Nothing burgers with fuzzy nothing burgers

Always fuzzy nothing burgers

Redstone said:

---

This is the close up of the alien inside the UFO of the Kumburgaz, Turkey ... pic.twitter.com/M2djwCHKk3

— UFO mania (@maniaUFO) April 9, 2025

---

Is this the same guy??

TCTTS said:

---

Got four hours to spare?

I've watched this over the past couple days (on 1.25x speed, to try and bring the runtime down a bit), and it's honestly one of the best interviews I've ever listened to on the subject of "aliens," philosophy, and religion.

This Jason Jorjani guy, who I'd never heard of before, is next level (he's a philosophy professor/author), has led an incredibly interesting life, and is very matter-of-fact/no-nonsense throughout. That said, he definitely gets into some out there theories, yet somehow manages to make it all sound perfectly sane/reasonable. Not that I'm completely bought in or anything, but it's all undeniably thought provoking.

I originally started around the 1:20 (hour twenty) mark (with the "Paranormal Science" section) and listened 'till the end, skipping all the stuff about him being part of a coup in Iran (for real). But then I went back and listened to all of that as well, and every bit of it is worth it...

---

Jorjani is back, and this conversation might be just as good as the last one (it's also nearly as long). Again, same as last time, I definitely don't buy into everything he's saying, but that didn't stop me from hanging on every word, somehow wanting even more after three-and-a-half hours. I could listen to this guy pontificate for days...

Teddy Perkins said:

---

---

Also finally had a chance to knock this out and it's excellent. I don't care who you are, you can't not appreciate their transparent, no-nonsense approach, putting the scientific method front and center. They're taking this whole thing to another level, and into their own hands, to the point where it really does feel like it could eventually lead to a breakthrough of some sort, outside of government/aerospace disclosure. Already their findings are impressive and I can't wait for Part III.

Another reason why people don't take you seriously.

If you watch the video of the craft itself, it's actually pretty compelling. The "aliens" inside are likely a case of people wanting to see something that's not actually there (it's super grainy and that's probably not a window), but its one of the more credible sightings/recordings out there….

Kumburgaz, Turkey Raw Footage 2007 - 2008 - 2009 pic.twitter.com/kEMpCz8TyX

— UFO mania (@maniaUFO) April 9, 2025

Footage is legit.

Protestants: search around and listen / watch Tim Alberino. I like his breakdowns a lot although not his anti-Catholic stuff (which is mild and mostly fair).

DargelSkout said:

---

Another reason why people don't take you seriously.

---

unfortunately, too many people do

Take it up with the many highly credentialed military personnel who say that UAP are real, especially as they disable nuclear weapon facilities all over the world, and extremely similar abduction stories are relayed across many times and cultural contexts

Lol, could also work with Ep 8 Space Leia

Nm

Accurate breakdown of skywatcher

Give me a break.

I'm so sick of these dime-a-dozen YouTuber debunkers who are so clearly, by the very nature of what they do, attention *****s on the same level as the very people they're always going after with their entitled, petulant takes. It's one thing to be skeptical - which I absolutely respect - but the tell here is that guys like this are never not reductive *******s, incapable of nuance or even feigning empathy for the plights of individuals like Grusch, Elizondo, etc, who have clearly risked their safety, only to now find themselves in a no-win situation, partly due to these bad faith debunkers.

Does the hype get old? Sure. But more often than not it's from the community, not the individuals themselves. And yes, people like Jeremy Corbell get on even my nerves, but this guy using Skywatcher as his prime example doesn't even make sense, seeing as A) they're brand new to the field (publicly, at least), B) they've been beyond transparent in their efforts so far, and C) even THEY THEMSELVES have said numerous times they either have to put up or shut up.

Never mind this guy jumping to just as many conclusions as those he's mocking, while going on and on about the Nikon P1000 or whatever, when Skywatcher has explicitly stated that the objects often stay just out of reach of radar, miles and miles away, nor do they photograph well due to their erratic behavior.

The nail in the coffin for these ridiculous, paranoid takes should be that NO ONE IS GETTING RICH IN THIS FIELD. Like, not even close. In fact, a number of individuals are either losing money or are barely breaking even in their attempts to raise awareness. Otherwise, what would be the point of Skywatcher? To risk their reputations duping the public to what end? So that financiers can pay these guys just enough to keep hanging out in the dessert... duping the public... while literally saying to the public that they themselves need to put up or shut up by X date?

Because that makes even less sense than "aliens."

Put simply, I will never understand thinking that Skywatcher, Grusch, et al are all grifting bull****ters, while at the exact same time believing and pointing to TheSneezingMonkeys of the world on YouTube as proof. It's such a double standard, and backwards, beyond bias thinking.

I'm with you. Which made me think about media as a whole, and how now podcasts and youtube shows are so hyper saturated. Everybody's got a podcast, everybody's got a YouTube channel; and don't forget to subscribe to my Patreon!

The challenge for us as contemporary observers is to somehow be able to wade through the rough to find the diamonds.

Author, author! Well said.

Well, there are cameras that can capture detailed images. Why dont they just get a decent camera out there that can take some good detailed shots.

Or why not invite a 100 people to come and view it with them if they can summon it every day. Let others see it not just them.

If they did the above, i would find it a lot more credible.

Skywatcher is purely for entertainment. It is just a bunch of talk and made up categories and bs. It's a fun rabbit hole is all, but there is nothing factual about it.

Okay.

It's psy-onic centered, material and metaphysical blended and blurry. This is The Phenomenon and a major reason why Disclosure is inherently difficult.

We hominids are as well, just in this way: embodied spirits until material death.

What, then, can our scientifically method infused mindsets truly articulate? It's partial and elusive.

There has to be a metaphysic to move toward a decent understanding.

Then, in your opinion, whether we are in the physical world enclosed in our bodies, or whether we are in the spirit after our bodies deceased, that it is difficult for us to observe and disclose in either human form or possibly even spirit form as the UAP's have the power to transcend both, revealing themselves briefly to those who possibly have maybe had a metaphysical transformation and their mind is open to seeing them.

Or maybe the UAP's have a higher power in the spirit form, and are clear to us in the spirit form, and are they soldiers serving a God or Gods.

Or is there multiple dimensions of existence, and UAP's travel in an out of these dimensions, and serve a different God than our God. Or do we all serve under the same most high power, and the UAP's are foot soldiers, and possibly information gatherers for the most high power.

Are you also of the opinion that psychedelics may be able to transport our mind into this realm of metaphysical understanding?

I realize you may not know the answer to these questions, as you are currently a hominid like us, unless you are not. I just wanted to get your thoughts on it.

I'll tell you what won't get answers to these questions is calling out those who seem to be genuinely seeking/revealing them as grifters, bull****ters, entertainers, etc, simply because their efforts and answers so far don't meet your arbitrary criteria or timelines.

What is the criteria for success or failure from the Skywatcher exercise? As you point out, they themselves say they have to "put up or shut up". So let's attempt to define what constitutes a "put up" because their claims are extraordinary, and as Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

My concern is that people who want to believe are disinclined to be look at evidence skeptically. To harken back to your earlier post, how much squinting into the dark to see shapes is required to call the program a success? They say they have a "dog whistle" and can summon UFOs. If the answer is ultimately "Yes we can, but you have to trust us because they are too smart to show up in front of independent witnesses, cameras, etc.," we have to be skeptical, right?

Otherwise, it's faith. And I have no problem with faith. I have my own that is central to me and how I walk through the world. But if it's faith… in the people making the claims and their motives… then we have to call it what it is, right? Carl Sagan may not have liked it, but at least I could understand that.

Quote:

---

My concern is that people who want to believe are disinclined to be look at evidence skeptically. To harken back to your earlier post, how much squinting into the dark to see shapes is required to call the program a success? They say they have a "dog whistle" and can summon UFOs. If the answer is ultimately "Yes we can, but you have to trust us because they are too smart to show up in front of independent witnesses, cameras, etc.," we have to be skeptical, right?

---

Right.

My point, however, is that what you're engaging in ISN'T skepticsm.

By definition, skepticism "is a stance that questions the certainty of claims, rather than a definitive rejection of them. Skepticism encourages a neutral or suspended judgment, acknowledging that certainty might be impossible to achieve, rather than declaring any claim definitively false."

To that end, what I take issue with is when you, or those of the same mind as you, speak in absolutes. When you state things in a definitive manner like, "Skywatcher is purely for entertainment. It is just a bunch of talk and made up categories and bs," as if you have special knowledge, or are speaking as a higher authority than the rest of us. When, in reality, that is simply your OPINION, not the fact you're presenting it to be, and one you're not backing up with any kind of alternative theory as to WHY you think they're grifting/"entertaining."

Never mind posting a video featuring someone who is also clearly bias, agenda-driven in their own right, and arguing in the same bad faith he's claiming of those he's critiquing, arrogantly deeming success/failure according to his own, arbitrary standards, all while ignoring crucial context.

Again, that's not "being skeptical."

That's being an ******* on the internet for clicks.

Do *I* believe that there is a non-human intelligence on this planet? Quite possibly. I'd say it's even highly likely. But what you won't catch me doing is saying yes definitively. In an aim to be (and come across) as open-minded as possible, I'm constantly going out of my way in this thread to choose my language carefully, using words like "possibly," "perhaps," "maybe," "likely," "if," "seems," etc. In other words, I'm leaving the door open for any number of possibilities, and not acting as if I definitively know a greater truth about this subject or those who genuinely seem to be seeking/attempting to reveal it.

As for the success/failure criteria, re: Skywatcher, I'm simply going to hold Barber & co to their own words…

Quote:

---

In a recent interview, Barber expressed confidence that definitive evidence regarding unidentified aerial phenomena - including visual data of craft, propulsion system details, information on operators, and craft origins - will emerge within 12 months. He believes this process will answer longstanding questions about UAP, and that significant developments are anticipated by early 2026.

---

Again, when credible people like Barber give such specific timelines, while refusing public funding of any kind, not even in exchange for data/content, why can't people like you give them the benefit of the doubt, at least until the clock runs out? Why do you immediately and definitively jump to claims of "bs"? How do you not see how bias that makes you, and how that invites the opposite of conversation?

jkag89 said:

---

---

Thanks for asking.

I'll come back to your questions after some more reading.

Ummm. This seems kind of big...

NEW: White House Office of Science & Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios says the U.S. has technology that can “manipulate time and space”

“Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space. They leave distance annihilated.” pic.twitter.com/zNgmE2sCiB

— UAP James (@UAPJames) April 16, 2025

I don't know why you're coming at me, unless it's because of the Mitch Hedberg joke. I think I have been consistent in my skepticism and generally respectful in the limited occasions where I do more than just lurk this thread, Fuzzy Bigfoot aside.

That being said, believe my questions about setting parameters for qualifying success are fair. What you posted at the end suggests that there are quantifiable goals and a timeline to achieve them. Good, because that means there is a way to declare whether this is a success or failure at the end. I wasn't aware of the goals, yall seem more informed about the project, so I asked. I actually appreciate the answer, the snark that accompanied it notwithstanding.

As far as a discussion about the project itself, I understand from the portions of the show I have watched that the chief hypothesis is that there is a method to summon UAPs through psionic methods (meditations, positive thought, etc.) with a high success rate. They are testing that theory by attempting to summon UAPs through these methods and then document their appearance by recording them and gathering data.

Is that the gist of it?

EDIT to add that I don't think success or failure is an inherently good or bad thing in this scenario, and I don't think scientists trying to go out there and test stuff and document those tests is a waste of time, regardless the outcome.

Houston Lee said:

---

Ummm. This seems kind of big...

NEW: White House Office of Science & Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios says the U.S. has technology that can “manipulate time and space”

“Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space. They leave distance annihilated.” pic.twitter.com/zNgmE2sCiB

— UAP James (@UAPJames) April 16, 2025

---

MW03 said:

---

I don't know why you're coming at me, unless it's because of the Mitch Hedberg joke. I think I have been consistent in my skepticism and generally respectful in the limited occasions where I do more than just lurk this thread, Fuzzy Bigfoot aside.

That being said, believe my questions about setting parameters for qualifying success are fair. What you posted at the end suggests that there are quantifiable goals and a timeline to achieve them. Good, because that means there is a way to declare whether this is a success or failure at the end. I wasn't aware of the goals, yall seem more informed about the project, so I asked. I actually appreciate the answer, the snark that accompanied it notwithstanding.

As far as a discussion about the project itself, I understand from the portions of the show I have watched that the chief hypothesis is that there is a method to summon UAPs through psionic methods (meditations, positive thought, etc.) with a high success rate. They are testing that theory by attempting to summon UAPs through these methods and then document their appearance by recording them and gathering data.

Is that the gist of it?

EDIT to add that I don't think success or failure is an inherently good or bad thing in this scenario, and I don't think scientists trying to go out there and test stuff and document those tests is a waste of time, regardless the outcome.

---

Ha, I feel like I'm going crazy because I would have sworn last night that your post was from Earth Rider. As in, I literally read it as him posting that, so I was answering as if it was a follow up from him to what he already said. But now I see that I must have glanced at his name just above mine and it somehow registered with your post just below mine.

My apologies!

I guess all my points still stand, but yeah I didn't mean to come at you like that at all. It's a totally different context coming from you and not from him in the wake of his other posts.

Ah, it's no worries at all.

Is there a Q&A after he was done talking?

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) stated that he has "no doubt that there is a (UFO) crash retrieval program and that they're studying craft." pic.twitter.com/lUDWzWZBfO

— Disclosure Party (@disclosureorg) April 16, 2025

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has tentatively detected dimethyl sulfide in the atmosphere of exoplanet K2-18b, a molecule only produced by living organisms on Earth, indicating the presence of life.

This discovery is exciting but requires further observations to confirm. pic.twitter.com/tNaWclaepp

— Shining Science (@ShiningScience) April 14, 2025

Here is what Chatgpt says about this molecule

Quote:

---

Geothermal and volcanic activity: DMS can be released in trace amounts from hydrothermal vents and volcanic gases, especially under high temperature and pressure where sulfur-containing compounds can interact with methane or other hydrocarbons.

---

The AI stresses that most of it is from organic production, but disagrees that is "only" from living things, as the tweet says.

This is from a study in January about the detection of dimethyl sulfide in the interstellar medium (after it was previously detected in a comet's tail)

Quote:

---

Although the chemistry of DMS beyond Earth is yet to be fully disclosed, this discovery provides conclusive observational evidence on its efficient abiotic production in the interstellar medium, casting doubts about using DMS as a reliable biomarker in exoplanet science.

---