We are not alone.... Maybe.

[Pap]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

 

Can i ask you something? How many people are on your ignore list?

 

If you screenshot just the total number (not the posters), i'd be happy to put £20 into the charity of your choice. And will show you proof of doing so. 

 

I'm really curious to know. And in before, "you've just been added"

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Pap said:

 

Can i ask you something? How many people are on your ignore list?

 

If you screenshot just the total number (not the posters), i'd be happy to put £20 into the charity of your choice. And will show you proof of doing so. 

 

I'm really curious to know. And in before, "you've just been added"

 

Are you into me or something? Weird lad.

[Pap]

Nah. I just find you a peculiar poster. Like Rik Mayall on weed. 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Pap

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Pap said:

Nah. I just find you a peculiar poster. Like Rik Mayall on weed. 

 

 

 

 

Oh right, so kind of

[Pap]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

Oh right, so kind of.

 

FTFY 👍

[AlimOzturk]

Sorry chaps.  Life gets in the way. 

[ri Alban]

9 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Sorry chaps.  Life gets in the way. 

Yeah and there's Klingons on the starboard bow. 

[Ulysses]

13 hours ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

You are not going to your own spadework  simply because your mind is made up. Fair enough.

 

I did indeed say that Polygraphs are used as part of criminal investigations. But what you pathetically tried to lure me into admitting was quote was it was “admissible evidence in criminal proceedings”. No I didn’t and as you well know, there is a world of difference.

 

Your childish “arse” comment is at least consistent with the accompanying cartoon. Hopefully you will take your own advice and leave the rest of us to discuss the topic in a civil and adult manner.

 

 

 

Stop being silly.  Polygraphs are not used in criminal investigations - and the reason they aren't is because findings collected from them are not admissible as evidence.  If something isn't useful to cops and prosecutors as evidence, they don't use it because there's no point.

 

Honestly, don't double down when you've made a bollix of something.  It only makes you look worse.

[Ulysses]

What is it with people who believe in this guff?  Why do they post something, and the moment it's shown to be complete nonsense and fantasy they get really rude and personal with the person who pointed it out?  As if it was the fault of the person for pointing it out, rather than their own fault for being lazy or gullible and then posting without doing any research or basic analysis?  And why do they say stuff - in plain black and white on the forum - and then dig their heels in and insist they never posted it?  Even when it's there on the board with their name on it for all to see?

 

Is it some kind of blood poisoning from the tinfoil hats, I wonder?

[adambraejambo]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

What is it with people who believe in this guff?  Why do they post something, and the moment it's shown to be complete nonsense and fantasy they get really rude and personal with the person who pointed it out?  As if it was the fault of the person for pointing it out, rather than their own fault for being lazy or gullible and then posting without doing any research or basic analysis?  And why do they say stuff - in plain black and white on the forum - and then dig their heels in and insist they never posted it?  Even when it's there on the board with their name on it for all to see?

 

Is it some kind of blood poisoning from the tinfoil hats, I wonder?

Even the flat Earthers laugh at them 😁

[superjack]

18 hours ago, Ulysses said:

What is it with people who believe in this guff?  Why do they post something, and the moment it's shown to be complete nonsense and fantasy they get really rude and personal with the person who pointed it out?  As if it was the fault of the person for pointing it out, rather than their own fault for being lazy or gullible and then posting without doing any research or basic analysis?  And why do they say stuff - in plain black and white on the forum - and then dig their heels in and insist they never posted it?  Even when it's there on the board with their name on it for all to see?

 

Is it some kind of blood poisoning from the tinfoil hats, I wonder?

Something to do with the older models of tin foil hat that contained at least 65% lead.

[maroonlegions]

19 hours ago, Ulysses said:

What is it with people who believe in this guff?  Why do they post something, and the moment it's shown to be complete nonsense and fantasy they get really rude and personal with the person who pointed it out?  As if it was the fault of the person for pointing it out, rather than their own fault for being lazy or gullible and then posting without doing any research or basic analysis?  And why do they say stuff - in plain black and white on the forum - and then dig their heels in and insist they never posted it?  Even when it's there on the board with their name on it for all to see?

 

Is it some kind of blood poisoning from the tinfoil hats, I wonder?

What's guff.

 

What research or analysis  has anyone or you done on the UAP and USO cases?? 

 

Must be a lot of tin foil hats in those  highly credible sources that do NO not rule out a ET possibility of some UAP reports.

 

To go away unconvinced after looking at ALL the available credible evidence from those in the know is one thing but to go away unconvinced  by NOT  looking at ALL the available evidence is just not science.

 

Not everything is a source from U tube tin foil hat loonies..

 

But you knew that..

 

 

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

Just one report regarding USO 

 

From: Majorstar@aol.

To: WATERUFO@prodigy

Date: Monday, October 25, 1999 2:17 PM

Subject: Re: Your Lake sighting����������
 

������ In December of 1980, I awoke and noticed light in the bedroom from something outside our home. I got up and looked out the rear bedroom window onto our lake. A saucer shaped craft appeared to be surfacing on the lake about 100 feet from my window. !t reminded me of a submarine surfacing; at least water seemed to be falling off its surface. The craft was bathed in a blue ionization of light that looked similar to the Aurora Borealis. I thought to myself, that's where these craft hide under the water! It was moving slowly towards our dock. After a short time the craft departed almost in an instant.

������ Within a few weeks the lake was frozen over and I took several strings of Christmas lights and put them on the ice in the same spot to determine the approximate size of the craft. The craft measured 25 feet in diameter and was about 7 feet thick. It appeared as a fairly typical! saucer with no apparent port holes or entry points. It seemed to be made of very smooth metallic material similar to polished pewter. It made no sound; however there was the feeling it was very powerful and awe-inspiring.

Regards,

George A. Filer������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

This is the original e-mail message received, regarding Mr. Filers water related sighting.
 

UFOCAT PRN � NONE�����������
 

North America � United States, New Jersey

Medford���������� Latitude 39-54-03 N, Longitude 74-49-26 W (D-M-S)

Briarwood Lake � Unable to locate

Reference: The National Gazetteer of the United States of America, Prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, Washington D.C., 1990���

 

 

LIST OF WATER-RELATED SIGHTINGS

After selecting the date group you are interested in (e.g.”500-1946” or “The Master List”), a list for that group will appear.
The dates on the list that are in blue (hyperlinked) will take you to the text for the date selected.

[ 0500-1946 ] [ 1947-1959 ] [ 1960-1965 ] [ 1966-1972 ] [ 1973-1979 ] [ 1980-1999 ] [ 2000- 2015 ] [ Undated ]

[ THE MASTER LIST ]

 

 

Reports from Naval vessels and war ships from various nations do show that Unidentified Submerged Objects have been tracked on sonar and witnessed by naval personnel.

 

 

Lord Rankeillour, Member of the House of Lords:

Many men have seen them [UFOs] and have not been mistaken. Who are we to doubt their word? …
Only a few weeks ago a Palermo policeman photographed one, and four Italian Navy officers saw a 300-foot long fiery craft rising from the sea and disappearing into the sky...

Why should these men of law enforcement and defense lie?
 

[House of Lords, Debate on Unidentified Flying Objects, Hansard (Lords), Vol. 397, No. 23, January 18, 1979.]

    

[ri Alban]

[maroonlegions]

12 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

 

 

There is not one single UFO explanation that fits ALL the data. Some appear to be ET in nature, others appear to be extra-dimensional in nature, others appears to be Paranormal in nature. Some are obviously physical objects (take many trace evidence cases for example), yet others appear to be non-physical. I think UFOs are coming from different sources, not all are ET, or extra-dimensional, or Paranormal, or what have you, but there are cases that would fit each.

 

I will consider your highly thought out and childlike response  in terms of the 3 arguments outlined below;

1) The induction that there is life on other earth like planets
2) The teleological nature of evolution
3) The statistical argument of earth like planets existing in the universe.

 

"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs." - Carl Sagan

 

[maroonlegions]

39 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

 

 

Another argument is the standpoint of the following points.

 

 

 

a)   It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us.  For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving “hard evidence” yet they exist.  Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.

 

b)   It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.

 

c)   It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial.  This is true for instance, of the alleged mysterious implants found by doctors and surgeons in alleged alien abductees.  So even when something leaves a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.

 

Of course, some skeptics have argued that all these things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary evidence.  However, in order to really know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that exists in the universe and beyond.  No one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge.  Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that:

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality." 

 

 

So this is more of a MATURE attitude to take while you are busy fighting independence >

 

      In order for one to know what is impossible or improbable, one would have to be an all knowing creator of the universe who possesses every knowledge that there is.  But none of these hard nosed skeptics are anywhere near that level, so their assumption that paranormal events are impossible in my view is baseless. As scientist and author Arthur C. Clarke states in his first law: 

 

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by maroonlegions

[Ulysses]

11 hours ago, adambraejambo said:

Even the flat Earthers laugh at them 😁

 

No we don't.

 

 

Oops. 

[Gizmo]

20 hours ago, Ulysses said:

What is it with people who believe in this guff?  Why do they post something, and the moment it's shown to be complete nonsense and fantasy they get really rude and personal with the person who pointed it out?  As if it was the fault of the person for pointing it out, rather than their own fault for being lazy or gullible and then posting without doing any research or basic analysis?  And why do they say stuff - in plain black and white on the forum - and then dig their heels in and insist they never posted it?  Even when it's there on the board with their name on it for all to see?

 

Is it some kind of blood poisoning from the tinfoil hats, I wonder?

I tried to engage, I really did but I don't honestly believe the poster understands much of the subject at hand or the wider difficulties making alien contact of this nature so improbable. Thus, any rebuttal or attempt at debate, is met with hostility and 20+ web links rather than a good natured, well yeah that's a point, how about x or y?

Having the temerity to use a Carl Sagan quote when he hasn't learned a thing from the great man:
 

 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

What's guff.

 

What research or analysis  has anyone or you done on the UAP and USO cases?? 

 

Must be a lot of tin foil hats in those  highly credible sources that do NO not rule out a ET possibility of some UAP reports.

 

To go away unconvinced after looking at ALL the available credible evidence from those in the know is one thing but to go away unconvinced  by NOT  looking at ALL the available evidence is just not science.

 

Not everything is a source from U tube tin foil hat loonies..

 

But you knew that..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had this out with you several years ago, and I stopped when it became plain that nothing of any consequence or relevance gets through to you.  Research and analysis?  You don't even understand the stuff you copy and paste - as far as you're concerned, it all might as well be random patterns and shadows thrown by a full moon.  You could post something of real relevance or value, or you could post utter science fiction mumbo jumbo, and there's not a whelk's chance in a supernova that you could tell one from the other.  You can't even begin to imagine what research and analysis are.

[Ulysses]

57 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

 

 

Another argument is the standpoint of the following points.

 

 

 

a)   It is possible for something to exist without leaving behind collectable evidence as a souvenir to us.  For example, planes, radio waves, electromagnetism, and light move around without leaving “hard evidence” yet they exist.  Therefore, extraordinary phenomena can exist without leaving behind extraordinary evidence.

 

b)   It is possible for something to exist yet the evidence for it hasn't been found or understood yet, which is the case for almost every discovery in history from fire and wheels to gunpowder and gravity, to planets, atoms and electromagnetism.

 

c)   It is possible that the evidence is already there but that it's subject to interpretation, making it controversial.  This is true for instance, of the alleged mysterious implants found by doctors and surgeons in alleged alien abductees.  So even when something leaves a trail, residue or mark, they are subject to interpretation anyway.

 

Of course, some skeptics have argued that all these things are possible but not probable, hence the requirement for extraordinary evidence.  However, in order to really know all that is probable and improbable in the universe and reality, it would require that one have complete knowledge of every dimension and reality that exists in the universe and beyond.  No one, neither skeptic nor believer, has that kind of knowledge.  Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that:

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to convince skeptics, but not necessarily to exist in objective reality." 

 

 

So this is more of a MATURE attitude to take while you are busy fighting independence >

 

      In order for one to know what is impossible or improbable, one would have to be an all knowing creator of the universe who possesses every knowledge that there is.  But none of these hard nosed skeptics are anywhere near that level, so their assumption that paranormal events are impossible in my view is baseless. As scientist and author Arthur C. Clarke states in his first law: 

 

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.  When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

 

 

In your own words, what does this stuff mean?

 

Your own words.  No copying and pasting from any paranormal and conspiracy theory websites - y'know, the way you copied and pasted that stuff.

 

Research and analysis?  My arse.  You don't even know enough about copying and pasting to realise that it leaves a trail of "hard evidence".

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Having the temerity to use a Carl Sagan quote when he hasn't learned a thing from the great man:
 

 

It's quite a phommommommon alright.

[Boab]

18 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

I tried to engage, I really did but I don't honestly believe the poster understands much of the subject at hand or the wider difficulties making alien contact of this nature so improbable. Thus, any rebuttal or attempt at debate, is met with hostility and 20+ web links rather than a good natured, well yeah that's a point, how about x or y?

Having the temerity to use a Carl Sagan quote when he hasn't learned a thing from the great man:
 

 

That's the actual clip I was thinking of when I posted earlier in the thread about the, extremely miniscule, probability of contact, of any form, with ET.

He was a giant of astronomy.

A great man.

[Gizmo]

10 minutes ago, Boab said:

That's the actual clip I was thinking of when I posted earlier in the thread about the, extremely miniscule, probability of contact, of any form, with ET.

He was a giant of astronomy.

A great man.

He's still such a shining star and guiding light, so inspirational and so exceptionally gifted at explaining these concepts to a wider audience. I'm so grateful to Sagan - he was one of a kind, yet he inspired so many - Kaku, Krauss, Tyson, Cox et al, to pick up his torch and enlighten the rest of us. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Gizmo

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

 

There is not one single UFO explanation that fits ALL the data. Some appear to be ET in nature, others appear to be extra-dimensional in nature, others appears to be Paranormal in nature. Some are obviously physical objects (take many trace evidence cases for example), yet others appear to be non-physical. I think UFOs are coming from different sources, not all are ET, or extra-dimensional, or Paranormal, or what have you, but there are cases that would fit each.

 

I will consider your highly thought out and childlike response  in terms of the 3 arguments outlined below;

1) The induction that there is life on other earth like planets
2) The teleological nature of evolution
3) The statistical argument of earth like planets existing in the universe.

 

"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs." - Carl Sagan

 

 

You know Christians who call you ignorant because you say God isn't real but you haven't spent years studying the Bible and decades on theology and all the other assorted bollocks that accompanies it?

 

That's you, that is.

[Boab]

1 hour ago, Gizmo said:

He's still such a shining star and guiding light, so inspirational and so exceptionally gifted at explaining these concepts to a wider audience. I'm so grateful to Sagan - he was one of a kind, yet he inspired so many - Kaku, Krauss, Tyson, Cox et al, to pick up his torch and enlighten the rest of us. 

His speech to Congress about climate change is a good watch. 

From 1985 !

Sorry, no good at links.

[Gizmo]

6 minutes ago, Boab said:

His speech to Congress about climate change is a good watch. 

From 1985 !

Sorry, no good at links.

 

Just cut n paste a direct address bar link if you want to share, the forum code will do the magic.

We need more Sagans and less Neil Olivers (see his "opinion" on Ukraine this evening!!) in the world.  

[Boab]

13 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

 

Just cut n paste a direct address bar link if you want to share, the forum code will do the magic.

We need more Sagans and less Neil Olivers (see his "opinion" on Ukraine this evening!!) in the world.  

Spot on, Gizmo.

Should play his speeches to world leaders on a continual loop and sneak some 'erb into their tea.

No more wars !

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Gizmo said:

 

Just cut n paste a direct address bar link if you want to share, the forum code will do the magic.

We need more Sagans and less Neil Olivers (see his "opinion" on Ukraine this evening!!) in the world.  

That senator when the camera went close up.

Edited March 1, 2022 by ri Alban

[Maple Leaf]

18 hours ago, Gizmo said:

I tried to engage, I really did but I don't honestly believe the poster understands much of the subject at hand or the wider difficulties making alien contact of this nature so improbable. Thus, any rebuttal or attempt at debate, is met with hostility and 20+ web links rather than a good natured, well yeah that's a point, how about x or y?

Having the temerity to use a Carl Sagan quote when he hasn't learned a thing from the great man:
 

 

That's a wonderful clip of Carl Sagan.  I could listen to that man speak all day.

[Greedy Jambo]

 

@Morgan

Edited March 2, 2022 by Greedy Jambo

[maroonlegions]

On 27/02/2022 at 12:05, Pap said:

Nah. I just find you a peculiar poster. Like Rik Mayall on weed. 

 

 

 

Ha ha. Nice description mate 

 

He will like others IGNORE such individuals like   retired CIA officer John Ramirez about his 25 year career with the agency , his interest in the UFO /UAP topic and Unidentified Orbs and light domes.

 

John Ramirez is no money making con artist or some tin foil hat loony on u tube. 

 

This video is about 90 minutes long and well worth a watch for members interested in the subject , Mr Ramirez talks about Orbs that were spotted on military satellites using infrared imaging and their apparent interest in missile launches in Russia , his belief is that they are intelligently controlled, he also tells of an account he was told about by a fellow CIA officer who was on the USS Boston when it was off the coast of Vietnam when they had an incident where they "fought off a UFO".

 

Yip FOUGHT off a UAP on USS Boston , just another UAP related to the list on USO i have provided.

A part of the interview I found particularly interesting was when Mr Ramirez recounts a story of when he sent a couple of his engineers to a working group looking into the Orb phenomenon who were , as part of the assignment , briefed on "classified information" about the history of the US governments dealing with the subject , Mr Ramirez says because of his interest in the subject he kept a Grey Alien doll on his monitor and when one of his engineers returned to the office following the assignment he nodded at the doll and told him "everything you think about that doll makes sense now" (from 36.00 on vid).

Mr Ramirez comes across as someone genuine with an interest in the subject , I believe what he says and so here is the video for those here interested .... this one's for you Smithee boy...

 

Remember that

Now remember that his name... is John Ramirez.

A retired CIA officer, John spent 25 years with the agency specializing in ballistic missile defense systems and signals analysis of weapon system radars.

And along the way -- he's learned some stuff that he now feels he wants to share with the world.

But he is no whistleblower. The information he's about to share comes after a CIA review of the information he wants to convey - and they gave their approval that John can talk about it.

This doesn't mean the CIA endorses his information; but rather, simply it was reviewed by the CIA to ensure no classified information is given to the public that might compromise national security. 

So what does he want to share that the CIA is ok with? Well, how about knowledge about a working group within the intelligence community studying orbs; or how about the reality that CIA personnel within the agency talked about UFO related events; and so much more.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

 

[Jeffros Furios]

56 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

Ha ha. Nice description mate 

 

He will like others IGNORE such individuals like   retired CIA officer John Ramirez about his 25 year career with the agency , his interest in the UFO /UAP topic and Unidentified Orbs and light domes.

 

John Ramirez is no money making con artist or some tin foil hat loony on u tube. 

 

This video is about 90 minutes long and well worth a watch for members interested in the subject , Mr Ramirez talks about Orbs that were spotted on military satellites using infrared imaging and their apparent interest in missile launches in Russia , his belief is that they are intelligently controlled, he also tells of an account he was told about by a fellow CIA officer who was on the USS Boston when it was off the coast of Vietnam when they had an incident where they "fought off a UFO".

 

Yip FOUGHT off a UAP on USS Boston , just another UAP related to the list on USO i have provided.

A part of the interview I found particularly interesting was when Mr Ramirez recounts a story of when he sent a couple of his engineers to a working group looking into the Orb phenomenon who were , as part of the assignment , briefed on "classified information" about the history of the US governments dealing with the subject , Mr Ramirez says because of his interest in the subject he kept a Grey Alien doll on his monitor and when one of his engineers returned to the office following the assignment he nodded at the doll and told him "everything you think about that doll makes sense now" (from 36.00 on vid).

Mr Ramirez comes across as someone genuine with an interest in the subject , I believe what he says and so here is the video for those here interested .... this one's for you Smithee boy...

 

Remember that

Now remember that his name... is John Ramirez.

A retired CIA officer, John spent 25 years with the agency specializing in ballistic missile defense systems and signals analysis of weapon system radars.

And along the way -- he's learned some stuff that he now feels he wants to share with the world.

But he is no whistleblower. The information he's about to share comes after a CIA review of the information he wants to convey - and they gave their approval that John can talk about it.

This doesn't mean the CIA endorses his information; but rather, simply it was reviewed by the CIA to ensure no classified information is given to the public that might compromise national security. 

So what does he want to share that the CIA is ok with? Well, how about knowledge about a working group within the intelligence community studying orbs; or how about the reality that CIA personnel within the agency talked about UFO related events; and so much more.

 

 

 

 

 

Damn straight I'll ignore it, same as I ignored your claims that Hillary was a child trafficking, Satan worshipping paedo. Meanwhile, you're the best first date out there - you'll swallow anything

Edited March 5, 2022 by Smithee

[ri Alban]

On 02/03/2022 at 23:13, Greedy Jambo said:

 

@Morgan

😡

[Greedy Jambo]

51 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

😡

 

Have a wee smoke, mate. 

[Greedy Jambo]

 

[Greedy Jambo]

 

[Greedy Jambo]

 

[Greedy Jambo]

Just throwing that out there. 

Personally, I think he's talking shite, but if he's telling the truth, well sheeiiat. 

[Gizmo]

6 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Damn straight I'll ignore it, same as I ignored your claims that Hillary was a child trafficking, Satan worshipping paedo. Meanwhile, you're the best first date out there - you'll swallow anything

Christ, he's not a Q-anon is he? 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Gizmo said:

Christ, he's not a Q-anon is he? 

 

It was before that, the first election when it was just anon. He was all over the God No, Please Not Trump thread and who knows where else, spreading the anti-Hillary gospel of his unknown masters like a puppet with a hand up it's hoop, and helping to get the fat **** elected.

 

Funny, I've seen him slag Trump plenty since, never seen him mention that he was one of the suckers who helped get him in.

 

So yeah, I'm not going to rely on his ability to analyse information!

[Ulysses]

20 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It was before that, the first election when it was just anon. He was all over the God No, Please Not Trump thread and who knows where else, spreading the anti-Hillary gospel of his unknown masters like a puppet with a hand up it's hoop, and helping to get the fat **** elected.

 

Funny, I've seen him slag Trump plenty since, never seen him mention that he was one of the suckers who helped get him in.

 

So yeah, I'm not going to rely on his ability to analyse information!

 

 

The world is full of useful idiots, amirite?

[Unknown user]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

 

The world is full of useful idiots, amirite?

 

Willing tools

[Gizmo]

27 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

It was before that, the first election when it was just anon. He was all over the God No, Please Not Trump thread and who knows where else, spreading the anti-Hillary gospel of his unknown masters like a puppet with a hand up it's hoop, and helping to get the fat **** elected.

 

Funny, I've seen him slag Trump plenty since, never seen him mention that he was one of the suckers who helped get him in.

 

So yeah, I'm not going to rely on his ability to analyse information!

Explains the wide-open, gullible void that he chooses to fill with utter shite. 

[JFK-1]

On 05/03/2022 at 16:33, Greedy Jambo said:

Just throwing that out there. 

Personally, I think he's talking shite, but if he's telling the truth, well sheeiiat. 

 

The fact you're throwing that out there is a reason no one is taking you seriously on this. Just one reason. You're going down a rabbit hole seemingly desperate to believe this unbelievable conspiracy theory, that's what it amounts to. Those videos are conspiracy nut standard. On a level with with 'ghost sightings' 

You mass bombard this thread with any decades old random news story that even mentions aliens of UFO's and that's not the way to reality. 

[Greedy Jambo]

4 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

The fact you're throwing that out there is a reason no one is taking you seriously on this. Just one reason. You're going down a rabbit hole seemingly desperate to believe this unbelievable conspiracy theory, that's what it amounts to. Those videos are conspiracy nut standard. On a level with with 'ghost sightings' 

You mass bombard this thread with any decades old random news story that even mentions aliens of UFO's and that's not the way to reality. 

Ah well. 

 

What's the weather like round your way? 

[JFK-1]

14 hours ago, Greedy Jambo said:

Ah well. 

 

What's the weather like round your way? 

 

Cold but dry, and I found an alien report.

[Jambo_jim2001]

31 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Cold but dry, and I found an alien report.

Nice to see any and Dec are looking a lot better,🤔😁

[ri Alban]

On 07/03/2022 at 08:56, Greedy Jambo said:

Ah well. 

 

What's the weather like round your way?