The man made threat is the U.S military tech training.

LivDiv wrote:

How do we know they are threatening if we don't know what they are and they have displayed no hostile behaviour?

Guess you could say if someone kept entering your house uninvited, paid particular attention to your security cameras and any self defence items and there was nothing you could do to stop them wasn’t threatening…but I’d be surprised you’d feel that way.

The Senate is full of crazies. I don't really care what they criticise tbh

I hadn't seen this far side before, but i enjoyed that it made me think of this thread...

I'm going to be wondering this every time I use a spoon now.

THANKS OBAMA.

bad_hair_day wrote:

Guess you could say if someone kept entering your house uninvited, paid particular attention to your security cameras and any self defence items and there was nothing you could do to stop them wasn’t threatening…but I’d be surprised you’d feel that way.

I assume that the foxes and badgers I see in my garden on my Ring doorbell camera are scrutinising the vulnerabilities of my home security, because I only ever see footage of them in the area covered by the camera. I don’t think there’s any way that confirmation bias is causing me to project intent onto them.

You are still making several assumptions unsupported by evidence. This is seen in your choice of language.

‘Entering’ implies something that originated elsewhere. Since the phenomena are unidentified, you cannot assume its source.

‘Uninvited’ implies both that it is something that does not belong and (the more telling assumption) that it would understand the concepts of ‘ownership’ of physical space, or ‘invitation’. Since the phenomena are unidentified, you cannot assume any of this.

‘Paid particular attention’ implies that something is sentient, and that being in the vicinity of something equates to paying attention to that thing. Since the phenomena are unidentified, you cannot assume sentience. You cannot assume that proximity equates to observation, in any circumstance.

My analogy was intended to draw your attention to the self-evident fact that something cannot be detected or recorded without suitable detecting or recording equipment. You cannot assume that the presence of this equipment explains the presence of the phenomena. It only explains how/why the phenomena were recorded.

‘Nothing you could do to stop them’ also implies knowledge that the phenomena are unstoppable and that there is (or may be at some time) some requirement to stop them. Since the phenomena are unidentified, you cannot assume either of these.

You have used emotive language which tells us more about your reading of the evidence being affected by your prior assumptions than anything else. It is not helpful and does not progress your case in any way whatsoever.

It’s not a remotely safe assumption and that quote doesn’t make the assumption any safer at all.

Don't simply disagree, provide a long and detailed breakdown of the posts you disagree with.  This thread is hilarious, don't let it fizzle out.

In other news, I'm staying in a very old house in the main square of a small town. It's creaky and smells like a very old house does. Sprog is sleeping in a room that adjoins ours through glass double doors that we leave open. The night before last I was dozing at about 4 in the morning, hearing him making shuffling sounds that usually mean he's coming out of his bed to us, when a huge bang from his room made me jump up. Thinking he had fallen out of bed, I ran in but he was fast asleep in bed, obviously not having been awake at all.
Yesterday, he and my mother were in the kitchen when an old woman's voice said hello to them in Spanish. My mother said she would have put it down to her imagination but Rían heard it too and wanted to know who it was. She presumed it was me playing a joke but I was at the other end of the house.
Today we went out, locking up the shutters, which are old and very stiff, hard to move. When we got home later one was wide open and the window too.
I'm sure it's all easily explained - sound carries easily in the building, for example - but it's still a bit weird.

Just one more night.

bad_hair_day wrote:

Would argue they’re safe assumptions, based on the June 2021 UAP assessment and the May 2022 hearing.

To misquote a certain judge, just because you believe something is a safe assumption, it doesn’t mean that it is.

Kow wrote:

In other news, I'm staying in a very old house in the main square of a small town. It's creaky and smells like a very old house does. Sprog is sleeping in a room that adjoins ours through glass double doors that we leave open. The night before last I was dozing at about 4 in the morning, hearing him making shuffling sounds that usually mean he's coming out of his bed to us, when a huge bang from his room made me jump up. Thinking he had fallen out of bed, I ran in but he was fast asleep in bed, obviously not having been awake at all.
Yesterday, he and my mother were in the kitchen when an old woman's voice said hello to them in Spanish. My mother said she would have put it down to her imagination but Rían heard it too and wanted to know who it was. She presumed it was me playing a joke but I was at the other end of the house.
Today we went out, locking up the shutters, which are old and very stiff, hard to move. When we got home later one was wide open and the window too.
I'm sure it's all easily explained - sound carries easily in the building, for example - but it's still a bit weird.

This is what I come to this thread for.

Our place is up where the green light is.