>>10588546

>those two things are undeniable proofs of good ET influence

You are wrong.

There is only one somewhat undeniable proof. That is the crop circle. You see its nigh on impossible for humans to fake them. The real ones have residual electromagnetic interference along with iron pyrite deposits all around them. They spin compasses and make individuals feel sick standing in them. The fibres are changed at the molecular level on the stalks which cannot be done on mass scale over night. So all of these make the real ones nearly impossible to call hoaxes.

Which brings me to the incredibly speedy response of your Vrillon message television interruption.

This aligns much with the Vatican psyop of Ashtar Sheeran. The new space Jesus coming to save us. The galactic command message is also far too convenient. What I have noticed throughout these threads is the most questionable characters screaming about the "GFOL" and the narratives along with it.

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 Or how about the fact that the broadcasting system was incredibly outdated and actually quite easily hijacked by interference?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?

Heres one for you Gaiafags. It seems like the real autists of days past have seriously slowed down posting and just lurking at the newfags or clowns.

https://www.gaia.com/article/southern-television-broadcast-interruption

Theres a lot more where that came from. I'd advise you read it, every bit of it before professing yourself to have the answers. Never want to set the wrong impression for the real newfags out there.

The Vrillon message has too many variables for you to call it "undeniable proof". However the message being spoken actually resonates some logic and truth of what youd expect good ETs to be saying to us. However for you to call it undeniable proof is a fallacy. It's too convenient. Sorry if we don't agree.

>>10596099

>>10597253

Take a good look at this reaction anons. Cognitive dissonance? Or just anger that their narrative is being challenged? Facts and logic are delivered and what does this "anon" do, they double down without providing any actual reasoning, seasoning, sauce and facts.

What is clear is that there is an ever-present element on this board that desperately wants you to believe

• Ashtar Sheeran

• Pleiadians are peaceful

• Any mainstream narratives regarding Pleiadians

• The 1977 television interruption which is the ONLY data point used to verify "Ashtar".

• That all ETs are peaceful and you should ignore the potential of evil ones.

• Kabamur Taygeta and any disinformation or "channeled" info he puts out.

• Mainstream television programs or news stations that feature well known UFO "activists" (disinfo agents)

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?

An anon posts a very valid data point of the crabwood crop circle then the Vrillon message is piggy-backed along side it to try to sell it as having the same veracity.

What would be a lot better than a ridicule distraction tactic would be providing some actual tangible PROOF that the Vrillon message is legit. The fact this reply was all I got back is proof alone that

A) They cannot prove it, when claiming it as "undeniable proof"

B) They desperately want you to believe it while frustrated they cannot prove it.

So why are they so invested in getting anons to believe it?

Aren't anons supposed to be open to learning new things and changing their outlook based on facts from a little something Q calls "free thought"? Actual anons don't sit there and double down while providing absolutely zero sauce and facts to substantiate their beliefs about certain research. Anons don't tell others to "tone it down" when faced with new facts and information that could alter their viewpoints. This is a consensus cracking component and albeit used quite often on here when certain narratives are challenged.

Just because people want to believe in the Vrillon message it doesn't make it true. Nor does the want to believe manifest any truths or facts. Nor does it mitigate the fact their broadcasting system was exceptionally archaic and easily interfered with. Nor does it detract from the convenience of the narrator having a British accent on a British television channel. I will not apologize or tone it down for bringing up valid points with actual SAUCE to back it up.

Shills whine.