Leaderboard

^^ Im assuming (based of your reply) that you assumed that I go through life assuming things , which essentially is my point, and so we all do. To use your analogy the assumption that the car will stay on the side of the road (its supposed to) is not fact until you pass it and its been observed. If I told you that was the case you would make assumptions that I was telling the truth had you not been there, by perhaps looking at my car and deducting that, or going to the place where it passed and seeing no signs of a skid other car parts. In Mikes case all we know are the claims... they are not facts and when we paint the guy or anyone over with facts relating to his claims without say oh ...having been there isnt that a bit disengenous? I mean if he was the only one then we might do that, but he well isnt. Not everyone starts a youtube channel but he did and many came out and ripped the guy as if that was a sign he was full of crap because it was attention getting and maybe even monetary seeking... Didnt KB write a book , havent others, many have not or even spoke openly with anyone other than those they feel could understand, and well we can only assume there are those who just wont. To go back to the car...99.9 % or more of the time that car is going to stay on the road where it is supposed to and certainly noone is reporting the times they go into the woods and dont see or interact with a SSQ, just as we dont report yep we passed 50 cars today and none veered. But we know it happens because we have testimony and evidence so long as we trust the evidence which is another assumption. So really it is not different on many levels. In the case of SSQ either we have hundreds or more people saying the same things (and no they arent all on this forum or any forum for that matter) so either all these people are making it up or its really happening to one degree of the another.. Do you think Mike interacted with a SSQ or something that wants him to believe its a SSQ at any time? and are you satified with KB Hunters claims as being accurate ? Or do you lump him in with Mike... I mean it sounds about the same as how Mike started out in his begininings with his accounts If so then have we not crossed the SSq is fact barrier at least here in our little world. If not then its still just an assumption because the facts are there are lots of people talking about it and many for which we trust presumably (oh thats an assumption as well isnt it).

Actually there was very little incorrect in my statement so if what I know is a known known I am in trouble. Then again I am told that BF likes the tunnels under Edwards Air Force Base, so it that is true, I could be wrong about Area 51. Been to Edwards several times. That is a known known. Tiny GPS tags inserted into humans is movie technology where as chips in dogs is real technology. As anyone knows who does GPS work in dense forests, trees pretty much block GPS signals. The difference being that GPS stuff requires batteries and that means collars large enough to contain a battery that lasts for a while. Dog chips are unpowered. I suppose that subcutaneous GPS chips might be possible, but the battery requirement, and skin attenuation of the signal would be seriously limiting. I had a Dish Network antenna not work because it had moisture trapped in the collector. It has a yard wide antenna, and the fog on the mirror moisture in the collector, was enough to block the signal. So human tissue would do a real job on GPS signals.

Since evidently they are reading your posts, I would agree.

^ We already know what you know and what you know is a known, known, so you're ok, ya' know.

Whaaa...??? It's sentences like this one (and they are quite common in your posts) that make it very difficult for me to take you seriously, Gumshoeye. I truly hope you managed a bit more refinement and coherence when writing your reports as a detective. Do you mean "psyops", perchance? For someone who tries to speak authoritatively on the subject, I'd expect you to at least spell it correctly. These common lapses in the mechanics of your communications do not instill much confidence in their content. You know, attention to detail and all that...