equinox_code wrote:

I think I have seen what many people describe as the machine elves. For me it seems as though trips often fall into 1 of about 7 difference presets, each with their own visual style. The portal based   example I outlined above was something of an exception in that it didn't conform to the aesthetics of mood of my previous experiences, which quite often feature these weird little striped bouncing balls with faces, which then split open allowing more of them hop out. They're really hard to describe, but they definitely have a mischievousness to them. 

I don't find this guy's style of artwork pleasing on the eye at all, perhaps because the beauty of the subject matter he is trying to replicate is beyond human capacity,  but he somehow does a fucking good job of capturing the general gist of the environment in which these smiley ball things emerge.  

Lord_Griff wrote:

Where can I get some of this DMT?

DrewMerson wrote:

superflyninja wrote:

He is strange.

No, he’s just a twat.

I made the mistake of writing my responses to the video as it played, and then got to part 2 which (partly) addressed some of the issues.

I’ll post it below, but please take on board that I wasn’t aware he would address some of the issues.

Spoiler:

“Joe” wrote:

Two fighter pilots, Commander David Fravor and Lieutenant Alex Dietrich, along with their Weapons Systems Operators in the back seats, flew from the Nimitz to investigate.”

No, they didn’t. And this is a major problem with the non-sceptical side of the argument. Little errors stated as fact get folded into the narrative in a way that starts to fundamentally change the shape of what went on. The above paints a picture of active investigation, which is categorically not what happened.

I would also argue that he does the same thing that fellow obvious twat Luis Elizondo does (and bhd’s executive report does) of stating speculation as fact. He effectively states as fact that vehicles were tracked descending 80,000ft in seconds. We don’t know that’s what happened, we just know what showed up on a screen elsewhere. Stating it as fact is again mischaracterising the events.

He then continues that by stating as fact Fravor’s (flawed by his own admission) interpretation of what he saw. He also implies that the pilots and WSOs corroborate each other, which may be true, but would involve at least one changing their story at some point.

Then, he states as fact that the object the Princeton then picked up, miles away, was the same object. I’m yet to see any evidence supporting this beyond blind assertion that it was.

Onto the 2014/15, and he not once but twice shows a short video reconstruction which dramatically mischaracterises the report. I’d argue he knows full well that the repeated clip of a single digits near miss will stick in the viewers head more than the words which point out that the object is an (estimated) 1,000 feet away.

At this point, I’d also like to address the weight of importance this guy (and others) will put on acknowledgement or confirmation that a video is real. It’s really not a big deal. We can see what he’s trying to do when he moves on to talk about ‘trained pilots with actual movie footage authenticated by the Department of Defence’. There’s a (not-so) subtle implication that the DoD is saying these videos corroborate these witness testimonies. No acknowledgement (yet?) that Fravor himself admits that trained pilots’ eyes deceive them all the time, no acknowledgement that confirming the footage is real does not remotely confirm any interpretation of it, and no acknowledgement (yet?) that there are plausible explanations for most of this.

I’ve looked up that 1897 incident he alludes to, it’s clearly bunkum.

The tl,dr is that, in order to give any credence whatsoever to the non-sceptical side of the argument, you have to mischaracterise the evidence. I am baffled as to how anyone could watch that video, find it reflects their viewpoint, and yet still entertain the majority of non- (or less-?) sceptical stuff I’ve seen posted in this thread.

superflyninja wrote:

Wish Noxy, I just can't imagine hallucinating like that. That time I got spiked with something, yeah the wall seemed to be slick with oil, shapes moving behind it and something.ess speaking to me but...it was sorta still grounded in reality. I knew where I was. That stuff you describe is just so out there. What is your thinking of what you have seen? Is it just all from within your mind?