He's adopted "sky gods" as one of several stock phrases to keep the conversation moving in his weekly show. As he originally introduced it a few years ago it was a conjecture about rising belief in ET/NHIs replacing traditional religious...
I've watched just the first half of this so far. I think it's quite clear that he used the term "disappointing" in the context of "people in the government promised us that UFOs are real" (paraphrase). It's exactly the term I'd have chosen.
The case DOW-UAP-PR099, "Hi-Res: [CALLSIGN] Observes UAP on 25SEP19 at 1715Z" shows the Iranian Konorak Naval Facility at Chabahar Port in the Gulf of Oman...
The case DOW-UAP-PR099, "Hi-Res: [CALLSIGN] Observes UAP on 25SEP19 at 1715Z" shows the Iranian Konorak Naval Facility at Chabahar Port in the Gulf of Oman...
In practical terms, provenance is a factor, as is provenience.
If you can't establish a chain from the actual observer to the report you're seeing somewhere, or if it's unclear where and when the observation was, the report is going to be hard...
In practical terms, provenance is a factor, as is provenience.
If you can't establish a chain from the actual observer to the report you're seeing somewhere, or if it's unclear where and when the observation was, the report is going to be hard...
I've watched just the first half of this so far. I think it's quite clear that he used the term "disappointing" in the context of "people in the government promised us that UFOs are real" (paraphrase). It's exactly the term I'd have chosen.
Thread about the patent here,
US Navy "UFO" patent by Salvatore Cezar Pais (also relevant post #41 by @FatPhil in the Meta Materials From UFOs thread).
In that thread, @flarkey linked to The War Zone article "The Navy Finally Speaks Up About...
Thank you.
There are massive red flags in that wikipedia article:
He reported that he began in 2015 to publish his patents "after rejections from academic publishing"
No working prototype of any of the patented inventions was ever developed...
I don't find "My simulation of X can cause Y" to be a better proof that X can cause Y than evidence of X causing Y, and all these things you're asking for a simulation of are things we've got actual physical evidence of. I hope.
I don't find "My simulation of X can cause Y" to be a better proof that X can cause Y than evidence of X causing Y, and all these things you're asking for a simulation of are things we've got actual physical evidence of. I hope.