I have now numerous times posted various links to what is arguably THE most impressive clincher regarding 'otherworldly' nature of UFOs.
The July 1952 Washington DC Flap incidents occurring in two extended encounters, a week apart. Here's one such among many similar YouTube vid recountings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grJDOJVRK2A
Wikipedia article was another go to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washi...O_incident
Always directed attention to the contrast between 5 - 'Air Force explanation', and 6 - 'Criticisms of the Air Force explanation'.
That recurring theme of official lies and coverups has arguably continued to the present day.
Again, the response from SF pseudo skeptics to all of that was invariably silence.
Never and still doesn't suit a preferred hackneyed narrative - 'show us good evidence'! Show us saucer bits and pieces! Show us dissected greys/LGM bits and pieces! Or live ones!
Sure. Just keep ignoring that all the marshaled and well documented evidence in that case speaks loudly to 'not of this world' AND 'not of this physical reality'.
Whenever such links were posted over at SF, the unvarying response was - no response. And that highlights the mindset divide between pseudo skeptics and JR stereotyped 'ufo nuts'. I'll go with the 'nuts' (at least one of them anyway) any day, as having a more credible, consistent handle on what's believable and what's not.
BTW - none of this has anything to do with luvin butterflies and pixie dust. It means taking a principled, definite stand, in the face of trenchant majority opinion criticism.
The July 1952 Washington DC Flap incidents occurring in two extended encounters, a week apart. Here's one such among many similar YouTube vid recountings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grJDOJVRK2A
Wikipedia article was another go to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washi...O_incident
Always directed attention to the contrast between 5 - 'Air Force explanation', and 6 - 'Criticisms of the Air Force explanation'.
That recurring theme of official lies and coverups has arguably continued to the present day.
Again, the response from SF pseudo skeptics to all of that was invariably silence.
Never and still doesn't suit a preferred hackneyed narrative - 'show us good evidence'! Show us saucer bits and pieces! Show us dissected greys/LGM bits and pieces! Or live ones!
Sure. Just keep ignoring that all the marshaled and well documented evidence in that case speaks loudly to 'not of this world' AND 'not of this physical reality'.
Whenever such links were posted over at SF, the unvarying response was - no response. And that highlights the mindset divide between pseudo skeptics and JR stereotyped 'ufo nuts'. I'll go with the 'nuts' (at least one of them anyway) any day, as having a more credible, consistent handle on what's believable and what's not.
BTW - none of this has anything to do with luvin butterflies and pixie dust. It means taking a principled, definite stand, in the face of trenchant majority opinion criticism.