Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[Daverisimo]

Thanks for the response, but I just want to know simple things, like what causes gravity?

Jesus keeps us pinned down with his giant invisible dick.

 

[Copper Burner]

Jesus keeps us pinned down with his giant invisible dick.

Hey Andy

 

[BearGrounds]

Well you can certainly deny evidence that isn’t valid. You know, like all the staged fake photos of Bigfoot.

Science cannot prove that he does not exist. His non existence is not something that can be observed. What it can do is prove that the bullshit evidence proffered for his existence is false.

So if you want to make claims that he exists, it is incumbent on you to provide the proof he exists. And when that evidence is not enough to absolutely prove he or FTL space crafts exists, and there definitely is no such definitive proof, then from a scientific standpoint you have to accept that you merely believe these things and are unable to prove them at this time.

You people keep conflating evidence with proof. I claimed to have evidence and have provided that. That you guys just ignore and hand wave it all away isn't on me, it's on you.

As for vid captures and photos, you guys can't even debunk the PG film, so miss me with the posturing about falsifying shit.

What state do you live in? You can probably prove it to yourself if you live anywhere near a suspected habitat. Just get with some people who do the research in the region, eventually you'll find someone who has had an encounter. The creature isn't just in the PNW.

 

[Andy Capp]

You've been exposed retard. Can it.

From you that's a huge compliment

What has been exposed here is you can't defend the things you say, you can't provide anything from original sources--only some fucktard on "X" lol, you can't rebut any of my posts with anything resembling a reasoned argument, and you don't understand basic things like comparisons in terms of proportion or basic words like counterpart.

I repeat, "Go ask your rando why lunar eclipses look the way they do. I'll be here waiting for your dumbass."

And FFS finish that GED, you loser.

 

[Daverisimo]

Hey Andy

 

[Copper Burner]

1

 

[Andy Capp]

Hey Andy

 

[OneOfOne]

Globers getting destroyed ITT

 

[Copper Burner]

The light from the earth is drowning out background stars. Ever try looking at a dim light that is far away while someone shines a flashlight in your face? Please go back and finish high school.

https://x.com/bitcoinballer23/status/1694604649888911437?s=20

 

[Copper Burner]

The light from the earth is drowning out background stars. Ever try looking at a dim light that is far away while someone shines a flashlight in your face? Please go back and finish high school.

Have you notified Nasa that they are mistaken yet?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

You completely misunderstood the point of the comments about a psychologist. A psychologist, not an expert in bears or hunting, has an understanding of how eyewitness accounts can be fabricated or mistaken. The question isn't the content of the memory, its how much weight should be given to that memory and why. A psychologist can analyze a testimony and know what things to look for - there may be certain cues that a person is lying, has changed or altered their story, is creating a narrative that aligns with other previously held beliefs and so on. Your commentary that bigfoot is shaped differently than a bear and thus the two couldn't be mixed up is exactly why you're not qualified to make that distinction - we have mountains of data that people can see one thing, and believe they saw something else. Not only that, but we have plenty of data that what people believe they saw can be altered by the way someone else described it to them, or even asked them about it! There are studies where you can show someone a video, and then ask them questions about it - by slightly changing the phrasing of the questions, the person will think they saw something different. You are fundamentally misunderstanding the type of evidence they're talking about, and how it should be analyzed.

No, I did not misunderstand the context. I'm saying that the context is wildly out of place when taking in people's accounts. In any event, some mysterious cognitive psychologist who we've never spoken with hasn't debunked any of those accounts and can't even if they tried.

What I'm saying is that calling on the authority of a cognitive scientist to debunk accounts one has never read or taken into consideration is a kind of lying and it's done all the time by debunkers. He says that but provides no analysis...

It's the same as when a scholar who doesn't believe in spirituality, but is a scholar of Hindu scripture comments on the scriptures. They may know a lot but they know nothing at all about it.

 

[dirtypablo]

Have you notified Nasa that they are mistaken yet?

That's an ai generated animation. Here are some actual photos taken from the lander, as well as of the lander and launch.

LVM3-M4 Gallery

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Dude I saw that exact image just looking for photos of planets because you could see Venus near the moon recently and I was curious. That was the top photo on Google and I was like uhhh maybe I did something weird? Nope! Link was to nasa! I went to the age and that is indeed supposed to be a real photo. Wtf.

Why would they do that? Are they fucking with the space is fake guys?

That looks like it could be the right size ratios. Do you have a link to the page?

 

[Blayt7hh]

What exactly does a frame skip imply other than editing? It doesn't mean it's fake, that's a nitpick.

And there could be multiple reasons.

Fact is, they could pull it off precisely because you and your ilk exist, and you'll deny, ridicule, and excuse it away for them without even being paid for it. The skeptic is their dog.

What exactly does a frame skip and then the plane is gone imply? lol

They did it right over a city and apparently only one person saw this giant ball of light.

11 year old video with no description. In fact the only thing in it is an ask for donations and a link to his PayPal. You want to keep spinning this like everyone is a fool and you’re the only one with your eyes open, but you gotta be smarter than this my man. This is super obviously not real

 

[helltoupee]

Well you can certainly deny evidence that isn’t valid. You know, like all the staged fake photos of Bigfoot.

Science cannot prove that he does not exist. His non existence is not something that can be observed. What it can do is prove that the bullshit evidence proffered for his existence is false.

So if you want to make claims that he exists, it is incumbent on you to provide the proof he exists. And when that evidence is not enough to absolutely prove he or FTL space crafts exists, and there definitely is no such definitive proof, then from a scientific standpoint you have to accept that you merely believe these things and are unable to prove them at this time.

I certainly understand the hesitancy surrounding Bigfoot phenomena - much like the UFO field it is littered with inaccuracies, grifters, mis-identified sightings, etc., and people just looking to earn a buck.

However, to me it is just as fantastical to outright dismiss all of the supposed evidence out there, and the long history of such, as all being fake. Someone else correctly mentioned that eyewitnesses get things wrong, intentionally or unintentionally, all the time. But there's a flip side to that coin - eyewitnesses do get things right a large majority of time, and indeed are used every day in the justice system to convict people. Given the amount of study that pertains to both fields, and the long history of such, it seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude that the question remains open as to what is causing people to make these claims.

I don't know much about bigfoot other than through Native American legends of such, which I never put much thought in to beyond they are just old people repeating stories from the long ago past. As such, and for whatever reason, they don't consider bigfoot to be a flesh and blood creature, but more of a spiritual creature from a different plane of existence. Of course I have no proof of that, and I don't even know if I believe it myself - I've just been exposed to the occasional story or two living on tribal land.

I realize that human beings have the tendency to anthropomorphize things they don't understand, shaping and molding their experiences to conform with their beliefs. And even if 99% of all of the evidence that exists for these things is fake or mis-identified, that leaves 1% that I find intriguing and am curious about. I used to play a lot of poker in my youth and really found comfort in numbers and probabilities, and for me to accept that 100% of all UFO/Bigfoot history is fake, given the gigantic amounts of info out there, just does not seem probable. Likewise I would find it odd for someone to say 100% all of it is real. I just have a hard time believing in absolutes. To me, something is causing humans to see these things or report these experiences, what that actually is, whether psychological or by interacting with something mundane, I have no idea. But something is happening - the question is what is it? Very few people throughout history make money off of purposely lying or misleading people, in fact I would say the vast majority are shamed, called crazy, and are reluctant to tell their story. In the Internet age that has increased, and don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people out there trying to take advantage of the subjects in order to make money. But there are still a lot more of people who come across as genuine and sincere who are reluctant to tell their story while trying to make sense of whatever anomalous experience they had, and they never earn a dime off it nor wanted to.

 

[dirtypablo]

No, I did not misunderstand the context. I'm saying that the context is wildly out of place when taking in people's accounts. In any event, some mysterious cognitive psychologist who we've never spoken with hasn't debunked any of those accounts and can't even if they tried.

What I'm saying is that calling on the authority of a cognitive scientist to debunk accounts one has never read or taken into consideration is a kind of lying and it's done all the time by debunkers. He says that but provides no analysis...

It's the same as when a scholar who doesn't believe in spirituality, but is a scholar of Hindu scripture comments on the scriptures. They may know a lot but they know nothing at all about it.

Yes, you misunderstood the context. The article is pointing out that his methodology is pseudoscience - if you want to use eye witness accounts as data that's fine, but that data should be collected and evaluated by someone qualified to do so. You have a psychologist take the account from the people, and generate reports of the accounts, including metrics around how solid those testimonials are. Then, someone who is knowledgeable about the specifics of the subject can review the content of those reports. But a person like him shouldn't be taking the reports, or commenting on the validity of them, because that's not his field of expertise. He is likely to influence the eyewitness - as I mentioned earlier, even by just asking questions in a specific way can alter what people saw. Failing to acknowledge all the issues around eye witness reporting and having someone qualified to evaluate those issues as part of his research is a hallmark of pseudoscience.

 

[Blayt7hh]

You people keep conflating evidence with proof. I claimed to have evidence and have provided that. That you guys just ignore and hand wave it all away isn't on me, it's on you.

As for vid captures and photos, you guys can't even debunk the PG film, so miss me with the posturing about falsifying shit.

What state do you live in? You can probably prove it to yourself if you live anywhere near a suspected habitat. Just get with some people who do the research in the region, eventually you'll find someone who has had an encounter. The creature isn't just in the PNW.

Yes I will go waste my time looking for Bigfoot, something we know is a complete modern invention. Hopefully I’ll spot the mothman and maybe some elves and mindflayers while I’m out in the woods too.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re just trolling with the Bigfoot thing.

 

[Blayt7hh]

I certainly understand the hesitancy surrounding Bigfoot phenomena - much like the UFO field it is littered with inaccuracies, grifters, mis-identified sightings, etc., and people just looking to earn a buck.

However, to me it is just as fantastical to outright dismiss all of the supposed evidence out there, and the long history of such, as all being fake. Someone else correctly mentioned that eyewitnesses get things wrong, intentionally or unintentionally, all the time. But there's a flip side to that coin - eyewitnesses do get things right a large majority of time, and indeed are used every day in the justice system to convict people. Given the amount of study that pertains to both fields, and the long history of such, it seems to me that any reasonable person would conclude that the question remains open as to what is causing people to make these claims.

I don't know much about bigfoot other than through Native American legends of such, which I never put much thought in to beyond they are just old people repeating stories from the long ago past. As such, and for whatever reason, they don't consider bigfoot to be a flesh and blood creature, but more of a spiritual creature from a different plane of existence. Of course I have no proof of that, and I don't even know if I believe it myself - I've just been exposed to the occasional story or two living on tribal land.

I realize that human beings have the tendency to anthropomorphize things they don't understand, shaping and molding their experiences to conform with their beliefs. And even if 99% of all of the evidence that exists for these things is fake or mis-identified, that leaves 1% that I find intriguing and am curious about. I used to play a lot of poker in my youth and really found comfort in numbers and probabilities, and for me to accept that 100% of all UFO/Bigfoot history is fake, given the gigantic amounts of info out there, just does not seem probable. Likewise I would find it odd for someone to say 100% all of it is real. I just have a hard time believing in absolutes. To me, something is causing humans to see these things or report these experiences, what that actually is, whether psychological or by interacting with something mundane, I have no idea. But something is happening - the question is what is it? Very few people throughout history make money off of purposely lying or misleading people, in fact I would say the vast majority are shamed, called crazy, and are reluctant to tell their story. In the Internet age that has increased, and don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people out there trying to take advantage of the subjects in order to make money. But there are still a lot more of people who come across as genuine and sincere who are reluctant to tell their story while trying to make sense of whatever anomalous experience they had.

I don’t not believe in UFOs per se. I think it’s entirely possible aliens have been here. That video he shared is rubbish though.

Bigfoot is fake as shit though. A giant man like ape wandering the forest still never been caught on camera. No remains or skeletons ever found. Yeah come on now

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Where did I say I believe the Earth is flat? I've been on enough planes to know it's not.

I said NASA releases fake shit. Which they do. They literally admit they Photoshop their photos.

Conspiracy Debunked: NASA Photoshops Images for Good Reason

The recent revelation that a NASA photo was touched up before being released to the public is not evidence that the space agency has something to hide. NASA routinely processes raw images to enhance details, or to visualize things the human eye could neve

www.space.com

"NASA Photoshops Images for Good Reason" is some Orweillian ass shit but have fun with that.

Do you understand what a limited amount of the electromagnetic spectrum your eyes are able to detect? If you have x-ray or gamma ray detectors taking celestial images how do you expect to see them without those frequencies being assigned a color your eyes can detect?

 

[helltoupee]

Yes I will go waste my time looking for Bigfoot, something we know is a complete modern invention. Hopefully I’ll spot the mothman and maybe some elves and mindflayers while I’m out in the woods too.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re just trolling with the Bigfoot thing.

This I would take exception to.

What do you mean by "modern" invention? Depending on how you define 'modern', stories of bigfoot have been present in Native American communities for thousands of years, including my own band of Kumeyaay Indians. In fact, there are indigenous civilizations all over the world that have bigfoot type experiences in their histories. Not too sure what you mean about it being a modern invention - maybe you were referring to UFOs, but that too has a history of being reported for thousands of years all over the world.

Here's a snippet from the Washington National Guard as to why they chose the name bigfoot as a mascot to their air defense sector:

The legends of Bigfoot go back beyond recorded history and cover the world. In North America – and particularly the Northwest – you can hear tales of seven-foot-tall hairy men stalking the woods, occasionally scaring campers, lumberjacks, hikers and the like.

Bigfoot is known by many titles with many different cultures although the name Bigfoot is generally attributed to the mountainous Western region of North America. The common name Sasquatch comes from the Salish Sasquits, while the Algonquin of the north-central region of the continent refer to a Witiko or Wendigo. Other nations tell of a large creature much like a man but imbued with special powers and characteristics. The Ojibway of the Northern Plains believed the Rugaru appeared in times of danger and other nations agreed that the hairy apparition was a messenger of warning, telling man to change his ways.

Again, I am not intending on any of this as proof that it's real - only that the idea is not a 'modern' invention.