Meton calls, Viskop
LMAO!
". . . said one of the senator’s aides, who was not authorized to speak publicly."
"Five current and former military and intelligence officials and contractor personnel privy to the deliberations who were not authorized to speak publicly told POLITICO . . ."
". . . said a government contractor who has been enlisted in the new effort."
"Others said . . ."
". . . said a former senior intelligence official who had authority over the UFO portfolio"
No red flags for you there, ButtPlug?
Notice how he can read with discernment when it suits his agenda?...,but drops the standard when the shoe is on the other foot...so obvious...thinks everyone is too stupid to notice...he's the only smarthole in the room...
Hearsay:
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
Hearsay is inadmissible, meaning that it is not permitted to go before a jury or magistrates at a trial as evidence to prove a matter, either for the prosecution or the defence. This is known as the Hearsay Rule (or sometimes as the rule against hearsay).
.
VisKop, you didn't seem too keen on googling hearsay RE Russia Collusion. As I recall, you had no bones with the impeachment that resulted from the concoction of literal bar stories into an entirely misleading dossier. I can't recall if you ever commented on the FISA applications but I'm gonna take a wild guess that remained mum. Anyway, it's not surprising, since you are of extremely limited legal understanding.
But, since I have a minute or two, let us move on.
I posted David Fravor's, testimony and included the relevant footage in my post.
Perhaps, you would consider the testimony of someone that the US trusts to fly planes worth hundreds of millions, with military secrets, and to operate sophisticated weaponry, as hearsay. You may even consider his expert commentary on the gun camera footage as erroneous, instead favoring the opinions of internet sleuths.
The question is, how long will you keep burying your head in the sand, and is it doing you any good?
"An aide who had requested anonymity said that he'd read on an unnamed website that a contractor who was not authorized to speak publicly had heard others say that planet Meton had been struck by an object from earth called a "hubcap"."
It's impossible to believe this BS let alone making it up but you know there's always our resident dope..
I'm not saying that you should believe me.
Just waiting for you to give me an explanation.
How do all the many roleplayers fit into the larger story as it currently stands?
I'm all ears...
The dots are too far apart for them...
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
Born from the ashes of a world at war.
You’ll find us in the shadows.
At the tip of the spear.
A threat rises in the East.
Warfare is evolving.
And all the world’s a stage.
Anything we touch is a weapon.
We can deceive, persuade, change, influence, inspire.
We come in many forms.
We are everywhere.
A feeling in the dark.
A message in the stars.
Ghosts in the machine.
What, are we?
PSYWAR
Verbum Vincet
Rooi attempts to discredit a single article while he knows that there's a plethora of information from official sources, including government websites, transcripts and reports covering the subject and pointing to the fact that there is something going on. Fuck me, The Pentagon themselves have corroborated footage and reports from soldiers, pilots, and sailors in recent years. They've set up task forces to study the subject on the grounds of data gathered by the most sophisticated equipment that humans have developed.
Viskop, as always, falls at the first hurdle...easy pickings were one interested in simple fruit.
Go on, boys(and girl), enlighten me...what is the big picture?
This from The Guardian:
" The Pentagon studied 144 incidents reported by military pilots between 2004 and 2021 in preparing the report. Officials were able to explain one of the incidents – it was a balloon – but the rest remain a mystery."
This begs the question . . . ButtPlug, if there are all these convincing and legitimate articles, how come you put up the pointless one that "quoted" all those unnamed and unverified sources? Why don't you put up one of the many official and corroborated ones?
Hmmm?
Why not start small, and give us your best guess as to why Fravor and his back seat are lying to the public and if they are not lying what it could have been that they saw that moved fast enough to be out of sight and beyond the horizon in the blink of an eye.
Perhaps you could also explain why the Pentagon declassified and released the Nimitz footage as taken by other pilots on Fravor's ship, of the same objects Fravor says his crew saw.
* The highly trained pilot(Re highly trained observer) and his crew confirm sighting a technology well beyond anything presently possible. FYI there are more pilots, of similar rank, in similar situations, reporting the same things.
* Their bosses release footage and pilot audio of the incident as taken by the best FLIR instruments of the day.
Here's another article, from CNN this time, because I know you take their word as gospel. You'll note the article makes mention of the UAPTF
CNN for RooiNuts
Now there's an open hearing scheduled for next week ...
Here are some outlets covering the story related to the first UFO hearing in 50 years...
NYT, WATE, MARCA, Daily Mail, CNN, The Mirror, Daily Star, Metro, PETAPixel and CNET...
Still waiting for someone to tell me that nothing's brewing.
This from the NYT;
The hearing comes after the release last June of a report requested by Congress on “unidentified aerial phenomena.” The nine-page “Preliminary Assessment” from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence focused on 144 incidents dating back to 2004 and was able to explain only one.
The report declined to draw inferences, saying that the available reporting was “largely inconclusive” and noting that limited and inconsistent data created a challenge in evaluating the phenomena. But it said most of the phenomena reported “do represent physical objects.”
The assessment concluded that the objects were not secret U.S. technology and that “we currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.”
Don't let anyone discourage you, ButtPlug. Keep up the good work and keep us updated,
Photos are especially welcomed. I'm particularly interested in seeing one of these space goblins but pics of actual UFOs are also good . . . as long as they're not hubcaps or balloons or anything.
aai RooiBalls
You probably don't know who Eric Weinstein is, but he made a great comment recently:
"True, we may be (functionally) trapped here in this solar system. That is possible.
Or we may be one single insight away from easily voyaging the universe."
He also made another statement that echoes what I've said here pr eviously:
"What is worse, the most parsimonious explanations are the obvious two:
A) Our government is engaged in deception and utterly brilliant at it.
B) .
If the former, it is more competent than we ever suspected.
Everything else is less parsimonious. But I can’t make sense of it."
Summary of the congressional hearings on UAPs.
UAPs are;
Real
Physical objects
Display unexplainable advancements in technology
Unlikely to be within any nation or private entity's inventory
Have been captured on the most advanced sensors known
Means nothing to Crudeneck without clear photos.
UAPs are;
Real
Physical objects
Display unexplainable advancements in technology
Unlikely to be within any nation or private entity's inventory
Have been captured on the most advanced sensors known"Any chance you can provide a link to this "summary", ButtPlug?
I only ask because if I google "congressional hearings on UAPs" I see a whole bunch of articles saying not much was achieved or there were very few answers or the hearings are missing the point . . . nothing nearly as definitive as what you're claiming here.
Feel free to Google the same thing I did and see for yourself. There's nothing supporting your claims. However, one of the results on page 1 of my search was this one from space.com (sounds legit) where a world renowned UFO skeptic called Robert Sheaffer made the following comments:
" I didn't expect much from those hearings, and I was not disappointed," said Robert Sheaffer, a leading skeptical investigator of UFOs. "It was long on posturing and promises, but very short on specifics."
Sheaffer said that there was much talk about "sensors" and "databases" during the hearing, "but the evidence they trotted out was ridiculous in the extreme." Indeed, the object in what was tagged "Video 1 2021" was so insignificant and difficult to see that it had to be played over and over again before the object was even seen. When finally it was caught in a freeze frame, it was just a tiny round object with no details, he said.
"Very likely this was just a balloon that the aircraft flew past at a high rate of speed," Sheaffer said. "They show this as some of their best evidence, and we are supposed not to laugh?"
Sheaffer also spotlighted another video from the hearing that showed "triangle-shaped objects" as seen through a night vision device.
"It is reassuring that they seem to understand that the objects themselves were not necessarily triangle-shaped. This is an artifact of the camera system," he said. "But it was shown conclusively over a year ago that the 'unknown objects' match up perfectly with the planet Jupiter and the stars of Scorpius. So these 'experts' obviously know less about these military videos than civilian analysts do."
The hearing provided a new pretext for spending taxpayer money on a wild goose chase, Sheaffer said. "We need more sensors! We need more databases! We need more staff! And since the goose will forever escape us, the investigative gravy train will have a long run," he concluded.
Hmmm . . . doesn't sound like everyone is agreeing with you there ButtPlug. Sounds more like you're being very selective in choosing your responses . . . but give us your link anyway. At worst I could use a chuckle.And that is the summary, but I'll add some notes to them, because it seems like you need it.
Real - confirmed to have been detected by numerous independent sensor systems on many occasions...80% of the time.
Physical objects - Again, as confirmed by sensor data and referenced during the hearing on more than one occasion.
Display unexplainable advancements in technology - Objects descending tens of thousands of feet rapidly and coming to a complete stop over the ocean. Discussed as a case of note during the hearing. Also captured on sensor systems that operate independently.
Unlikely to be within any nation or private entity's inventory - Scott Bray himself made this statement "It's unlikely to be ours or within the inventory of any adversary."
Have been captured on the most advanced sensors known - They make numerous references to this data during the hearing, and the preliminary report from 2021 also states this.It's actually funny that you attempt to make it sound like I'm offering some outlandish claim.
Likely, the reason most of what you found said it was a big-nothing burger was that it was a giant nothing-burger in that most of that information was already in the public domain RE the preliminary report on the subject from June of 2021.
You'll note, that I never claimed it was new info...I simply said it was a summary of the hearing.
You are indeed welcome to watch the hearing and refute any point of summary that I made above. Or, if you'd like to save yourself some time, read some articles on it, and see what Scott Brey is quoted as saying.
More from Mikes Gripes
- Mikes GripesStraits closed again . . .135 REPLIES · 901 VIEWS
- Mikes GripesThings are getting worse by the day...111 REPLIES · 2,482 VIEWS
- Mikes GripesRuckers AI Art Contest39 REPLIES · 152 VIEWS
- Mikes GripesThe investigation is over at long last . . .37 REPLIES · 174 VIEWS
- Mikes GripesIs the Ukraine War coming to an end?28 REPLIES · 521 VIEWS
- Mikes GripesOnce again...8 REPLIES · 42 VIEWS