New whistleblower comes out with UFO program information to Congress. Program name is called "Immaculate Constellation"

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,823
Reppin
the ether
Lol do you expect me to list every account in history? How many examples do I need to give you? This is a silly and pointless thing to say.

A "Gish Galllop" is an argument where someone posts a bunch of shytty claims that don't actually stand up, forcing their debate opponent to debunk each one individually. "How many examples do you need to give me" if every single one is crap? Give me infinite bad examples that don't fit and they're no better than if you had given me 1.

You tried to do a Gish Gallop here, where you linked to a bunch of shyt that didn't even fit your argument and assumed i wouldn't individually debunk every one. And now that I did that, you're gonna suggest there's other, better evidence somewhere out there that you didn't link?





But you AGAIN deliberately left out that in the 1665 sighting and the saucer. That's dishonest. All I need is one example, that's why I'm surprised you're dying on this hill, indicating your vested interest in being "right" rather than having a discussion.

Why are you deliberately leaving out the 1665 saucer? You claimed they only saw meteors and boats. Or technology from the time. That contradicts that.


I fully included the 1665 incident, they were just split up into two posts because I went over the character count. Are you going to apologize for calling me dishonest when you simply failed to read?

The six sailors in the 1665 account claimed they saw a giant battle of ships in the sky over the city (but somehow they were the only ones in the city who saw that), then later saw a plate the size of a man's hat hanging over the church for hours (but, once again, were the only ones in the city who saw it).

Besides the extreme unlikelihood of these 6 sailors being the only ones who saw 2 different major events in 2 different parts of town at 2 different times, neither one of them matches the description of a modern UFO sighting. Regular-looking ships battling in the air and a plate the size of a man's hat are NOT how any flying saucer I've ever heard of has been described.


It also kills your argument that people didn't report flying saucers / triangles / tic tacs because they didn't have the words. The first "battle" the sailors described as ships fighting in the air, while the second incident they saw a plate the size of a man's hat above the church. If the first battle involved flying saucers, or tic tacs, or dark triangles, then why didn't they describe them by their shape like they described the second object?
 

O.T.I.S.

Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
72,218
Reputation
15,057
Daps
278,291
Reppin
The Truth
I like how you ignored where I specifically sectioned out the description of a saucer in the 1665 article. I pre-emptively knew you would only focus on the ship like descriptions, so I purposely isolated that part out.

Yet you *still* ignored that, and focused only on the things on that article that could be described as a ship. Why? That's dishonest.

And in the wiki page, seeing those triangular or spherical like shapes is indicative of seeing a modern design that ISNT a meteor or a boat in the sky. They say pretty plain as day that they saw spherical or triangular shapes flying in the sky, it's really simple Professor. That matches descriptions of more modern sightings.

Why are you ignoring that they saw a saucer, and modern descriptions? Do you really want to die on the hill that no one in the pre plane era had sightings of a flying object that didn't reflect their time period?
Youre literally arguing with a misinformation agent :mjlol:


Dude has come into each and everyone of these threads quoting Metabunk… every single one arguing for days and weeks, not from reputable sources… metabunk nikkas

He parrots some Mick West dude that gets cooked by experts regularly. He literally regurgitates it word for word.

This is the same guy, again, that said that ALL of those children in that famous South African sighting, was seeing Rastarfarian midgets in sunglasses smoking weed by an Airstream:mjlol:
 

O.T.I.S.

Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
72,218
Reputation
15,057
Daps
278,291
Reppin
The Truth
i realize on this topic you and @Professor Emeritus are skeptics and i accept that

but that leap of logic yall did was disengenous

claiming aliens would destroy us is as speilberg as it gets smh lol
This guy youre talking to as well:mjlol:


These dudes come into every thread saying dumb shyt and trying to manipulate the subject. If you don’t believe in it, cool. No one gives a fukk, say your dumbass shyt and keep it moving. Literally… no one gives a fukk
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,823
Reppin
the ether
Youre literally arguing with a misinformation agent :mjlol:


Dude has come into each and everyone of these threads quoting Metabunk… every single one arguing for days and weeks, not from reputable sources… metabunk nikkas

He parrots some Mick West dude that gets cooked by experts regularly. He literally regurgitates it word for word.

This is the same guy, again, that said that ALL of those children in that famous South African sighting, was seeing Rastarfarian midgets in sunglasses smoking weed by an Airstream:mjlol:


You call me a "disinformation agent", then call Metabunk disreputable and blatantly lie about what I've said in the past. :dead:



Let's take just two examples to see if Metabunk is reputable or not. You're a dishonest, lying a$$hole, so I really doubt you'll engage honestly here, but I'll give you a chance.



Case #1. Chilean Navy pilots saw what they thought was a UFO and got it on video. The Chilean navy and air force studied it for two years, couldn't identify it, and finally released it to the public as an unexplained UFO. The UFO world went crazy with an "official" UFO video from a military source.

Metabunk identified the actual object in just 2 days, conclusively IDing it as a commercial airliner, Flight IB6830. The Chilean Navy looked at their analysis and confirmed that they had solved the case. Read this and tell me whether their analysis is scientific and reputable or not.






Case #2. The UFO investigating and believing group MUFON made a huge buildup to UFO evidence they claimed to have, releasing first picture and eventually video at a conference with a lot of hoopla. It was video taken by pilots of a "mothership" launching smaller UFOs. There were 5 different pilots who attested to seeing it and confirming that it was completely inexplicable and out of this world. UFO world went crazy.

Metabunk almost immediately identified it conclusively as a series of Starlink satellites, tracking the exact position in the sky and showing that Starlink was there at the exact time. They have dozens of threads like that.






Do you consider those threads to be scientific or not? Do you consider to the information shared there to be reputable or not?

IF you can honestly address those exposals, then I'll let you post a Metabunk thread where you claim they're being disreputable. Or we can address the lies you made about me. But before I let you deflect the conversation, let's agree on these first two threads of Metabunk clearly solving UFO cases.
 
Last edited:

Spence

Superstar
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
17,345
Reputation
2,857
Daps
45,442
COA BEEN said we have UFO’s like 10 years ago. We have the most advanced military in the world but apparently some country got better more advanced planes than us? :pachaha:

Math ain’t mathin on that one.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,823
Reppin
the ether
COA BEEN said we have UFO’s like 10 years ago. We have the most advanced military in the world but apparently some country got better more advanced planes than us? :pachaha:

Math ain’t mathin on that one.


There is zero evidence that anyone has more advanced anything than the human-made stuff we already know about. Not even a single video or crashed vehicle.
 

Dwight Howard

Superstar
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
20,541
Reputation
-3,535
Daps
57,767
Reppin
NULL
@Professor Emeritus

If every sightings is a balloon or obvious technical issue, why does government create agencies and spend significant resources investigating such matter. If it's so obvious why are they taking it seriously? If a layperson like yourself know what is why are experts spending time researching? Why have experts coined several terms (UAP) to describe occurrences they cant account for? Notice they aren't calling this stuff "nothing" or "mistakes. Why are we having congressional sessions about ballons and technical errors?
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,823
Reppin
the ether
@Professor Emeritus

If every sightings is a balloon or obvious technical issue, why does government create agencies and spend significant resources investigating such matter.


They haven't spent significant resources. Until recently, they almost totally ignored it. The only meaningful funding I'm aware of before 2019 was some pork for Robert Bigelow, a personal friend of Harry Reid. Bigelow is a complete clown and spent most of that money on himself, there was no serious "investigation" done at all.

Even the UFO community has constantly complained that the government doesn't take this seriously.




If it's so obvious why are they taking it seriously? If a layperson like yourself know what is why are experts spending time researching? Why have experts coined several terms (UAP) to describe occurrences they cant account for? Notice they aren't calling this stuff "nothing" or "mistakes. Why are we having congressional sessions about ballons and technical errors?


The only reason they're taking it "seriously" now is because a few people got confused about something they saw and made a ton of noise, then one gullible Air Force Officer heard some secondhand stories and started making a big deal about it. And even then, it's been clownshow reps like Tim Burchett (who until now was known as the Bigfoot, roadkill, and election denial guy) and Anna Paulina Luna (election denying influencer who faked being Jewish for clout) who have been leading the charge.

The Navy videos were half the reason the noise got big, and they've already been debunked as just regular shyt. So at this moment there's literally nothing to back this shyt other than "Trust me bro!" And EVERY government report on the matter has said that there's no evidence for anything otherwordly or non-human. But, as you're well aware, in this political climate "Trust me bro!" can go a long ways when people want to believe something.



You're killing your own argument. If UFOs are such a serious issue, then why did EVERY branch of American military and science almost completely ignore them for the last 50 years before the Navy videos popped up, random citizens started agitating for action, and Grusch began hyping up his "confidential" information that he still hasn't shared with anyone?
 
Last edited:

Geordi

Superstar
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
2,655
Reputation
586
Daps
12,863
This guy does really good science videos. He breaks down Pentagon alien videos here
Summary:
- The government says they have seen unidentified objects but never said they were aliens
- People are more likely to believe fanciful stories over realistic mundane stories
- the military should get better cameras :mjlol:

 

AngryBaby

All Star
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
4,101
Reputation
121
Daps
11,217
A "Gish Galllop" is an argument where someone posts a bunch of shytty claims that don't actually stand up, forcing their debate opponent to debunk each one individually. "How many examples do you need to give me" if every single one is crap? Give me infinite bad examples that don't fit and they're no better than if you had given me 1.

You tried to do a Gish Gallop here, where you linked to a bunch of shyt that didn't even fit your argument and assumed i wouldn't individually debunk every one. And now that I did that, you're gonna suggest there's other, better evidence somewhere out there that you didn't link?

No. You had made a claim that every description from UFO sightings mirrored the technology of the time. I simply thought to myself "that's a pretty bold statement, I don't think professor is aware of every sighting description to have ever existed." and looked up a few examples where the descriptions that stated saucers, and other flying shapes that weren't a man-made ariel possibility at the time.

I could've just stated how that premise is overly presumptuous and assumes you're aware of every ufo description in history (which you aren't); But instead I thought I'd provide some examples as a courtesy.

and you didn't debunk anything, you gave theories on what you think the descriptions were. However, you're premise only spoke of descriptions. And that they've NEVER been of anything that didn't exist at the time. I never said you need to try and debunk what the descriptions were to be, understand? that's a different conversation.

You basically are claiming that these people only had the creative aptitude to describe something within their realm of technological understanding.
I'm finding very little real information on your 1665 Straslund event. It's repeated by UFO buffs but none of them seem to have the original text or an original translation. This reporting on the event points out that problem and others, like the fact that one small group of 6 fishermen were the only ones who reported seeing anything even though it was supposedly a big battle over the whole city, these same fishermen saw the giant battle event AND the completely separate later disk event, and the "disk" they reported seems to have been merely the size of a man's hat, which supposedly hung over the church for hours, but no one other than them saw it. And then it acknowledges that all the men were ill (but, apparently, no one else in the city was even though they were all there too).

This account suggests that there's a rather pedestrian, easier explanation. Maybe the men were just....ill?

lmao so basically, you were wrong about ufo descriptions always representing the time period, and that there were no descriptions of modern designs of ufo's in pior time periods. whether this case was an actual UAP; isn't really what we're talking about. We're merely talking about if there were people in the pre-flight era that had any *descriptions* that mirrored present ones; and there it is.
 

AngryBaby

All Star
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
4,101
Reputation
121
Daps
11,217
Sorry, but it's part of the human condition that people are prone to error. I HIGHLY recommend you read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. Kahneman is one of the planet's most highly-respected figures in 20th-century psychology AND 20th-century economics, and he won his Nobel Prize for being able to show how every human being is prone to certain errors merely due to the manner in which our brains work.

That's why eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. You can't just believe everything that someone says. It's why I put far more weight on actual physical evidence than on people telling stories.

Aren't you bothered by the fact that people keep claiming they see things which no video or camera equipment ever shows, even though our eyes work by collecting the same photons that cameras and videos do?

Even the video's of say...that Jellyfish UFO hasn't been definitively debunked yet correct? Just theory? Like you're incorrect idea that it was a spider dangling from a web; that was already proven wrong in that other thread way back?

why are you acting as if every piece of video evidence has been debunked? Didn't those hearings have classified video themselves?

Claiming that they are different from other humans and can't make simple mistakes is treating them like gods. ALL humans are prone to making mistakes.

lol yeah that's why you have some humans that are educated in a certain field or realm to avoid encountering these mistakes, they are just as capable of acknowledging potential for human flaw as you are. But acting as if these sources aren't at the very least...more credible than others, on the basis that their nature is to prevent the variable of human flaw...is intellectually dishonest.

There is levels to credibility and you know that. Especially if the party is also accounting for the possibility of human error already, you act as if you are the only (or metabunk members)one who is capable of thinking like that

Notice that others HAVEN'T come forward. Not a single person with actual firsthand evidence of the things Grusch claims has come forward. Isn't it bizarre that he claims 40 different people with direct evidence have told him these things, yet he's the only one who is talking? Why isn't it fair to point out that people on the autism spectrum are more prone to believing people?

Why?

If you go to India, you will find famous politicians and PhD scientists who claim that holy cow urine will cure COVID (or cancer, or AIDS, or anything else) and ascribe magical powers to Hindu idols. If you go to Latin America or Southern Europe, you will find people of substantial success who believe in the power of touching religious icons. Anywhere in the world you'll find people who believe in ghosts, or seances, or palm readers, or astrology. Am I supposed to pause and give weight to their word-of-mouth claims EVERY time I hear a dumb, unlikely story?

People mistake things for other shyt all the time. And people make up shyt all the time. With a LONG human history of millions of examples of people making errors in these exact situations......I'm not going to waste my time believing something just because 1 more person is saying, "Trust me bro!"

Bring. Evidence. Or. It. Looks. Like. More. Bullshyt.
well because those Indians aren't accounting for any human error; and have a pre-disposition for religion....of which doesn't really exist in a national security situation where personnel are merely indicating that upon deductive reasoning...they don't know what something is that is flying in their air space.

big difference between the two.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,823
Reppin
the ether
Even the video's of say...that Jellyfish UFO hasn't been definitively debunked yet correct? Just theory?

"Definitively debunked" is the dumbest phrase, because I can walk outside right now and take a video that can't be "definitively debunked". All I have to do is make sure the video is blurry and out-of-focus, and boom! "Can't be definitively debunked!"

They even have a word for that in the UFO community, it's called the "Low Information Zone". Anything sufficiently within the Low Information Zone can never be "definitively debunked" because there's nothing meaningful enough there to even do that.

That's where your "jellyfish" UFO will likely sit forever. It's literally just a static object that floats in a straight line from one end to the other, almost certainly at the prevailing wind speed. It can't be "definitively debunked" because we can't go back in time and prove that it is a bundle of balloons and not just a floating alien who looks exactly like a bundle of balloons.




Like you're incorrect idea that it was a spider dangling from a web; that was already proven wrong in that other thread way back?

I put out one possibility out of several, and when more footage emerged I retracted that possibility. That's what people who actually analyze a situation objectively do.

You, on the other hand, falsely claimed the object was changing temperatures solely because the camera settings were changing. And even when I used numerous photos with screenshots and timestamps to PROVE that the camera settings were changing and the entire scene was changing colors, not just the object, you refused to acknowledge it no matter how much evidence was provided.

Which suggests you're borderline useless when evaluating these things.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,823
Reppin
the ether
No. You had made a claim that every description from UFO sightings mirrored the technology of the time. I simply thought to myself "that's a pretty bold statement, I don't think professor is aware of every sighting description to have ever existed." and looked up a few examples where the descriptions that stated saucers, and other flying shapes that weren't a man-made ariel possibility at the time.


This is what I actually said:

It's bizarre, btw, that waves of UFO sightings follow advances in human technology, isn't it? We're getting these waves of little UFOs messing with military operations at the exact time manmade drones become prevalent. Crop circles got intricate and technical at the exact moment that computer drafting and GPS technology allowed fields to be mapped out from the ground. Flying saucers became a thing at the exact moment that jet technology became widespread. Abduction of humans by little gray men didn't start happening until AFTER Hollywood started showing TV shows where people were abducted by gray men.
Do you find it odd that the sightings always seem to match the technology of the era? Before we had planes, no one reported flying saucers or tic tac UFOs in the sky to any serious degree. What few sightings there were usually looked like meteor showers or were described as slow airships....the exact thing that existed with man at the time. Even after planes started, UFO sightings were rare. But once we got jet capabilities, suddenly people started seeing UFOs that just happened to be the same color and size and skinnier sleetness of jets. Experimental jets started flying, and then the UFOs stared doing things like experimental jets. Now we have drones, and - big surprise! - we're seeing little drone UFOs everywhere.


I said that WAVES of UFO sightings tend to follow the technology of the time, and that before planes no one reported flying saucers or tic tac UFOs TO ANY SERIOUS DEGREE. This isn't the first time that you've distorted things I said.

Your coverage of pre-1900 UFOs proved my point. There were no waves of flying saucer sightings, nor were there flying saucers reported to any great degree. Instead, you had just a couple incidents that mentioned a bowl or saucer, in both cases they were talking about some small object you could basically hold in your hands (like the bowls/plates of the time) not a giant craft, and in both circumstances the other details give the impression you're dealing with crazy people making shyt up and not any serious sighting. Neither of the sightings that mentioned bowls/saucers looked ANYTHING like a modern flying saucer sighting.




I could've just stated how that premise is overly presumptuous and assumes you're aware of every ufo description in history (which you aren't);

The most basic reading comprehension would have shown to you that I wasn't trying to refer to "every ufo description in history."




You basically are claiming that these people only had the creative aptitude to describe something within their realm of technological understanding.

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that waves of sightings by the general public tend to report things along the lines of what humans are already capable of at the time. Which suggests they're seeing human technology.

Sightings of things that could fly in the air like planes or helicopters, large objects going fast and changing direction, were not reported in any significant degree until humans started flying around with planes and helicopters.

Sightings of lights in the sky at night (beyond obvious meteors and stars) were almost totally nonexistent before humans began flying things with lights in the sky at night. You didn't have any "black triangle UFOs" with three or five points of light until planes began flying in formation and/or with points of light on their wingtips at night.

Crop circle complexity always followed the advances in human technology. Crop circles of the 1970s and 1980s were only as good as what people could judge from the ground with sticks and ropes. And they only appeared in 1st-world countries where random people had the time and energy to pull dumb pranks like that. But in the 1990s when they could begin drafting their crop circles on computers and then mapping them out with GPS, suddenly you got an immediate improvement in complexity.....though they still almost entirely appear in 1st-world countries where people have the time and energy for it, and 95% of them are in the exact same small locations where crop circle clubs operate.

UFOs that looked like weather balloons didn't show up until we started launching weather balloons. UFOs that looked like balloons floating by didn't show up until we started letting balloons go in random places.

Even in the historical sightings you gave, the first sightings of UFOs that looked and flew like blimps or dirigibles emerged almost exactly the same time that the first dirigibles were being invented.


There are extremely rare exceptions, of course, cause anyone who wants to make up a wild story about something can and will do so. But in terms of the NORMS of UFO sightings, things reported repeatedly and commonly across any particular era, always follow the capacities of the tech and natural phenomena that we already know existed in that time period.
 

Bugzbunny129

All Star
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Messages
2,637
Reputation
957
Daps
6,066
A lot of the ufo community have moved on from UFOs and now are into interdimensional entities which they essentially described as parasitic “DEMONS”. They feed of stress, contlict and emotional instability. Thats whyvthey are seen in war time. They are sucking us dry. So say the exposers.

Some wont allow themselves to believe that this is what it is but everyday more and more people come out and allude to this including all the top “alien” exposers and metaphysics, science, occult, magic and religion is all merging. They are the angels and demons of the bible.
.



Reality is created in our brains. Yall talking about camera phone pics for things they we only see because our bodies tuned into it. The phenenomena is very hard to capture in that way. It reacts to your thought. Look into the new DMT documentary that shows multi people seeing CODE on the walls, grass, sky. All of them seeing the same shyt. Seeing around the code is not easy

Tho i think there is another level of this shyt in the deep state that is 100% physical as well. The greys are drones.
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,823
Reppin
the ether
Goofy "woo" fantasies aside, this topic is going to become completely insufferable once AI video gets good enough for people to start making whatever they want.
 
Top