CV,
What are your thoughts on this post? Am I right? Is CNN right that after decades of denial, official arms of the government are acknowledging that UFOs are "real"?

Of course they don't, but I've painstakingly gone over how you might not even be making a coherent claim let alone a well evidenced one.

I can't even get you to commit to what you think is going to happen in the future other than "something". Which is, since I'm so charitable, at least true tautologically.

You issue is that you're approaching this discussion like it's some sort of logic puzzle to be solved. Where if only I laid out all my arguments properly you'd understand and since I'm not you're winning this discussion or something. But none of this is too hard. It's hard for me to not consider you disingenuous here-- like you've literally said whatever happens in the future I can't be right because I haven't said enough, and I don't really have much of an interest in engaging with that.
Mostly my aim here now in this thread is to see that either most of you, or perhaps me myself are extremely embarrassed by future news or the lack thereof. I'd say right now I'm winning though.

You haven't defined "real". Please do so
Nor have you provided any official pentagon/white house statement officially saying such a thing. Please do so. Or else stop being dishonest, that might work too.

And no, nothing you've said itt has been right or indeed coherent.

Why don't you stop being dishonest. You know that I don't think UFOs are real right?
"Real" is what the government/media is saying they are. It doesn't mean they actually are real.
Just word games from all of you people.
"Haven't provided an official white house or Pentagon statement" lmfao.
Literally every day **** is coming out saying "UFOs are real" that is being spurred on by the government. This is the forest for trees stuff CV.

No they aren't, an individual pilot saying something is not the government saying it, and you're being dishonest here.

You still haven't shown how or why all of this is different. You're just in groundhog day mode repeating the same debunked crap over and over again. Now do me a favour and stop asking me questions. You're a loon and incapable of honest rational debate and I can only put up with so much cray-cray here so have no further wish to interact with you, you strange paranoiac.

It's just one pilot?


Lol. You haven't debunked anything and the way the news is changing you already look really silly here.
Probably best to run away. But if you want to go through and keep doing a course on UFO history to explain why UFOs all over the news now means nothing then that would be fine too.

Everything you said was debunked, you called it whataboutism, proving how you don't know the actual meaning of terms in the process.
You don't think this because you're deluded as was pointed out to you earlier. You can't even elaborate on how it's different. You insist you have already but you haven't, you've just spammed the thread with Harry Reid & Chums.

Obviously it is just one individual pilot that is driving this news, but various pilots and a bunch of former officials, including Obama now.
Pretending like because there hasn't been an "official release" of information, that all points are invalid is the epitome of dishonesty.

How has anything I've said been debunked?
Maybe we should check and see if you understand my argument. Can you repeat it back to me?

Nobody understands your argument, it's why you've been asked umpteen times to clarify your position by several posters and then you stonewall, saying you'll get back to it later blah blah.
You're simply an incoherent raver.

When magazines hype UFO stuff, that proves they’re controlled by the CIA. When they downplay UFO stuff, that also proves that they’re controlled by the CIA. National Review is independent, but also controlled by the CIA.

Yeah like Carter and Reagan which you'll falsely call whataboutism and around in circles we'll go. No thanks. You're either trolling or a lunatic. Either explanation doesn't say much for you, so why should anyone bother with you? Cling to your delusions all ya like.

Im just going to keep calling you disingenuous about this. There's no deep logic in why you need to actually commit to a position in order to be right or wrong. There's no deep puzzle as to why "something" is not a real prediction. It doesn't take a much epistemology just to be able to state a belief.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that it does take a lot of work to break them down, that's why I've gone over stuff in detail, but for you to say something meaningful would just need you to say something like "I think after next month's report we'll see an atypical rise in defence spending" just for an example.

I blurted out three clear predictions I had that could easily show me to be wrong. Didn't have to do a logic puzzle. Didn't really have to think about it. You on the other hand are pretending I'm asking for something really complicated when it's actually the bear minimum required for anyone to be able to say you could be shown to be right.

Defense spending is part of a yearly budget. Saying that we could tie in some spending increase with next month's report and have any sort of meaningful information come out of it is nonsensical.

The Pentagon thinks UFOs may exist after all... and the evidence is growing: A new report on unidentified flying objects set to be released next month shows the US government is taking aliens increasingly seriously
Telegraph article.

Her testimony coincides with a growing acceptance among defence officials around the world that there may indeed be something “out there” – and that it might pose a genuine global security threat.
After decades of doing everything possible to keep reported sightings secret, there has been a sea change in how the Pentagon regards such sightings.

Telegraph confirmed not independent.

Do you have a theory yet for what is happening with all this?
Now that Obama is talking about it is that swaying you some towards belief? You did vote for Obama right?

I do. You are creating your latest silly fantasy psy op that literally not another human agrees with, but this time it fortunately involves a topic like UFOs. Sure, I prefer the Lizard People, and perhaps you will get there eventually, but I am fine with you going whole hog into UFOs for now. Much more silly topic than if you worked on a psy op about vaccines or denying various events that happened, so keep up the good UFO work. Stay in the silly lane. If you ask me what is different my answer would be now it is UFOs instead of ear photos of a dead pedo. In a few months it will be something else for you to build your fantasy psy op. Consider the reptile demographic when you do make your next psy op transition.

Sure, I think you’re spinning non-falsifiable theories.

And you think all the UFO stuff is just a fad that's going to go back to the back burner soon, right?

Nice one.

I assume you will celebrate yourself when the whatever report is released, no matter what is in it, but fast forward some - of course it will go back to the back burner. That is what happens to all your other psy ops after you go on about them for a while, find nobody that agrees, and then move on to a new fantasy psy op. When was the last time you presented research on that undead pedo. Its on the back burner, where all your psy ops eventually fade away only to be replaced by new psy ops you make up. You know what I hope the next one will be!

It's fun how you think Epstein proves you right.

His goal is singular.

He needs a sounding board to spin and repeat his CT's with just as every CTer does. Without that he gets a few posts to repeat before the thread is shut down.

I looked prior and he posts about 6 spam CT posts for every 1 spin reply non-answer post.

Each time the cycle is for him to repeat the same 6 or so CT spam points, ask whether others agree then bait them into a reply by saying something like it is 'proven' or 'fact' as he needs their reply, any reply, INBETWEEN and repeat the spam cycle but make it look to the mods as if he is engaged in earnest discussions.

He is not.