gadf

8 ms·

1.
by gadf 5y ago
Just install ANOM or Telegram Or Signal And have nobody spy on you "Trust me, I'm Italian."
2.
by gadf 5y ago
Now some replies. Turnip: you're the one that's toxic, likes to go on Goodreads spread your little hate. Come on here, hate me standing against bullies. That's makes you toxic, supporting the toxic. I'm standing against
3.
by gadf 5y ago
Psychoenergetics experiments were done that, among other things, provided successful access to information through mental means only by a viewer in a submersible 140 m and more below the surface of the ocean, and also viewers were able to s
4.
by gadf 5y ago
You haven't offended me. You've offended yourself, and the decency of the people you spoke to on here. You limited yourself, and disrespected them and I saw you doing that and pushed back. And you complain and now try to prove you
5.
by gadf 5y ago
- thanks for proving my point. you doubt granny because you know her to already be of inconstant and diseased mind, and you are involved in and know the facts of what actually happened, because you were there. so you're in a reasonable
6.
Phobos Monolith(en.wikipedia.org)
3 points by gadf 5y ago|0 comments
7.
by gadf 5y ago
"This thread" is still here with your totally disrespectful "This paper lends absolutely no credence to the various crackpots and deluded people who claim they have met aliens." And you think this is respectful "You
8.
Moldavite(en.wikipedia.org)
1 points by gadf 5y ago|1 comments
9.
by gadf 5y ago
Wow, you're trying to get out of what you did. You didn't insult the people, you insulted the claims? No you did not. "as they are all either delusions, lying, false memories etc."... "the various crackpots and delu
10.
by gadf 5y ago
It's already abusive if you were an innocent here, but as it stands it's the commensurate response to your abuse, and that's the point, you're getting back what you gave, and it's justified because because you'
11.
by gadf 5y ago
Stop pretending. You have NO idea what consciousness is or isn't. You speak these words as if they are truth, "it can no more", but you are not god. You don't decide. You're trying to limit the reality of existence
12.
by gadf 5y ago
Hahahaaha. This so hilarious. I just saw your comment now. You are so blind to what you're doing. You really think you're going to get away with your abusive language and expect silence in return? Who's been enabling you? I u
13.
by gadf 5y ago
Well, in the case of that paper it's true. It's using deductive reasoning, but my statement is more easily read about inductive reasoning. However, you could equally read it, "other theories that provide predictions that cont
14.
by gadf 5y ago
Because you don't know if they're "Crackpots and deluded people"...that's the claim without credence. So unfair to all those witnesses. You can't judge them, you don't have any idea. It's your persona
15.
Sweden: Pupils are suspected of poisoning teacher in Marks school(svt.se)
1 points by gadf 5y ago|0 comments
16.
by gadf 5y ago
Hahaha. you're so deluded that you've applied your own priors and beliefs there that everybody who has this experience must be lying. You've recklessly imposed your prior that all of this witness data has to be false because
17.
by gadf 5y ago
Theoretical explanation for observed reactions: Lemma 1: alien topic is like religion, not a great amount of data, but very high stakes. Lemma 2: There's a lot of intellectual "soccer mums" on HN eager to find an outlet for t
18.
by gadf 5y ago
Detractors propose alternate theory explaining data or criticism immediately invalidated.
19.
February 28 Incident(en.wikipedia.org)
2 points by gadf 5y ago|0 comments
20.
by gadf 5y ago
And what you're doing is denying looking at stuff because it doesn't confirm your biases. There's a bunch of weird things in solar system and mountains of evidence for weirdness on Earth that you'd have question marks ov
21.
by gadf 5y ago
That part of you wants to believe in alien visitors, seems to be independent of the priors you have (about the impossibility of this) that filters your interpretation of the data. I think that's normal. People's ideas do not need
22.
by gadf 5y ago
so they'll believe them. You can disprove/prove it but you just won't convince them: the certainters on either side. The situation you describe is different to proof, it's more subjective, more to do with resistance. It&
23.
by gadf 5y ago
that's a great idea. never thought of that, thanks!
24.
by gadf 5y ago
Ah, the European's old trope of knowing how to Enjoy Life more than the Americans. Funny, whenever I visit W Europe I find it pretty sad and people look pretty grumbling. America is a lot more lively. I think of this Eurostory as a EU
25.
by gadf 5y ago
Dudette if you're going to spend such time on an answer, at least look at the evidence closely. Ice???? They were seeing and tracking levitating and maneuvering swarms of ice tic tacs for month visually and on radar. Are you sure? This
26.
by gadf 5y ago
They're both arrogant unfortunately. I thought the views of Neil on UFOs, like the views of Joe on psychics were really low value. They're both engaging in "let's selectively ignore evidence and witnesses to preserve exi
27.
by gadf 5y ago
Yes but probably those planets will be thousands of years in the past. We should also spend money studying the things that are here now. Scary as it is to look for the "monster under the bed"
28.
by gadf 5y ago
Hahaha. "Debunking" video by Mick West. He's the guy that thinks the Navy can't tell the difference between a bird, and an aircraft. A bug on a sensor and the plane. Desperate mental gymnastics a crazy attempt to confirm
29.
by gadf 5y ago
Sampling bias. Try searching in languages other than English. Belgium UFO wave. Mexico City UFOs. UFOs in South America. I think it's fishy that most SSP/SAP insider people with so called UFO related leaks come from the US (and fu
30.
by gadf 5y ago
it's kind of dodgy if you can point to one flawed human and say, "see i found some dirt" and use that to convince yourself that everything you can somehow tenuously connect to that human must be false. radical simplification

More ›