Corbell promises big reveal at 12 noon PST

originally posted by: canucks555
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you think the pilots who fly the most expensive and technologically advanced aircraft known to man had to know their "Trig" before they became pilots?

I'm guessing....maybe? lol.

Hint: You have to know high school trigenomatry before you can be a pilot.

Excellent points here canucks555

Interesting also that Rogoway has been involved in releasing suspicious pictures near Papoose lake and other locations. Wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to have ulterior motives

At a minimum, we have to trust the pilots they are credible and unlike all the debunkers were actually there

a reply to: JBurns

Unfortunately, pilots are human beings and make mistakes. This is why there have been aircraft crashes, friendly fire incidents and near misses through history. Their observational skills are also subject to distraction by the very nature of flying an aircraft.

In the 1970s J. Allen Hynek compiled a report of Blue Book cases and he found military pilots were found to be prone to misperceptions between 76% and 88% of cases.



You might not like that statistic because it goes against your belief system and building up of military pilots as something almost superhuman. You might call Hynek a 'debunker' even though this was compiled long after he'd changed his mind about UFOs in the 1970s. You might even wonder about how this evidence would be useful 35 years after his death. Appealing to the authority of a military pilot's observational abilities is not supported by the data available.

They keep getting hit with actual facts actual evidence. Yet still they choose to ignore it all and believe the words of a shyster.
Man ive posted threads here with what i thought were real ufo's, check my history. But after being shown facts and evidence i now do the same. I check for myself i use my eyes and brain, something the armchair blind believers here fail to do.
Now they will ignore the 88% misidentification by military pilots.
They will ignore the actual video evidence disproving the pyramid ufo.
Or the photo evidence of the batman balloon.
They choose to ignore because the other side is more fun. It is fun to think we're being visited by aliens absolutely it is. But i ain't believing a word out of a charlatan's mouth no way.
Check the evidence check the data. Question the answers.

Video evidence is as strong as you will get it can't be ignored.

Whats the motto of this website again?

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
Check the evidence check the data. Question the answers.

And certainly look at the visual evidence and see if it matches up with the verbal testimony. Yeah, we know that somebody tracked a "ship" going from 80,000 feet to sea level in a few seconds ... or do we? We just have a story. The video evidence doesn't back it up.

Some people just ignore it when the pictures don't match the stories. Why?

I had my own experience of seeing something in the sky back in the late seventies as a teenager. I've told the story here on this website, so if you have the interest you can look it up in my archive and read it. I didn't want such an experience, nor was I ever expecting it, but nevertheless, I had it. I have recounted it exactly (or as best my memory served) as it happened.

Even so, today I am more conflicted about this stuff than I was way back then, and throughout the intervening years. I prefer the early reports (backed by evidence) rather than the most modern ones, but that is just a bias towards the early reports demonstatrating something of the limits of our tech then to the flight characteristics of the objects under scrutiny. Way back then we didn't have the capability to manufacture machines that could do the same flight behaviour as the alleged UFOs.

I suppose my stance remains in the suspicious category. That is to say, suspicious that there must be 'something' there that isn't us, but with so much disinformation it is hard to actually form a solid opinion or belief and rest on it with confidence.

I truly believe that full disclosure (if there is something to actually disclose) would provide great relief from the tension of secrecy that has surrounded this subject from the time of Roswell. It would open up new avenues of investigation and give a wider latitude to the subject. Currently, we are being told by military authorities that there are objects that have been filmed close to military fleets that are not the military themselves. So, if they are not the military, who or what are they? That is the question the military agencies are themselves openly questioning to a degree.

At the moment, with my own experience in mind, I still don't know what to accept?

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
Check the evidence check the data. Question the answers.

And certainly look at the visual evidence and see if it matches up with the verbal testimony. Yeah, we know that somebody tracked a "ship" going from 80,000 feet to sea level in a few seconds ... or do we? We just have a story. The video evidence doesn't back it up.

Some people just ignore it when the pictures don't match the stories. Why?

Because the truth hurts, it means that the mysterious isn't quite so and thats no fun.
Ive been told here that the story from professionals is whats important not the actual video of the event. Because the story is fun but the video disproves that. Like come on, deny ignorance.
People used to cry "pics or it didnt happen". But if the pics show the real truth they will be dismissed because it ruins the exciting story.
Theres been so much evidence, facts and data put up in this thread its ridiculous to still believe the words, words nothing else, of a fame-hungry wannabe centre of attention film maker...

a reply to: elysiumfire

I've never seen one but the old man did when we were in the in the Yukon at around the same time. (late seventies)

Something looking like todays cruise missile whizzed down the frozen river, past the power house and tripped it. The power went out in town for about an hour. I've thought about e.m.p , but can you get that effect without going nuclear?

(that was around the time the first cruise missiles were being developed)

Theres been so much evidence, facts and data put up in this thread its ridiculous to still believe the words, words nothing else, of a fame-hungry wannabe centre of attention film maker...


Your fight here looks to be against certain people that are not witnesses to the actual events. They're involved in giving the witnesses a stage to tell their stories.

So because you think certain people involved might be making money doing that (IE 60 mins) -then the actual witnesses stories are false...Because you don't like certain people making money, your willing to go out of your way to try de bunk the actual reports themselves...

You realize that right?

It's like me not believing world war two veteran stories only because "Dude I don't like much" is narrating..

a reply to: canucks555

Yes he gets on my nerves sure. He is after all the one pushing certain topics that he wants us to take his word for. My problem is people wildly believing anything they are told. Even when shown a ton of evidence.
Alls i hear basically is "because corbell said so". Work it out for yourself, check the facts.
I dont dislike the man because he's making money off the subject, its wrong of you to presume that.
I dislike him for reasons which are quite clear

Its like me being shown video, photographic and data evidence which disprove the events, yet i'd rather believe the story im being told because its more exciting..
He just happens to be the one telling it

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Well now that the cat is out of the bag with this story maybe these people that a lot of others don't particularly like will be replaced by other folks.
The Monopoly on this may be over now that the MSM is on it...and they've been going hard on the story.

a reply to: mirageman

So that leaves between 12% and 24% as reported?? Thats a massive number of encounters!

And, point 2, of course pilots can make mistakes. But so do debunkers. Fact is, they were there while the debunkers were not.

It isnt a belief system. The belief system is all the flat earthers/human centric folks who want ro believe this entire universe exists for one teeny tiny species.

The sightings are credible. And backed up by visual evidence and credible witness testimony. People are on Death Row using FAR less evidence...

a reply to: canucks555

We'll see.

Taken from the new thread, any answers here? Steerable Balloons

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

Seems like a stretch.

The simplest answer is that *some* of these videos represent ET intelligence beyond human comprehension.

Going to have to go with the highly trained observers...the combat pilots who said they absolutely could not be man-made craft.

And exactly what specific balloon is capable of trans-medium travel anyhow?

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

being shown video, photographic and data evidence which disprove the events

True but that never happened.

There is no video, photographic or data evidence that disproves the events.

The tides have turned, and nobody believes the blanket denials and skepticism. Clearly something is going on, and given the totality of the facts and circumstances...ET intelligence is the simplest, neatest answer. Logically, nothing else makes sense.

And certainly "new technologies" doesn't explain the past 100+ years of sightings.

Ever find it funny how our latest & greatest aircraft mysteriously resemble UFOs that have been sighted for decades/centuries? We are copying "them" not the other way around. Sure, some may be alien reproduction vehicles. But some are absolutely genuine ET craft.

What they do and what they are is simply beyond human capabilities.

a reply to: JBurns

There is no video, photographic or data evidence that disproves the events

Do know what, i'd almost say with certainty with that statement you are trolling. But you're not.
Enjoy your ET intelligence craft

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

What specifically causes you to personally reject this explanation?

Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

Namely: " Researchers should avoid 'stacking' information to prove a theory if a simpler explanation fits the observations."

*Sincerely interested in your answer. I am not trolling at you. I give you my word. I may be unpleasant at times, hard headed, thick headed...over talkative...ask Mrs Burns... but I am not a troll.

a reply to: JBurns

So that leaves between 12% and 24% as reported?? Thats a massive number of encounters!

How many encounters in Blue Book were from military pilots that were 'as reported'?

Why is that as a 'massive number'?

What did they report they'd seen?

And, point 2, of course pilots can make mistakes. But so do debunkers. Fact is, they were there while the debunkers were not.

Absolutely - people do indeed make mistakes all the time in all fields. But as we see in Hynek's numbers military pilots had the worst record of any witness for error, Not because they are incompetent but because of their duties and responsibilities whilst in command of an aircraft.

The sightings are credible. And backed up by visual evidence and credible witness testimony.

What specific sightings, testimony and visual evidence are you referring to?

People are on Death Row using FAR less evidence...

Are you trying to compare the evidence that points to alien visitation with that of murder convictions here?

JBurns:

What specifically causes you to personally reject this explanation?

The poster SecretKnowledge has provided a couple of videos that bring into question the veracity of what the UAPs might be, and to be honest, they have to be looked at and rebutted (if possible) in order to retain reasonable acceptance of the military's claim that the UAPs are something other than man-made. SK is only saying...look there is an alternative explanation that needs to be dismissed. All claims need to be looked at from different perspectives so that the wrong position is not adopted. There is nothing unreasonable in that.

Of course, as much as one can selectively ignore evidence that dents one's bias towards wanting to accept a thing, the reverse can also be true, one can be too sceptical. Remaining openminded to all evidential aspects is the course to steer, no matter what outcome things ultimately resolve to.

I think with Corbell, it is probable (and this is just my opinion) that he has a heavy bias on this subject, because he has made it his means of income. There may be times when he presents a clip or some kind of evidence that ultimately ends up hurting his reputation rather than enhancing it. He might say of any dubious clips he shows that he is just putting information out there, but I think that would be disingenous of him. He really needs to proof-read everything he presents, otherwise he may fall on his own eager sword.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Well i don't disagree with you there. Im sure some of them do have alternative explanations indeed

Im also sure these pilots aren't just making it up, they saw something up there but that doesnt mean it has to be ETs im sure plenty can be explained

And still, some of these unexplained encounters also seem like they'd indeed have to be non human. Every sighting over the past 100-1000 years, some are bound to be accurate valid and representing an ET intelligence or some kind of other entity's

The tides have changed and blanket denials will no longet fly. TPTB need to release all available information without delay or expect to never be trusted again. And we both know people will just fill in the blanks and it wont be favorable to them in the least

a reply to: vlawde


Could the EX President be Involved in this ?