Search results

"A forthcoming investigational report from an office of the Pentagon has found no evidence of aliens, only allegations circulated repeatedly by UFO claim advocates" Judging by what Kirkpatrick said there, am I wrong to imply he was assuming UFO advocates for the most part think they are Aliens?

I think it's a good idea also to have a look on what's derailing this thread, if that's the case indeed. Not my content for sure. BTW, yes I'm already done here. Have a nice Sunday you all!

Exactly my thoughts, but nobody can't prove some cases, right? For example, as I said to you on a recently started UFO thread on the Rambles section, there's been people suspecting there's indeed lobbying or bribing on the Congress re: some intelligence secret program, who's going to prove (or...

Sorry but who is claiming otherwise here? If there's someone claiming anything that's you, but as expected for that matter with no supporting proof on your post. Therefore, I guess we must move on on that subject. Thank you anyway for your interesting explanations on ex-post facto.

That's how I thought on that previous occasion, I was going to find out but definitely ain't got time for that.

You're entitled to your opinion as much as me. Nobody can prove our constitutional rights are always respected, alas.

Cair enough, thanks for pointing that out. My sentence is incorrect, I should have said "As far as my opinion goes".

Something on this statement is not clear. Because if your logic is right, then according to Grusch's answer to Burchett, that old phrase doesn't apply to the "appropriate authorities"? As far as I know how it unfortunately works, the IC is above the law when it comes to their secret services.

Nope. Your assertion is a mere opinion, that article proves nothing to me. But I'm all ears, until you bring even a blunt but concrete proof that you're right. Thus, no offence intended but again the old saying is appliable: to each their own.

You talked about a chance meeting which I thought Grusch had and you'd have some more information about. Now I realise it was you, sorry for the misunderstanding.

And do you have a clue about what was the content of that meeting?

Don't see a plausible reason there to change the probability that I was referring to on the post you quoted, sorry.

Okay then, but I thought Metabunk members wouldn't usually do this kind of mistake, I see that I'm wrong then.

I beg your pardon, but again, would you please provide some quote to back up his claim?

If you're not speculating, how do you know that? The problem here is that we're talking about probability on that issue. Yes indeed, it's not a requisite to have a degree in physics in order to differentiate what's nonsense/fantasized from what has some truth to it. However, no doubt you ought...

As I just said, I misunderstood the true intention of that post. Anyway, as nothing is wrong with that let us move on please.

Sorry then, I thought we were discussing about "whether or not she said", which would demand some concrete instance of the person's statement in question.

Surprising to me seeing a post with such a political content having been allowed on this topic. But maybe I'm wrong and it doesn't contradict the forum headlines. Anyway, in my opinion that post of yours turns out to be a bit derailing.

Again, please see above @Curious George's post addressing Moskowitz assertion that Grusch's claims have merit. Based on what they were briefed, none of them ended up "thinking" his claims have merit. Having said that, Moskowitz's statement that the info “actually moved the needle" is rather a...

Good question, will have to find out. What I know is that she worked for the US Air Force, and I think it was precisely in Eglin AFB.