>>10753787
>Proclaimation of ones opinion does not create "facts", "evidence" or "proof". Now say it with me slowly, facts, evidence, proof. These were presented and now you reply damn near immediately in the wee hours of the morning to make a proclaimation because it threatens your kabamur galactic federation fabrication pleiadian narrative. You provide absolutely zero "facts", "evidence" and "proof" to substantiate your claims. As you previously did when attempting to group the Vrillon message in with the crop circle. You keep repeating the same narratives, and you always reply immediately proving you're monitoring this thread 24/7 and doing everything you can to manipulate and control the narrative.
>Yet no actual proof exists. What proof DOES exist is the fact that television studio had old broadcasting systems that were proven to be easily hijacked. See the "facts", "evidence" and "proof" included in the SAUCE. You know, the info linked to substantiate proclaimations and such.
>"Galactic federation" is the terminology commonly used by obvious disinfo agents like Kabamur. The entire foundation of the "GFOL" narrative is based SOLELY on the 1977 TV interruption. That's where it all starts. Without that hoaxed interruption by the local UK ET Cult (UK accents on the Vrillon message) then the entire GFOL narrative falls apart.
>Can you provide any "facts", "evidence" or "proof" of a galactic federation? Or is it the more likely of each individual species having their own agendas and motives? You simply state narratives without any facts and hope anons reading it will continue to fall in line with the constant repetitious narratives forced on them.
>No, simply stating something is real or not a hoax without providing actual SAUCE and evidence will not work anymore gatekeeper.
>>10753486
Actual proof. Repeat this to yourself. Actual PROOF. No ACTUAL PROOF exists that they even exist. No crop circle that cannot be easily debunked. No crop circle with a beautiful long haired humanoid. No, the crop circle is from the greys who are constantly demonized and made to look like an inferior race of drones and slaves.
>>10593215
>Sauce proving the 1977 southern broadcast was a hoax.
>An example of 99% of currenty available information regarding ETs. Nice accent guys! This is also highly relevant to the mainstream narratives constantly pushed on us. This is also entirely where the whole Ashtar subgroup of narratives spawned from. Remember, "actual PROOF". The proof is that their system consisted of ancient tech that was PROVEN to be easily rerouted and easily interfered with. Also the fact that these star people happened to have a UK accent is outright hilarious.
>>10681812
>Why do you state this like you absolutely KNOW FOR SURE what you're talking about?
>What do you KNOW that the rest of us don't?
>Are you top secret security clearance? Q clearance?
>Why do you always have an air of seeming to state your absolute assurance on a topic that can't be proven and why do you always have an air of authority when doing so?
>>10603988
>Please read >>10593215
>This is why the crop circle has veracity
>Now read >>10601091
>This is why the ashtar interruption does not have veracity.
>Read.
>Learn the difference between facts and convenient assumptions.
>You have displayed an incredible amount of effort to sway anons to believe the ashtar message with playground level psychology while simultaneously providing zero evidence to support your beliefs which you are desperate for other anons to believe.
>>10602180
>Glad to know everyone here is controlled if they don't agree with you or present facts that contradict your narrative. Instead of screaming for anons to "tone it down" why don't you present some actual evidence to counter? You know, isn't that what these discussions are all about? Facts?
>>10601091
>So once again no facts or logic presented. No, just told "jesus christ man tone it down". Does that seem like the reaction of someone who is open to entertaining possibilities from new information or someone using a ridicule component to sway opinion and consensus crack?
>>10593215
>Have any of you brainiacs even considered the glaringly obvious elephants in the room? You know, the fact that the wonderfully convenient and friendly narrativing extraterrestrial just happens to have a British accent on a British television channel? Or how about the fact that the broadcasting system was incredibly outdated and actually quite easily hijacked by interference? Have you done any actual real research on that 1977 interruption? Do you know what kind of broadcast system they were using?
>https://www.gaia.com/article/southern-television-broadcast-interruption
>The Vrillon message has too many variables for you to call it "undeniable proof".