Deny THIS

Edit: To clarify for those that don't understand, I say "Deny this" meaning, "deny this story and the fact that it happened." Clear enough?

Navy pilots observe "dark mass" in rescue and recovery efforts. Oh, I just KNOW there's a "rational" explanation, the term "rational" meaning any explanation that conforms to our current knowledge because after all nothing can exist that we don't already know about. LOL. Oh, wait! They didn't supply photos as proof so it didn't happen. Right? Or maybe because this Navy pilot has provided no proof. That's a story killer right there. Right?

www.dailystar.co.uk...

What are you asking people to deny?

a reply to: Visiting ESB

So is this an actual thread or a rant. Im puzzled as to the title and what exactly your point is or the question you are wanting to ponder.

Perhaps you may want to flesh out you OP a bit more?

a reply to: Visiting ESB

There's something you don't seem to understand.

I could post a perfectly clear picture of Bigfoot or an alien spaceship and without a body on a slab or other physical, tangible proof, people would still cry fake.

a reply to: Visiting ESB

You seem really angry at this argument you’re having with yourself.

You are taking this story COMPLETELY out of context. This was an aside during a Joe Rogan podcast featuring David Fravor, the F/A-18 pilot who had his own encounter in 2004 off of San Diego while stationed on the Nimitz. Fravor did not see this encounter. It was related to him by the helicopter, perhaps even third hand. As a sighting this is hearsay. Fravor has an excellent reputation and I believe what he says, but f you REALLY are interested in this, go watch the Podcast (Easy Google.) This is really not the best sighting we have. It is nowhere near as noteworthy as the three videos that were recently released: Tic tac, Gimble, and Go fast.

originally posted by: schuyler
You are taking this story COMPLETELY out of context. This was an aside during a Joe Rogan podcast featuring David Fravor, the F/A-18 pilot who had his own encounter in 2004 off of San Diego while stationed on the Nimitz. Fravor did not see this encounter. It was related to him by the helicopter, perhaps even third hand. As a sighting this is hearsay. Fravor has an excellent reputation and I believe what he says, but f you REALLY are interested in this, go watch the Podcast (Easy Google.) This is really not the best sighting we have. It is nowhere near as noteworthy as the three videos that were recently released: Tic tac, Gimble, and Go fast.

Yes, I was waiting for this one. It doesn't matter that it's "hearsay". He believes it's a credible account and with his training and his own credibility, I believe it.

a reply to: Visiting ESB

I deny everything!

No idea why people can't understand that when I say "deny this" and then post an article about UFO incidents, one in particular, observed by military people, the connection can't be made that "oh, it means deny this story..."

a reply to: Visiting ESB

I’m sure everybody understands it.

Everybody is pointing out that you’re clearly not interested in discussion, though.

a reply to: Visiting ESB

Deny the story?

I can't. Its a story?

Deny that what this man said actually took place.

OK. I'll deny it. Don't really care, its just second hand information.

Better than just blindly accepting whatever anyone says just because you want it to be true.

a reply to: Visiting ESB
You make it too hard on yourself man.. Next time create a feasible story with some additional context and video or pictures, so those who want to deny it can and those who believe don't.

originally posted by: Visiting ESB
Edit: To clarify for those that don't understand, I say "Deny this" meaning, "deny this story and the fact that it happened." Clear enough?

[SNIP] Or maybe because this Navy pilot has provided no proof. That's a story killer right there. Right?

www.dailystar.co.uk...

Yeah pretty much.

It'd be cool if true though.

originally posted by: Visiting ESB

originally posted by: schuyler
You are taking this story COMPLETELY out of context. This was an aside during a Joe Rogan podcast featuring David Fravor, the F/A-18 pilot who had his own encounter in 2004 off of San Diego while stationed on the Nimitz. Fravor did not see this encounter. It was related to him by the helicopter, perhaps even third hand. As a sighting this is hearsay. Fravor has an excellent reputation and I believe what he says, but f you REALLY are interested in this, go watch the Podcast (Easy Google.) This is really not the best sighting we have. It is nowhere near as noteworthy as the three videos that were recently released: Tic tac, Gimble, and Go fast.

Yes, I was waiting for this one. It doesn't matter that it's "hearsay". He believes it's a credible account and with his training and his own credibility, I believe it.

OK, you believe it. So do I. Now what? What is there to deny? Moreover, what do you have? The story is a "dark mass," i.e.: Nobody actually saw it, after which a torpedo sank. There is no "sighting" per se. Technically, they failed to recover a torpedo. That's all.

You need to learn to distinguish between good sightings with corroborative evidence and bad sightings that offer nothing, such as this one. Gimbal and Tic Tac were excellent sightings. Why? Because they had human witnesses, first hand, who actually saw the things and are talking about them. And not only that, they were observed on radar at the same time by a number of different witnesses, and THEY are talking about what they saw. So you have multiple witnesses in the air coupled with multiple witnesses on he ships, plus the machine-based evidence, i.e.: The film itself. THAT is a Trifecta, an excellent sighting.

Yours is a bad sighting taken out of context. Not a big deal. Don't hang your hat on this one. Sorry.

a reply to: schuyler

Gimbal and Tic Tac were excellent sightings. Why? Because they had human witnesses

Not some human witnesses, witnesses that the public deems as credible enough..
There are countless human witnesses that don't have the status of being credible enough because thev'e seen something or even filmed something.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Visiting ESB

I’m sure everybody understands it.

Everybody is pointing out that you’re clearly not interested in discussion, though.

You haven't even tried discussing anything. So how would you possibly know.

originally posted by: LurkinNoMore
a reply to: Visiting ESB

OK. I'll deny it. Don't really care, its just second hand information.

If you don't care, why do you continue posting on this thread?

This is just going to be one of those days.. lol

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Visiting ESB

originally posted by: schuyler
You are taking this story COMPLETELY out of context. This was an aside during a Joe Rogan podcast featuring David Fravor, the F/A-18 pilot who had his own encounter in 2004 off of San Diego while stationed on the Nimitz. Fravor did not see this encounter. It was related to him by the helicopter, perhaps even third hand. As a sighting this is hearsay. Fravor has an excellent reputation and I believe what he says, but f you REALLY are interested in this, go watch the Podcast (Easy Google.) This is really not the best sighting we have. It is nowhere near as noteworthy as the three videos that were recently released: Tic tac, Gimble, and Go fast.

Yes, I was waiting for this one. It doesn't matter that it's "hearsay". He believes it's a credible account and with his training and his own credibility, I believe it.

OK, you believe it. So do I. Now what? What is there to deny? Moreover, what do you have? The story is a "dark mass," i.e.: Nobody actually saw it, after which a torpedo sank. There is no "sighting" per se. Technically, they failed to recover a torpedo. That's all.

You need to learn to distinguish between good sightings with corroborative evidence and bad sightings that offer nothing, such as this one. Gimbal and Tic Tac were excellent sightings. Why? Because they had human witnesses, first hand, who actually saw the things and are talking about them. And not only that, they were observed on radar at the same time by a number of different witnesses, and THEY are talking about what they saw. So you have multiple witnesses in the air coupled with multiple witnesses on he ships, plus the machine-based evidence, i.e.: The film itself. THAT is a Trifecta, an excellent sighting.

Yours is a bad sighting taken out of context. Not a big deal. Don't hang your hat on this one. Sorry.

I don't "need to learn" what you think I need to learn. That's an arrogant statement. This particular aspect of the larger story is a "good sighting". Who determines that? You? You don't have any better ability or qualifications to do that than anyone else. This isn't a "bad sighting". It's a good aspect of the larger story that for some reason you want to relegate to being unimportant. That doesn't show a real effort to understand this, all it shows is a high-brow arrogance. And FYI, this isn't taken out of context. This is an account by a witness that you, yourself, deemed credible. To say this isn't important is frankly ridiculous.

a reply to: Visiting ESB

That's a cool story. For some reason I've always been fascinated by USOs. That's my favorite part of the phenomena. If extraterrestrials did by chance make it here, where would they live? Probably in the most unexplored and inaccessible place in the world, the depths of the ocean.

Maybe their species evolved in a place where water and pressure is their optimum habitat. And the UFOs and greys we see are just their above water probes..