jolincost

6 ms·

1.
by jolincost 6y ago
Haha, i assure you the air is very cool. Did you give any either? No. We're both just thought experimenting. Just seemed fine to work with that until you got beat. Now your just pretending your don't get any evidence, when you nev
2.
by jolincost 6y ago
Is it really tho? Up to the paper to prove it's not something you say it is? I don't think so. The paper is what it is. If you claim it's fake, you need to make evidence for that. Not just launch lazy accusations. Seriously,
3.
by jolincost 6y ago
So what you're saying doesn't mean humans don't go out at night, they just go hunt in packs, like I'm saying. Why respond to the weakest version of what I'm saying and pretend like the point I'm making is wrong
4.
by jolincost 6y ago
Just in context, you're arguing against a random point I made in tangent to the main discussion here, but OK. If you feel you need something to knock against, hello. So... No, not without evidence. Simply just evidence that you don&#x2
5.
by jolincost 6y ago
Why respond to the weakest possible version of what I say? The version that requires almost a deliberate imagination against the likely interpretation. Besides being against the HN guidelines...Of course humans hunt in packs. What are you e
6.
by jolincost 6y ago
The Wikipedia page on remote viewing gives the opposite impression. The Wikipedia page leaves out all the supporting data and editorially takes a false stance against it. This makes it not credible, I don't think you should trust a s
7.
by jolincost 6y ago
Thanks because I was about to run down the list of upvoters and just make sure they were updating me for "right" reasons. Not, hehe. I think that comment is totally right that you can upvote for, but understand if you and a handf
8.
by jolincost 6y ago
Fair enough. But is it a p-hack? Has that been proven? It's an easy dismissal without any data. Backfill hypothetical stories of why is also knows as thinking and theorizing. You ought to try it. It's how science gets done. Unders
9.
by jolincost 6y ago
I think you need to read the paper. The blue light they provided was noted as being "similar to a moonless night", and I'd bet that it's a blue kind of light you get under starlight. Were you there tho? How can you subst
10.
by jolincost 6y ago
Are you sure about that, tho? Can you prove that it's actually a p-hack? You can level the accusation, but how do you go about substantiating it? I'd like to see the numbers and the data, not bombast.
11.
by jolincost 6y ago
Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true it makes sense that this would have evolved. Men go out at night to hunt they hunt better on moonless nights under the cover of relative darkness they might
12.
by jolincost 6y ago
I've already found out. If you haven't, I guess you'll need to do more. Seems there's more opinions on RV than arithmetic.
13.
by jolincost 6y ago
It's conceivable you looked at the same data as other people and came to different conclusions. Diversity of opinions and beliefs, that's not a bad thing is it?
14.
by jolincost 6y ago
So...there's conflicting reports? What are you going to do? I guess you'll have to think and decide for yourself. That's not too much to ask is it?
15.
by jolincost 6y ago
Unequivocally yes. You can try it yourself, there's subreddits for it where you can learn much more. For CIA documentation, search FOIA reading room for "PROJECT CENTER LANE" Here's a quote from a special access program
16.
by jolincost 6y ago
Holy shit, that's mind-blowing. as a humorous aside I'm sure that sort of total information control program (but run by a terrestrial government siding another territory) has been specked up in some elaborate document in a think t
17.
by jolincost 6y ago
Sure but in regards to remote viewing it is in fact a real thing, so there's a degree to which the existence of disinformation is not a confirmation of nonexistence of some underlying reality. Btw, i think you may have meant to put cre
18.
by jolincost 6y ago
We think space is empty, but we don't really have evidence that it is... It could be teeming with life or ships that our current sensor tech simply doesn't pick up from here. Maybe if we inhabited space significantly we would fi
19.
by jolincost 6y ago
But haven't we almost mastered faster than light communication with quantum entangled radios?
20.
by jolincost 6y ago
These are some nice timeframe predictions, seems more up to date than Kurzweil
21.
by jolincost 6y ago
It would be cool if cellular automata could create the factor trees of natural numbers
22.
by jolincost 6y ago
This is a sage like observation. Thank you for this! The answer is it probably is somewhat arbitrary but maybe related to human psychological proximity and the fear response. The most common response to fear is denial and so questioning the
23.
by jolincost 6y ago
I liked your take on the redactions (and your crazy ass username, hehe). But, we're not lunatics, tho maybe your are for living in a fantasy of denial rather than facing the reality of the huge amounts of data on this. It seems crazie
24.
by jolincost 6y ago
Great, thank you so much!!
25.
by jolincost 6y ago
Yeah or his ground-based holographic projection tech, or hers. Hehe
26.
by jolincost 6y ago
Not to mock or denigrate your belief at all, it strikes me that there's a parallel between this belief and ancient human worship of nature gods.
27.
by jolincost 6y ago
You remind me of an absolutely wonderful George Carlin bit i love https://youtu.be/EjmtSkl53h4
28.
by jolincost 6y ago
Oh, I love these ideas! I'm sure advanced civilizations have AIs, suoercomputers, lots of experience with this situation and some heuristics to help them decide, but i love doing the thought experiments with you :) I agree the mere app
29.
NSA UFO Documents Index(nsa.gov)
130 points by jolincost 6y ago|158 comments
30.
by jolincost 6y ago
Paranoia is a useful blinker to keep people like you from going insane by considering ideas outside of your scope of comprehension so you should keep using it but people who can really think clearly have no need of that. But don't stop

More ›