known aircrafts for example).

We could perhaps drill down a bit deeper into that, but those are all things that could, in principle, not come to pass in a way that it was obvious they were wrong.

Do you have any predictions of that type?

As long as you will not answer these questions and address this massive hypocrisy no one should play with you. This should just be quoted over and over to you.

Seriously, no one should indulge such a seriously dishonest actor who proclaims 'impossible to be wrong that things are different from the past' but then decries any evidence that is wrong, as 'dense' 'whataboutism' and not something welcome as a retort.

You are liar. You are a hypocrite. And you are an exposed empty shell.

How Washington Got Hooked on Flying Saucers: A collection of well-funded UFO obsessives are using their Capitol Hill connections to launder some outré, and potentially dangerous, ideas.
Jason Colavito has a piece out in TNR today. A lot of it is a rehash of the substack piece of his I posted in here a couple weeks ago.

Lol Cuepee. What questions do you want me to answer?

Are you now allowing for the idea that CV and others providing PAST coverage is the relevant measure for an examination of your question with regards to the coverage being "different"?


It is important for YOU to establish that first, because if you are not then my answer or any data provided will simply be hand waved away if it is not the answer you want.

I do not and I wouldn't be interested too much in making predictions about the report beyond what I've already done.

Yeah sure. But you can't just cherry pick from the past either the way they have attempted to do. And none of that is even necessary anyways as it's clear that the level of official involvement in pushing UFOs has never been this high.


You act like I care about proving something to you.

Which is your prerogative. But now we're in the position where you don't want to look at the potentially competing evidence to your claims, and you don't want to make any kind of prediction for which there could be future evidence for or against your claim, and you aren't pointing to some other phenomenon and saying this is a good explanation for it, so what are you even saying that anyone could take seriously? Help me understand.

This exchange...


In this exchange you proclaim it is "impossible to be wrong" that things are not "different" based on the areas you highlight saying 'those have changed'. More specifically this "government/media rhetoric vis-a-vis UFOs" is the area you focus in on as undeniable "different" from the PAST.


How then is any presentation of "government/media rhetoric vis-a-vis UFOs" wrong to present to counter that argument and not applicable and just whataboutism? How is the person presenting it just being "dense"?


Do you accept that there is a valid process to counter any claims made? And if so what then would you accept as the process to counter your claim of "impossible to be wrong" if you are saying showing and examining direct data from the past is whataboutism?

WTF does "cherry pick from the past" even mean here?

This goes to Bobo point about your incoherence (my word, not his) here.

CV is not skipping over data from the Past that says or suggests 'todays info is different'. There is nothing in the past for him to skip over or that would harm his case. He will present EVERY SINGLE PIECE of data that mentions UFO's or this topic as it is all relevant to part of his point which is that this type of 'volume' of information is not new.

Explain what it is you think he is not posting from the past and purposely avoiding (cherry picking) that might be harmful to his case or helpful to yours?

A. "I think wool made after 2017 is different to wool made before 2017"
B. "I have some wool from 1947 and it's the same stuff"
A. "I will not entertain your whataboutery"

This isn't really intellectually honest.

I am absolutely baffled as to how anyone could think that when all I did was change "ufo coverage" to "wool".

I never said much, people have just been arguing with me about silly points like "whether anything different is happening". And I'm fine to indulge those people so we do that every day here for hundreds of posts.
In the meanwhile, I've also been posting links and tweets and stuff that further support the arguments that I am making-- which is that something is up with UFOs/government/media-- which at this point is pretty lol obvious.

It's because you're not actually trying to understand what I'm saying and would rather play games.

Well this is the part I find disingenuous. You're doing this back and forth with me and others where you post a bunch of links, proudly say things like "I couldn't possibly be wrong", but when anyone tries to dig down into what your point is, then you flip the script and try to act like you're not really saying anything.

You get indignant when I tell you you're not saying anything, or that what you're saying is meaningless (quite literally in some cases), but then want to tell us that you're seeing something that's crystal clear because you know more than us. You can't have it both ways.

If you're saying nothing, then this is all just spam from you. If you're saying something, then put it out there in a way that can be discussed.

Again, this is disingenuous, because when you've asked me what I think your position is, I've got it spot on. And I went through at length how the only way that your claim "The present is different to the past" is by comparing the present to the past, you agreed and then went right back to making the claim that "the past isn't relevant" again.

My analogy is spot on. All I did was change the X, like Cuepee said, but it's going to be the same for all values of X.

Like I have literally said exactly why I think things changed with that December 2017 NYT article....because that's when they started acknowledging UFOs as "real".

Why do you think this is math class?

But when CV gave you counter-examples you called it "whataboutism". Whataboutism isn't a direct counter-example to a claim.

It wasn't maths.

He's given garbage, whatabouty counter arguments-- that's all.
None of it has been a direct counter to my claim.

Yesterday CV went through and posted a bunch of UFO articles from before 2017, and it was like he didn't even read them. Only a couple even had any relevance at all as far as official government acknowledgements about UFOs-- or maybe not even that many. I didn't look super closely myself so can go back and do so.
And just going through and finding examples of the media talking about UFOs from before recently is not an argument against me. I would never say they haven't.

Let's go back to the analogy:

A. "I think wool made after 2017 is different to wool made before 2017"
B. "I have some wool from 1947 and it's the same stuff"
A. "I will not entertain your whataboutery"

How exactly is the wool from 1947 "whataboutery"? And bear in mind, I'm going to substitute "UFO coverage" back in at the end.

This is an intellectualy dishonest argument. Give me a minute to figure out why it's so intellectually dishonest and I'll address it.
Ok...the biggest reason why it's dishonest is because I'm giving a reason for what makes 2017 on different. I'm not just saying it's different but I've said how it's different. You have to work that into your wool.