Replies

I have very little need, if any, to prove my perspective at this point.

I enjoy discussing the topic with those who’ve studied it significantly and who come from a reasonably open minded perspective and/or a sympathetic perspective.

Folks who DEMAND PROOF or even EVIDENCE

ACCORDING TO THEIR UNIQUE SPECIFICATIONS really aren’t very much fun nor very impressive, to me.

I left that level of perspective and need quite a number of years ago.

In short, I’ve heard your ‘gospel.’ That perspective has been seriously considered against my collection of puzzle pieces and come up wanting. I see no new collection of puzzle pieces any where close to sufficiently convincing to alter my perspective.

Ranting, pontificating, jabbing etc. will not likely improve your perspective’s chances of getting a more favorable nod from me.

I have very little need, if any, to prove my perspective at this point.
***Then your perspective will get shot down on this thread because you choose not to defend it. The evidence is strong once the reader gets his hands on Vesco’s book, “Intercept UFO”.

I enjoy discussing the topic with those who’ve studied it significantly and who come from a reasonably open minded perspective and/or a sympathetic perspective.
***This is a fascinating statement. I’ve been studying the topic for 30 years with an open minded perspective but you appear not to enjoy discussing it with me. I believe that it is because of the latter part of your statement where you say, “who come from a reasonably open minded perspective and/or a sympathetic perspective.” And this is a double-edged statement where you can make it appear that people who do not agree with you are not open minded. That and/or is probably just an AND in your case. People who are comfortable with the ET conclusion find Vesco’s theory to be troubling and they start trying to color the proponent as someone without an open mind.

Folks who DEMAND PROOF or even EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO THEIR UNIQUE SPECIFICATIONS really aren’t very much fun nor very impressive, to me.
***Why is DEMAND PROOF capitalized? Where have I DEMANDED PROOF? On this thread it was Dragnet who demanded proof. When you say “Folks who DEMAND EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO THEIR UNIQUE SPECIFICATIONS really aren’t very much fun nor very impressive, to me” you are using a straw argument because you paint the opponent as someone who demands it according to some unique perspective, which is simply not what I am doing here. So any time you are arguing against a position that the other person doesn’t hold it is usually a straw argument or maybe a miscommunication. Now that you’ve proceeded to using capital letters and adding inflection, it is a sign that you’ve got your gander up, and that you are now emotionally invested in what is being said. Your comfort zone has just been ruffled.

I left that level of perspective and need quite a number of years ago.
***This is an attempt to appear superior to your opponent. You are SO much better and open-minded and smarter than me that years ago you threw away the book I’m referring to.

If water works in the wind contests are one’s joy, then I suspect there might be someone hookable into such a game if one looks hard enough. If not hereon, then ABOVETOPSECRET.COM has them in abundance.
***This is another of your statements that becomes hard to follow. But the tone is easy to discern. Notice that, several posts into this exchange, you have yet to produce evidence for your belief and you appear to be maneuvering in such a way that you will not produce such evidence. You do not appear to have the desire to openly and honestly investigate the physical evidence on this thread, you just want to pontificate.

In short, I’ve heard your ‘gospel.’ That perspective has been seriously considered against my collection of puzzle pieces and come up wanting.
***That’s obvious enough. We can all see your conclusion, but the readers are going to want to know how you arrived at it. I’ve considered your ‘gospel’ and came up with the opposite conclusion, and there are classical descriptions & approaches towards the evidence that I can point to in order to help readers wrestle with the data themselves. The main approach is Occham’s Razor and basically asking, “what is the most likely explanation to this?”

I see no new collection of puzzle pieces any where close to sufficiently convincing to alter my perspective.
***You threw out the book and you don’t want to discuss it. It disrupts your comfort zone.

Ranting, pontificating, jabbing etc. will not likely improve your perspective’s chances of getting a more favorable nod from me.
***I already got a favorable nod from you. You said you read the book and that it was worthwhile reading. But you do not appear to have the desire to discuss the evidence, the readers can see for themselves that you are the one pontificating.